Is the oil spill (gusher) in the Gulf of Mexico proof that there is no God?

[Botany]

I am sure millions of prayers across the world have been offered to try stop the oil
from ruining God's planet and from hurting and killing all those living things along
with the economic and emotional devastation it has brought on to all of God's
Children so why has he/she with all the unlimited power in the universe not
stepped in to stop it?



This spill is a nightmare of epic proportions and the government has not been honest
with the people about what it will do. Oil could very well be washing up on the beaches
of Normandy, France by the time the relief well stops the flow of oil.

God Damn you Dick Cheney, your energy task force, and those 5 bastards on the SCOTUS
who stopped the counting the vote in 2000. Sorry to ramble but I just had to vent.
:rant:

[Mari333]

1. depends on which god/goddess you are talking about

there are so many versions I cant keep up

[Mist]

2. Maybe god's sick of what we've done to this world, and is shutting it down. nt

[tularetom]

3. Or is it proof that God just doesn't give a shit?

Because he has a lot more on his celestial plate than worrying about this crummy little planet and the odd creatures on it.

[struggle4progress]

22. It might be evidence BP just doesn't give a shit. As a general rule,

less expansive reasoning is more secure

[Lint Head]

4. I'm sure Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch and Jack Van Impe

are welcoming the oils spill as a sign that Armageddon is near and they can be caught up in the rapture to be with God.

[Fumesucker]

5. No..

There is no "proof" that there is no god..

Just like there is no proof that there is a god.

[KansasVoter]

9. The burden of proof is on the "there is a god" claim

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Not really-- to say in absolute terms that there is or isn't both require proof...

although one might be able to get away with saying that there is so far no evidence of God so there is no practical need to accept one.

(The universe is a big place-- God is harder to disprove than unicorns.)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

20. That's not how it works

The default position is that there is no god (just as the default position is that there are no such things as unicorns). Why is this the default position? Because we have yet to find observable, empirical proof for the existence of a god or gods.

When a claim about the existence of a deity is made, then evidence should be presented to back up that claim. If there isn't any evidence, then the default position remains. It's not up to me, as an atheist, to provide proof of a deity's non-existence - it's not my claim, and it's not possible to prove a negative.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Alas, that is not how it works. The "default" position, if you define unicorns,...

gods, or anything else, could just as easily be argued that since it has a name, it could, and most likely does, exist somewhere. Else how would we know it's name and description?

Now, that existence may be in someone's imagination, but you can't just up and say the burden is to prove it exists in our reality. How do you set up a truth table or Venn diagrams to assess the "truth" of what is in the imagination? And don't slither out by saying the imagination has no validity-- smarter people than us have asked about that, and now you may Google "epistomology" to your heart's delight. I do not have the credentials to teach even an introductory course in it.

To step further into reality, since I have no interest in proving my concept of God to you or converting you to my understanding, I have no need or obligation whatsoever to prove to you my understanding of God-- it's simply none of your business unless you ask me politely to explain it because you are curious.

[darkstar3]

27. How laughable.

It is most certainly not just as easy to argue the default position is for the existence of something.

But, since you brought it up, why don't you tell us the difference between your understanding of God and imagination.

[TreasonousBastard]

29. You must ask nicely and convince me that I wouldn't be wasting my time...

just getting a lot more flack and simplistic arguments.

How's that study of epistemology going? Should answer a lot of questions you never thought to ask.

[darkstar3]

31. How arrogant can one man be?

I must ask nicely? Really? You forget who tangentially compared belief in gods to imagination.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

45. Where did I ask you to explain your "understanding of god"?

I didn't, and I'm not sure why I would. Don't lump me in with other posters with whom you may have a past disagreement. I was being serious when I pointed out the errors in your post.

If I told you that I believed that giant red elephants lived on Mars, would that make them real? Even though they're only in my imagination? If you believe me, you shouldn't - the burden of proof that the giant red elephants exists sits squarely with me because I made the claim. That would require me to find evidence and bring it to your attention. If I can't do so, then it's not your responsibility to disprove my claim (and would be impossible to do). Until I can provide proof, the default position is that the giant red elephants don't exist.

[humblebum]

46. However most atheists base their nonbeliefs on some form of

empiricism. Most Logical Empiricism. Most believers use a totally different way of knowing. So if you are asking a believer to prove the existence of diety, then you as a non-believer are asking a question that cannot be answered in a way that you understand or accept. "Proof" based on Logical Empiricism is not the same type of "proof" as that deduced using another imterpretive epistemology. Christians or other religious people should never claim that empirical means prove the existence of God. To the believer they can wholly suggest existence of God, but a non-believer will interpret the same thing as no proof of diety. Trying to "prove" God by empiricism is like trying to measure the distance from NY to LA with a baby scale.

[darkstar3]

49. Wow, that's a hilarious opening.

I count 2 huge generalities and a very large straw man in your first three sentences. Since the rest of your post spawns from these fallacies, it's worthless.

[skepticscott]

24. And what is your absolute proof

that there is no Santa Claus? And if you don't have it, does that mean that you truly and sincerely entertain the possibility that such a person exists?

Agnosticism really is for mush-headed intellectual weasels.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. Santa Claus is a well known lie told to children, albeit the...

marvelous one told to Virginia wasn't quite the lie, but did illustrate one point of myth. And there is the rub-- myths such as Santa Claus and unicorns are easy to lay waste, but what they symbolize is not so easy to debunk. And in that symbolism they take on another reality.

I suggested someone else so proudly proving me wrong should start a study of epistemology, and he is apparently not the only one. If I remember correctly, Maimonedes was big on tradition and the collective memory being enshrouded in myth-- a great way to pass on knowledge even to those who will not learn so easily. Myth, symbolism, emotion, non-verbal communication, the gnosis... so many paths to truth.

But, I digress. That absolute proof... Well, there's absolute proofs and there's sorta absolute proofs, kinda like law and accepted theory in physics. The point is that everyone has to have an acceptable proof, not just one side.

[darkstar3]

32. You're out of your depth.

I suggest, based on your final claim in this post, that you study the legal and argumentative implications of the "burden of proof", and then return to properly amend your claims.

[skepticscott]

37. Well known lie? Easy to lay waste?

Well, the fact is, an anthropologist from another planet studying our culture thousands of years from now would find just as much evidence that Santa Claus really existed as that Jesus and his daddy did. Does your "proof" put the lie to each and every one of those incidents of consumed milk and cookies, or show that all of the parents who deny leaving presents from "Santa" are being dishonest? I think not, but despite that, you are still able to be absolutely sure that the guy in the red suit doesn't exist. I suggest you ask yourself why that is, and give your own understanding of epistemology a little re-think.

And as darkstar said, you really are utterly out of your depth when it comes to science, so you'd be well advised not to pontificate about it. When you talk about there being "absolute proof" in physics, it tells all of the more knowledgeable people here that you have no clue about how science or the scientific method work. You might want to do a bit of your own research before you start slinging that kind of nonsense around this board.

Thanks for playing, though...

[TreasonousBastard]

39. What the hell are you talking about? For one thing, I didn't come up with...

the term "absolute proof"-- that was a misinterpretation of my using the word "absolute" in another context. I did mention the possibility of an alternate existence for Santa, and opened the discusiion of the reality of myth, which you are seeming to agree with.

For another, where did the scientific method come in here? Or physics? I'm talking rationalism and a few other schools of thought concerning accessing knowledge-- not all of which involve observation, hypothesis and test. All knowledge is not necessarily science, it is also comprised of simple but essential things like social convention and whether or not one's spouse likes spicy foods. Kant knew that, why don't geniuses with microscopes know that?

And I suspect the science most directly involved would be psychology, not physics.

[skepticscott]

40. Here's where it came from:

"Well, there's absolute proofs and there's sorta absolute proofs, kinda like law and accepted theory in physics."

You do recognize your own words, I assume?

And how, pray tell, do you acquire all of this "non-scientific" knowledge, if not by observation of one sort or another? And how do you verify its accuracy and correct initial errors and misconceptions on your part?

[TreasonousBastard]

41. I was toying with someone who was taking that absolute stuff far too...

seriously. I'm not all that big on absolutes myself, and you left out the important part of that post.

More to the point than your taking me too literally is that there is a whole school of thought on rationalism that says the tabula rasa thing is a crock and knowledge can be a priori. And that access to knowledge is not necessarily from experience through the five senses.

I didn't invent this stuff-- it's been around for a long time and is still being discussed and I don't have the time to give an introductory course on it.

[skepticscott]

42. Well, since you've lapsed into the usual woo-woo tactic

of ducking simple and direct questions in any way you can, I don't see any reason to waste more time expecting intellectual honesty from you. Not to mention the fact that you seemed to have completely missed the central and important point of all this.

[TreasonousBastard]

43. Plato and Wittgenstein are woo-woo? Do you actually understand the...

concepts of foundationalism and empiricism that you're trying to champion?

The central point of this thread was something about God causing the blowout a la the Flood, or something like that, which not too many go along with. This particular discussion is about the means of accessing knowledge and defining "truth" and I have not missed the point-- there are many means of gaining knowledge, and "truth" often remains elusive and not properly defined.

It's you unrepentent empiricists who just don't get it-- Posivitism is long dead and buried.

[darkstar3]

44. Oh for cryin' out loud.

There are many ways of gaining knowledge
Name one that doesn't involve information dissemination through one of the five senses.

and "truth" often remains elusive and not properly defined.
Pure, unadulterated, bullshit. Truth is not ineffable, and putting the word in quotes only makes you look like a solipsistic tool.

[trotsky]

47. Could be "true," then, that god does indeed hate "fags."

Fred Phelps could very well be right. And who are you to disagree with him?

"Unrepentent empiricists" might not get it, but at least we can tell Phelps he's full of shit. You can't.

[TreasonousBastard]

54. Why not? Actually, my way would lead me to condemn Phelps immediately...

whether or not there is a homophobic god out there somewhere.

[trotsky]

56. Congrats! You've contradicted yourself.

You said: "truth" often remains elusive and not properly defined.

Now you're telling me you've defined it.

Way to go! YOU ARE TEH AWESOME.

[TreasonousBastard]

57. What? This makes no sense at all.

[trotsky]

58. Well I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you.

No one can know the truth, well, except for you apparently.

[humblebum]

59. Looks like your being ganged up on. I happen to agree with you.

If we had not advanced from an emphasis on Logical Positivism during the last couple decades of the 20th century, what epistemologies would have enabled coherence in such areas as quantum mechanics and artificial intelligence? Positivism is still used, but generally in the hard sciences and only when dealing with empirical outcomes. However there are the hardy few who still swear by it.

[darkstar3]

60. You make the mistake of assuming that epistemologies should be used in an exclusive fashion.

That's some pretty black and white thinking on your part.

[trotsky]

61. bumblebum can be disregarded.

He's the only person that exists anyway, at least according to him.

[darkstar3]

63. True,

and I would do just that, but when someone lobs a lazy one over the plate it's just so hard not to knock the snot out of it. :)

[TreasonousBastard]

67. I'm sorry, but just what great revelations have you come up with here? Nothing but...

vague insults and snotty remarks from what I've seen.

I made an unfortunate suggestion to another anklebiter in this thread that got it deleted, but I'll repeat the salient parts...

I minored in this stuff about 40 years ago, but haven't spent a lot of time keeping up with it since, so there's a lot of new thought I'm not aware of.

Instead of simply decreeing that I, and others, are wrong and you won some sort of prize, why not be specific and fill me in on the latest trends on rationalism, empiricism, and anything else that might have popped up in the meantime. So far you have just sneered at mentions of Plato without explaining how your own extraordinary background allows you to simply pronounce me a simpleton and move on to greater victories.

So, educate me, and humblebum, on specifics of precisely how I am wrong in my acceptance of the possibilities of non-rational and non-verbal forms of gaining knowledge. References would be appreciated.

I'll be in the library refreshing my memory with sources that are unavailable without a subscription. I've been away from this for far too long.

[darkstar3]

68. Obviously you haven't studied the concept of "burden of proof" yet.

You have yet to provide an example of even one way in which knowledge can be gained through means completely unrelated to the five senses. The claim that knowledge can be obtained in some nebulous and non-sensory way is compeletely outside the scope of current evidence on the subject, and thus I have every right to scoff at it just as any scientist would.

When faced with this dismissal of your assertion/hypothesis, you turn not to evidence, but to ad hom and special pleading. That doesn't even get in to an incredibly weak appeal to authority; Plato's writings in no way help your case.

The assertion that knowledge can be gained in extrasensory or non-sensory ways is nearly baseless, and requires that you have some solid evidence to back it up. You have no evidence, only faith. That is why you are engaging in the same shell game that many believers before you have played, attempting to shift the burden of proof onto your opponent by saying "oh yeah, well prove me wrong!" All of you who play this game simply fail to understand that you've done nothing whatsoever to be considered right, that you've done exactly what Bertrand Russel attempted to explain with his teapot, and that your faith is only sufficient for yourself and will convince no one else who does not already WANT to believe.

Your assertions are unsound, your argumentation fallacious, your attitude and strategy toward your detractors predictable as clockwork. It is no wonder, then, that you found support here from bumblebum, as the two of you seem to have gotten your ideas from the exact same brain.

Oh shit! Maybe telepathy really does work!! Quick, tell me what I'm thinking!!

[TreasonousBastard]

69. anAnd you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing-- simply making claims...

with absolutely nothing to back them up but your assertion that you know better. I don't think you know shit about the subject, except to argure pointless bullshit.

I mentioned rationalism, which you haven't haven't even bothered to attempt to debunk. I mentioned the study of non-verbal communication, the possibility of unlearned instinctual knowledge, and a few other things, all quite mainstream. There was even an article in Tuesday's Science Times about the differences in communicating verbally and through music.

But, you just spew about how it's all bullshit without anything specific. Any child can do that.

If you have something to say, explain it. If you can.

[darkstar3]

71. "If you have something to say, explain it. If you can."

That's exactly what I'm waiting for you to do. You can mention all you like, but until you back it up with something more than tangential references and bad attitude I will remain skeptical, especially when your claims are far-fetched.

BTW: Nice moving of the goal-posts. First we were talking about non-sensory ways to gain knowledge, and now you're simply saying non-verbal.

[humblebum]

48. You are quite right. Positivism is out of vogue for the most part,

but it is still used heavily by some in the physical sciences, e.g. Stephen Hawking.

[darkstar3]

50. How's that solipsism working out for you? n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

53. Well, it has it's uses, in moderation and as long as you don't take it too seriously...

I came across a Roger Penrose quote a while back where he basically said philosophers should stop talking all this crap and come out into the real world where real problems are being solved and real discoveries are being made. Or something like that.

I don't agree entirely with that, since there's plenty of room for both, but I suspect he was talking more about them taking themselves far too seriously.

[skepticscott]

62. I rather prefer Richard Feynman's quote

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"

[TreasonousBastard]

65. Or Dildo the Elder...

"Scientists are useful as long as they remember they are the hired help."

Someone, after all, has to make use of whatever it is they discover, or they might as well be philosphers, and bad ones at that, for all the good it does anyone.

[darkstar3]

66. Freudian slip, much?

"Dildo the Elder..."
:spray::rofl:

BTW: Science has done more practical good to the population of this world than any amount of philosophy. You say someone has to make use of science, but you forget that everyone does that every single day in countless ways. Scientists aren't the "hired help"...in fact, in keeping with your analogy they'd be the entirety of the workforce.

[skepticscott]

51. Well, perhaps you can get Plato and Wittgenstein to answer some very simple questions

since you seem unwilling or incapable:

How do you acquire "non-scientific" knowledge, if not at least partially by observation of one sort or another? And how do you verify its accuracy and correct initial errors and misconceptions on your part?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skepticscott]

55. Apparently Plato and Wittgenstein

weren't any more capable of providing a rational and coherent answer than you. Why am I not surprised?

[madokie]

6. This should be dealt with as the criminal element that it is

nothing that bp was doing was by law so charge them and lets get the trials started. The world is dying in the mean time.

[KittyWampus]

7. God is coated in oil along with the beasties, he's beside the people out of work.

God is with the suffering.

[KansasVoter]

8. A million children under the age of five dying from malaria yearly is my proof!!!

[nannah]

17. dick cheney is still alive is my proof that there is no god n/t

[Catherina]

10. Moloch is the new God

Part 2 of Howl, by Allen Ginsberg



What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?
Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks!
Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men!
Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stunned governments!
Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a cannibal dynamo! Moloch whose ear is a smoking tomb!
Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs! Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smoke-stacks and antennae crown the cities!
Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius! Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen! Moloch whose name is the Mind!
Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream Angels! Crazy in Moloch! Cocksucker in Moloch! Lacklove and manless in Moloch!
Moloch who entered my soul early! Moloch in whom I am a consciousness without a body! Moloch who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy! Moloch whom I abandon! Wake up in Moloch! Light streaming out of the sky!
Moloch! Moloch! Robot apartments! invisible suburbs! skeleton treasuries! blind capitals! demonic industries! spectral nations! invincible madhouses! granite cocks! monstrous bombs!
They broke their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven! Pavements, trees, radios, tons! lifting the city to Heaven which exists and is everywhere about us!
Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! gone down the American river!
Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!
Breakthroughs! over the river! flips and crucifixions! gone down the flood! Highs! Epiphanies! Despairs! Ten years’ animal screams and suicides! Minds! New loves! Mad generation! down on the rocks of Time!
Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! to solitude! waving! carrying flowers! Down to the river! into the street!

[Catherina]

11. Moloch is the new God

Part 2 of Howl, by Allen Ginsberg



What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?
Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks!
Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men!
Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stunned governments!
Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a cannibal dynamo! Moloch whose ear is a smoking tomb!
Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs! Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smoke-stacks and antennae crown the cities!
Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius! Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen! Moloch whose name is the Mind!
Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream Angels! Crazy in Moloch! Cocksucker in Moloch! Lacklove and manless in Moloch!
Moloch who entered my soul early! Moloch in whom I am a consciousness without a body! Moloch who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy! Moloch whom I abandon! Wake up in Moloch! Light streaming out of the sky!
Moloch! Moloch! Robot apartments! invisible suburbs! skeleton treasuries! blind capitals! demonic industries! spectral nations! invincible madhouses! granite cocks! monstrous bombs!
They broke their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven! Pavements, trees, radios, tons! lifting the city to Heaven which exists and is everywhere about us!
Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies! gone down the American river!
Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!
Breakthroughs! over the river! flips and crucifixions! gone down the flood! Highs! Epiphanies! Despairs! Ten years’ animal screams and suicides! Minds! New loves! Mad generation! down on the rocks of Time!
Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! to solitude! waving! carrying flowers! Down to the river! into the street!

[dipsydoodle]

12. Definitely not so

because the existence of bacon is regarded as positive proof that there is so.

[MineralMan]

13. Yah, and the reason Jews were not allowed to eat pork

is because Yahweh wanted all the bacon. It's the true punishment for the original sin.

[struggle4progress]

19. Maybe there was an ancient health reason for the prohibition?

In prehistory, people must have been pretty smart: how else could they have survived without all our modern conveniences? That they, like ourselves, had some strange ideas, doesn't mean all their social traditions were entirely nonsense

[LAGC]

33. Christopher Hitchens makes this same claim in his book.

In fact he devotes an entire chapter to the topic in "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." You should check it out, you might find many parts that you agree with...

[onager]

35. Nope, just nonsense. Ancient Egyptians and others happily ate pork.

I know you tossed in the word "prehistory," but obviously the Buy-bull wasn't written in prehistoric times.

As one expert summed up, in a link I forgot to copy: "It is very unlikely that the ancients knew of any connection between trichinosis and eating undercooked pork."

It was once believed that ancient Egypt banned pork because the pig symbolized an evil god (Sel). This was later proven untrue, since ancient writings mentioning pig farms and pork have been discovered.

Smoked/salted ham was a staple of the Roman army - certainly one of the few armies in history where soldiers occasionally griped about having too much meat in their rations. Sometimes the preserved meat was all they had for a long spell, which probably caused the griping.

Pig bones have been found everywhere the Romans marched. That kicked off a big fuss in Israel some years ago, when bones from an archeological dig at Masada were buried with great public ceremony. Those bones were thought to be the remains of the Jewish defenders from the revolt in 66-70 CE.

Later excavations uncovered pig bones in the same location. Since those ancient Jewish insurgents certainly didn't sit around munching barbecued pork ribs in their campsites, the Israeli government probably buried the remains of Roman soldiers.

[struggle4progress]

36. When the Egyptian mummies are speaking about the infections that have made them ill

Hist Sci Med. 2004 Apr-Jun;38(2):147-55.
<Article in French>
Chastel C.
Laboratoire de Virologie, Faculté de Médecine, F, 29285 Brest Cedex, Courriel: [e-mail]

Abstract
The microbiological study of mummies has started in 1910 when Sir M.A. Ruffer first applied the histologic methods to the study of mummified tissues and found Schistosoma haematobium ovas dated from the XXth dynasty. Up to the 1990 years, morphological methods including radiology, computed tomography, endoscopy, history, electron microscopy, and serology have been the main tools used in Paleopathology. They led to identify schistosomiasis, dracunculiasis, trichinosis, ascariasis and bone tuberculosis as the most prevalent diseases of the ancient residents of Egypt. The recent introduction of molecular methods (PCR) allowed t confirm the high prevalence of helminth diseases and tuberculosis among these populations, but also added new data exemplified by the widespread distribution of Plasmodium falciparum malaria. In addition, cases of bacterial septicemias and diphteria possibily occurred. Thousands of human and animal mummies remain to be studied with the hope to discover another pathogens responsible for viral or zoonotic infections prevalent during the pharaons' times.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15338573

I can't claim any expertise in this area, and it is possible to find links claiming both that there is, and that there is not, evidence of trichinosis in ancient Egyptian populations. The fact that the Judaic and Islamic traditions both prohibit pork, strongly suggests a very old and well-established custom in certain populations; as the Biblical tradition indicates some antiquity for the Judaic food purity laws, perhaps one does not know just how old the custom is; but some Judaic and Islamic traditions in the Middle East seem quite likely to be very ancient tribal traditions. In the time before widespread literacy, people were not stupid: they merely passed their knowledge in ways different than we do. So it seems entirely plausible to me (though of course by no means certain) that the Middle East at some point developed an ancient food purity tradition with some empirical basis: We knew of this tribe that ate lots of pig and they all seemed sickly

[trotsky]

38. You have a really tough time with logic.

There are many ways in which your reasoning here is flawed, but perhaps the greatest (and simplest) is a lack of understanding as to the sources of trichinosis. (Hint: it doesn't ONLY come from eating undercooked pork.)

[onager]

64. That's OK, I like to play Dueling Links...

And I don't even have a Real Purty Mouth.

Kosher: The Origins of the Jewish Dietary Laws

Trichinosis as a food borne pathogen was not identified until 1835 (Arnold, 2005). It is highly unlikely that in antiquity people were aware that the food they were eating was causing health problems.

The incubation period and the onset of symptoms occurs ten days after the consumption of undercooked pork contaminated by Trichinosis (Regenstein, 2003).

Even if the Israelites were able to link some foods with immediate onset of symptoms with a disease it is very unlikely that they would be able to link Trichinosis with pork given this delayed response.

Furthermore, according to Dr. Joe Regenstein, a professor in Cornell’s Food Science department, mummified pork carcasses from ancient Egypt have been studied and reveal no evidence of Trichinosis at this time. Since Trichinosis forms cysts within the animal’s tissue it would be expected to visibly see this in a pork carcass.

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes263/student2007/mrh43/page4.html

The oldest domestic pig remains presently known in Egypt come from the large Predynastic settlement site of Merimda Beni Salama in the western Delta, dated to the fifth millennium BCE.

Pig remains have been found throughout Egypt at sites such as Hierakonpolis, Maadi, Abydos, and Armant, near graves belonging to the poorer classes, indicating that pork was an element in their diet, at least at the Predynastic period. Cattle bones were found in graves belonging to more elite burials.

And look what else was found inside an Egyptian tomb!

In the early Fourth Dynasty tomb-chapel of Metjen at Saqqara, the deceased states that he received a bequest from his father that included "people, small livestock and pigs."

Pig-farming expanded during the New Kingdom. Inscriptions indicate that temples and wealthy citizens maintained large numbers of them on their country estates, and tomb-chapels of several nobles from the early 18th dynasty illustrate swine as well as other farmyard animals. The mayor of el-Kab relates that he owned a herd of fifteen hundred pigs.

A temple of Amenhotep III at Memphis was endowed with some 1000 pigs and 1000 piglets, and the mortuary temple of Seti I at Abydos held large herds of swine on its domains.

Pigs are also shown in use for farming itself, as they tread seed into the soil, even into the time of Herodotus.

Inscriptions on ostraca and other findings indicate that the workers at Deir el-Medina occasionally indulged in meals of pork. So pigs were bred, raised and occasionally eaten in different places.

What of the religious connection? Votive faience pig figurines dating to the first dynasty have been recovered from Abydos, Hierakonpolis, and Elephantine Island. The figurines from Abydos were found by Petrie inside what he considered to be the sacred compound of the god Osiris.

Sources:
Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt
Animals in Ancient Egypt by Patrick Houlihan
Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Gods and Goddesses by George Hart
Ancient Egyptian Science, Vol I, by Marshall Clagett
Food: the Gift of Osiris by William J. Darby, Paul Ghalioungui and Louis Grivetti.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pigs.htm

[dipsydoodle]

23. I'm not sure how you can express in writing the mannerism

whereby Jewish people tend to shrug their shoulders and stick their bottom lip out but notwithstanding that I think some would say they don't eat pork but frequently bacon of better still parma ham are just fine.

[stray cat]

14. Maybe proof of what happens when mankind believes they are god

the tower of babel perhaps?

[jwirr]

15. Not sure but it is proof that there is a devil.

[tavalon]

18. Which God are you referring to?

Gaia is damn pissed at us and with full rights.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

21. No

There isn't any such thing as "proof that there is no god". The lack of evidence for a god is all the proof we have.

[skepticscott]

25. It "proves" nothing

but is simply one more in an endless series of events that happen exactly as we would expect if there were no god. The whole world is pretty much a god-free zone.

[Flipper999]

28. Maybe God has answered their prayers.

And the answer just happens to be "No."

[Nihil]

70. Maybe the answer wasn't "No" ...

Maybe the prayer was to get more oil than the last few attempts?

"Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true"?

[AlecBGreen]

34. I believe the saying is...

You've made your bed, now sleep in it.

Or as Chief Seattle wrote, "Contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste."