Rahvin writes:
And neither am I claiming that religious folks cite fulfilled prophesy as the only "evidence" of their position. It was simply an example on-hand
.
Then your example on hand will not suffice to demonstrate your point, due to the fact that there is every good reason to believe he was and did fulfill those prophecies. As in the example of him being born in Bethlehem. Its source in the Gospels are as reliable as any other. As Brian states himself, "This is not to say he was not born in Bethlehem".
False. Other religious texts contain historical data as well. Purely fictional stories even contain similar references to real-world historical events and geographical locations. Furthermore, uniqueness does not equate to veracity.
Again, nothing that I said was "false" Even this word usage demonstrates you attitude before you evaluate the evidence at hand. The question is is it supportable enough to establish faith that is reasonable, the answer is clearly yes.
And Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone supports Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban. Or more accurately, the original Star Wars trilogy supports the many books written over 20 years later by different authors, which each support each other as well. Self-consistency across multiple authors and long periods of time (particularly when the authors were almost certainly aware of each other's writings and were all working from the same source material) does not translate to authenticity.
The Bible has many rivals, Bertot. The difference is that you attribute special meaning to the Bible, meaning it is different to you.
Further, your illustration of Harry Potter and star wars is simply ridiculous. Every one present knows that it is a fictional account not to be taken literally. This is and was not the case w/ the Gospels and those events. Most if not all people in that time period considered those events to be events that were being presented as actual fact and as actually have taken place, whether you actually believed the truthfulness of the reports or not. As in the case with Josephus reference to Christ, John the Baptist and James the Just, not to mention the ealiest church fathers that were under the constant threat of persecution and death as a result of thier beliefs and convictions. To suggest that this was all an fictional acount and that it was a process of colusion and fabrication flies in the face of reason. Your illustration is simply ludicrous.
How many fictional accounts have made the impact that the Judeo-Christian teachings and beliefs have had in shaping whole civilizations over thousands of years. Fictional accounts do not sustain an impact that has affected NEARLY EVERY society and culture since its inception
Self-consistency across multiple authors and long periods of time (particularly when the authors were almost certainly aware of each other's writings and were all working from the same source material) does not translate to authenticity.
This is a perfect example of the outright determination to reject any evidence presented in this context. Asserting that the prophets could make all the predictions, then that the writers of the Gospels took the time to forge and fabricate all of these into one person is the height of silliness. Now, it would make more sesnse as you fellas usually do and sit and try to pick apart each one of them but to assert that the former is imply ridiculous.
A most amusing admission, considering that many of the historical events in the Bible (the Flood, the Exodus, the resurrection, etc) have exactly the same amount of outside corroboration as Smith's little fairy tale.
So the fact that nearly every ancient culture has a story of the flood and that they are independent of eachother lends no support to its content. Which is it Rahvin?
Smiths fairy tale as you call it, starts out on the wrong foot, due to the fact that the peoples and places cannot be found or located in any respect. It is therefore a nonstarter in this respect, not to be believed from the outset. My illustration is more than valid.
The koran is a body of works that relies heavily on the scriptures themself. It was necessary to do this to change the facts as contained in the scriptures. Does not the simple antiquity of each of the books verify this fact. You assertion ignores very simple facts. Yours is an attempt to avoid the obvious.
The Bible has many rivals, Bertot. The difference is that you attribute special meaning to the Bible, meaning it is different to you.
Please provide the rivals that can demonstrate the impact that the scriptures have had since thier inception, that do not rely on the scriptures themselves.
But again, the question is why? Why does the Judeo-Christian belief set inspire faith? Your claim seems to be that the belief set is somehow unique...but Pastafarianism is rather unique and I don't suppose you'll worship His Holy Noodliness any time soon.
Because man is not a product of chance and matter, because man is not a product of himeself, because it is a product of historical accuracy and verifiablity, like no other, because its teachings are of a source clearly not from man, because its prophecies are like that of no other, because it was written over a 1400 year period by numerous writers with consistency in teaching and doctrine, because it has influenced countless hundreds of civilizaions sense its inception, because it is clearly understood by millions and millions of people over the ages and the majority of people to not be a mythological work like the Greek and Roman gods and fairy tales. Because you yourself spend countless hours defending against something you think or hope is not true. Because its teaching respond to the hearts and needs of man. Because it has and will endure forever. Because attempt after attempt have been made to remove and destroy it and it still remains. Because besides all the obvious evidence a person can easily see that something happened to change the course of hsitory.
Because disagreement with its teachings and histoical accuracy are not the same as saying it is actually not true. Because attempts at showing contradiction are not the same as demonstrating contradiction
My assertion is that your faith, and that of others, is a meme caused by confirmation bias in the basic belief set combined with the human propensity for pattern over-recognition, supported by social pressure and wishful thinking. I'm led to this conclusion by looking at the reasoning used by religious people to justify their faith in the absence of evidence (or the presence of contradictory evidence), and by my own experiences as a person of faith. The entire practice of Christian apologetics supports my assertion
.
Pattern, social pressure, wishful thinking and lack of evidence may be very eloquent but they hardly discribe the reality that support and sustain the scriptures as reliable and accurate. Besides this it is doubtful you would know what fith was if you were swimming in it. Christian apologetics is supported by the obvious evidence at hand.
So I agree that the Judeo-Christian belief set establishes a platform for faith: it causes a thought process by which all evidence is considered evidence of God (where both answered prayers and unanswered prayers are "God's will"), and it discourages questioning the beliefs with social pressure and threats of supernatural punishment as well as containing contingencies to restore faith when the beliefs are questioned.
This statment is nothing more than theoretical jargon with no substance or validity and not a single particle of it is true in conjunction with the availale evidence and the Christians willingness to address these issues.
Again, uniqueness is not equivalent to veracity. I can find other unique belief systems that you would immediately dismiss. Further, omnipotence, divine intervention, miracles, inspiration, none of these are actually unique to the Judeo-Christian belief system in the first place.
Your premise is false, and even were it true, your logic is flawed making your conclusion invalid.
Wrong, there is no need to "immediately" dsimiss anything. It depends on its sustanablity and available evidence. What are the other unique belief systems that you speak of and what is it that they are advocating?
Simply because you do not agree with my premise in no way makes it false. Is it believable and sustainable by evidence and information, the answer is yes.
Again, you're demonstrating nothing more than circular reasoning - the beliefs themselves prove that the beliefs are true. I assert that your true cause for faith is recognizing patterns that don't exist, as in the Biblical prophesy example in my previous post, combined with a set of unfalsifiable beliefs containing a confirmation-bias where every result is taken as support of the preconceived conclusion, strengthened by wishful thinking and social pressure.
Having faith in NOTHING sustainable, verifiable and contradictory is circular reasoning. The beliefs themselves in the Word are supported by verifiable patterns of evidence to thier credit and testimony. In other words there is no reason to believe these things did not happen and every reason to believe that they did, atleast the historical portions and the miraculous portion are supported by the consistency of the material evidence. The overall historical content supports the portions that are less supported in other areas in content.
Asserting that my and others faith is based in patterns that dont exist is the height of silliness and assertion. Unfalsifiable beliefs is the conclusion of one ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary. I dont know what you mean by social pressure, so I will let you explain that alittle further.
It is a source of faith for more than the abject reason you ascribe. Because you have lost FAITH due to the pressures of secular reasoningand misunderstanding is no reason anyone else should. You have yet presented any valid reasons why one should not have faith not only in the existence of God but the bible as his divine word.
D Bertot
™ Version 4.2
