|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: Sorry to have not been replying. I got a bad case of the flu and haven't been at my computer for close to a week. The clear conclusion is that there is a God and he is punishing you.
Sorry, if I misunderstood but I believed that you agreed the the Bible was evidence but very weak. If you mean evidence of the supernatural then no, I don't think there's any evidence for the supernatural anywhere in the world, and especially not in any of the world's religious books which are well known for their fantabulous claims.
I think that we can agree that these books and letters were written in the 1st century buy various authors. Why do you think we'd agree on that? Christian scholars keep pushing for absurdly early dates, but the earliest possible date of an actual NT fragment is the first half of the second century.
I don't see how it is possible to read the NT without at least [seeing that it was] written to be believed... Lord knows that no one ever writes anything false that they intend to be believed.
As evidence of that is the fact that many people of the era did believe they were true and and none of the authors corrected them. Lord knows that when many people believe true something that is false that that makes it true. The world is flat. Zeus lives on Mount Olympus. Trump won the 2020 election. Covid's a conspiracy.
From there you can look for anything that confirms or negates one view or another but I don't see now you can say it isn't evidence. You seem to be saying that a person believing something is evidence it is true, and that the more people who believe it the more likely it is true. But I gave four examples of false things believed by millions. What you seem to want is a special definition of evidence for Christianity where evidence is based not on what has been established as being observed but upon what people believe was observed. This is apropos:
quote: That's the way of gods, isn't it. Their acts and miracles just never take place anywhere they can be confirmed. You'd think that in a world of eight billion people that God couldn't commit the tiniest miracle without someone noticing in ways that leave no doubt, but instead we're left with images of Jesus on toast and crying statues of the Virgin Mary.
I don't believe that I have ever claimed the plague and things like plague and cancer are evidence for God. You said you could use bad things as evidence of God as easily as good things, and I've been providing specific examples of bad things.
I agree actually that it is evidence against God as I believe in him. And I only began listing bad things because of your claim that you could use them to argue for the existence of God, but now you're arguing the opposite, that bad things are evidence against God. Make up your mind.
Percy writes: My only point on this is that if you can't choose evil then you can't choose good either and we are robots. You said you could use the bad as evidence for God as easily as the good, but all you've done so far is demonstrate your inability to do this. You're must be thinking of some other argument you made to someone else. You were pretty clear in claiming you could make equally good use of good and bad as evidence for God.
Percy writes: Concerning an intelligence outside of space and time, you have no evidence, not a whit. Your argument, "But altruism," is answered by the large amount of research done on the evolutionary origins of altruism. Saying "I don't accept that" is a position statement, not an argument, not evidence, and not rational to think it is. Can you tell me specifically what the evidence is for the evolutionary origins of altruism? That would be a distraction and completely unnecessary. It's not necessary to my point for you to believe evidence for the evolutionary origins of altruism exists. For the sake of discussion let's assume there is no such evidence, that it's just one more thing about the real world that science can't explain. But throughout time religion has made an industry of resorting to not yet understood phenomena as proof of the divine, but the entire history of science is one of explaining the previously unexplained, and so religion has had to keep shifting to new claims. If it were really true that we do not at present understand the evolutionary origins of altruism, do you really want to bet your proof of God on the chance that science will never find the explanation? An example of religion resorting to citing what science doesn't yet know as an argument for the divine is the missing neutrino problem. I won't get into detail, but in essence they argued that the missing neutrino problem meant that science was wrong about fusion at the center of stars. Therefore the universe was much younger than science thought, about 5000 years old just as the Bible says, meaning that the Bible was literally inerrant. Yes, it was the creationists. You're using the same style of argument as the creationists.
Percy writes: our "why" is asking for supernatural answers, and there's no evidence for the supernatural. Why did the bridge collapse when it did with the accompanying innocent deaths? You look to God for your "why". But there is no sign of the supernatural when the bridge is examined, only corroded bolts or cables and such. This is a complete misrepresentation of my beliefs. No it's not. This is you being disingenuous and trying to change the focus to nuts and bolts. It's a fact that you look to God for your "why" about the innocent deaths when there's no sign of the supernatural anywhere.
Percy writes:
God as a meme. I think you've got it.GDR writes:
I think we have a very different idea of what that means.Percy writes: Yes? And what do you think it means? Dawkins writes of memes as social replicators. We all have numerous memes in our lives from the things are parents taught us, what we observed in others, from what we have read. It is my unevidenced belief that there is also a God meme that calls us to love others sometimes even at the expense of the self which like all the other memes we can choose or ignore. I don't think our ideas differ at all. God as a meme. Sure, I'm on board. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Percy writes: I'll give you that. Your argument is rational. But what do you make of the thousands of claims of personal experience with an unexplainable variable? Are all of them just wishing "it" were real? Are all of them prone to confirmation bias? Just because science cant (so far) investigate such claims does not mean that the claims were made up.
I don't think there's any evidence for the supernatural anywhere in the world, and especially not in any of the world's religious books which are well known for their fantabulous claims. Percy, replying to GDR writes: You also have a point there. You really make me work for my arguments, don't you?
What you seem to want is a special definition of evidence for Christianity where evidence is based not on what has been established as being observed but upon what people believe was observed.Percy writes: Another good point. Your mind is singing this morning.(Lord knows )
Lord knows that no one ever writes anything false that they intend to be believed.(and)when many people believe true something that is false that that makes it true. Jesus Christ Superstar lyrics by Andrew Lloyd Webber writes: Lets assume for a moment that Jesus actually existed and did miracles beyond the usual carny hucksterism of the pretenders. If He had waited until today to make His first appearance, do you really think that mass communication would be on His side? According to dogma, Satan runs the world anyway. That much has not changed. If you'd come today, you would have reached a whole nation.Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication. The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894). When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Tangle writes: The Ruse Of Atheist New Testament ScholarsBY ROBERT CLIFTON ROBINSON on AUGUST 3, 2021 The Appeal of Echo ChambersBy Psychologists Everywhere, throughout history
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Phat writes: There goes that Left authoritarianism again! Not only have you used the word evidence as your holy mantra, you have the audacity to proclaim what is and is not nonsense. Yet another example of conservatives declaring war on facts. At some point in history conservatives accepted facts. No more. Now, it is as if you are punishing conservatives if you even mention that facts exist. As we see here, actually caring about factual reality is equivalent to authoritarianism in their eyes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You should read that article and then apologize for calling me authoritarian. It in no way describes me.
Wiki defines it. Phat writes:
I didn't. We have never had a federal government that I voted for.
If you and the peanut gallery voted in a government... Phat writes:
"Authoritarian election" is an oxymoron. If you and the peanut gallery voted in a government that seized everyone's gold, as FDR did, that would be an authoritarian action. And FDR did save America from the depression.
Phat writes:
Most countries in the world did that. Even some states in your own backward nation did that. Governments can do things that aren't universally popular without being authoritarian. China is run by Socialists. Note how they lock people down against their will "ostensibly" for the good of the people.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
And FDR did save America from the depression Most people at that time experienced the Depression. Even the wealthy were not spared from it, though Joseph Kennedy was astute enough to get out of the stock market before it tanked. More precisely, (and according to Dalio's model) World War II rescued America from the Great Depression. We were in it with or without Roosevelt. Edited by Phat, : rewrote the entire message. My brain woke up alert this morning and thus I am correcting my lazy "kneejerk" posts. The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894). When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Browsing the posts, I saw your reply and googled that. What I got was this:
The Appeal of Echo Chambers The specific "hit" that I chose to read was, of course, the first sponsored hit on Google. A sloppy way to *do* homework to be sure, but since it was from the University of Idaho, I justified it due to an "appeal to legitimacy". to wit: The Appeal of Echo Chambers:Next, I noted my own behavior and kneejerk reply to Tangle's post. So I am guilty of confirmation bias. Next, I am going to look further into Tangles' case for prosecution. IIRC, from my own earlier college days 22 years ago, (and 20 more years before THAT!) I learned that a Prosecutor, by definition "fully investigates a case or an individual." Prosecutors are of course trying to win a given case, but they do so by gathering all of the facts...not just their own set of facts favorable to their client. I try and behave like Baumgaertner, but at this point in time, I would not make a good prosecutor/private investigator because I am, admittedly biased in favor of Christianity and Jesus. Why on earth would I argue against Him? The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894). When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: I am, admittedly biased in favor of Christianity and Jesus. Why on earth would I argue against Him? Can you now accept that it would be impossible for you, and believers like you, to objectively study biblical historicity?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Note my response to Taqs post about "Echo Chambers". This describes the peanut gallery to a tee! To be fair, though...(and to follow up on my homework) I will examine the next few hits on the search engine apart from that first one.
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894). When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Can you now accept that it would be impossible for you, and believers like you, to objectively study biblical historicity? No. Confirmation bias exists in atheists as well as believers.The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894). When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Phat writes: No. Confirmation bias exists in atheists as well as believers. No-one is without bias. But faith is more than a bias, it's a firm belief in the supernatural and a requirement for the safety of your soul. Do you think it's remotely possible for a believer to conclude from the facts as presented that a historical Jesus never existed? Given that you say this ...
Phat writes: I am, admittedly biased in favor of Christianity and Jesus. Why on earth would I argue against Him? ... t's clear you could not. And, btw, an atheist could easily accept evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It would not mean that there was any truth behind what he is said to have done. Of course if there was any evidence - unlike a believer - any rational atheist would change their mind.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
As I stated on another thread. Utter lack of self-awareness.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: Percy writes: OK. We just will agree to disagree. Good to know, but I'll say it once more. I do not agree that the Bible is evidence for anything supernatural. To quote Juliet, you're as inconstant as the moon. In this quote you're arguing that the Bible *is* evidence for the supernatural, but quoting as accurately as memory allows from one of your prior messages, you said, "I know I have no evidence." You seem to be well aware that you have no evidence, but when something specific comes up like the existence of Jesus or the supernatural then your rationality takes a hike and suddenly you're sure there's evidence.
Percy writes: Not sure where the confusion lies here. Of course you're seeking evidence that would show that what you believe is objective reality. For example, you presented what you believe is evidence that Jesus was a real person. The NT writers wrote about things, some from personal experience, of the objective reality of the life of Jesus and His resurrection. This of course is based on the assumption that what they wrote about was historically true. Now all these years later we can subjectively conclude whether or not we believe what was written. Subjectively choosing what to believe based upon personal preference is the opposite of objectively assessing evidence. In fact, what you're doing is antithetical to any rational process. You're choosing your beliefs first and then seeking evidence for them by selectively choosing Biblical passages. In a rational process you gather and assess evidence before reaching conclusions.
It can never be an objective belief for me as I obviously can't witness, or see repeated something that happened 2000 years ago. Julius Caesar did fight the Gallic Wars about 2000 years ago, roughly a century before the time of Jesus. We know a great deal about the Gallic Wars from actual historical evidence. Caesar wrote a book, full of exaggerations and boasts, but still very useful. The war's success drove Caesar's wealth, fame and power, allowing him to make himself a dictator and ending the Roman republic. These real events were recorded by multiple people. We have multiple cross-confirming accounts. There are actual artifacts evidencing the war in museums today, and probably many more lying undiscovered in the ground. But concerning the historical evidence for Jesus, there's only a paucity of references made at least decades later that indicate there might be a real person beneath all the religious twaddle.
Nor, for the same reason, can there even be objective evidence for the same reason. This is true of any historical event. No objective evidence of any historical event? Are you daft? One characteristic you share with the Trump nuts is the ability to utter the absurd without shame or remorse. I don't get you. A rebuttal to such a goofy claim shouldn't even be necessary, but I'm a sucker for stating the obvious. For evidence of historical events (mostly the mundane) visit any history museum, archeological site or ancient ruins. Here's a shot I took in Greece. This is Athens, but these particular ruins are Roman. What do you know, objective evidence that Rome conquered and occupied Greece:
And in many Italian museums you'll find Greek statues unearthed in Italy because they had been plundered from Greece a couple millennia before.
It all comes down to how strongly we view what we have recorded in whatever sources are available. Whether the evidence is written or artifactual or some combination, strong cross-correlative evidence results in consensus, something that happens a lot concerning actual history, while weak evidence results in huge fractures of opinion, which is exactly the case with religion. There are multiple major religions, and almost every religion is divided into sects and sub-sects. The lack of evidence precludes any concensus.
GDR writes: They are obviously written to be believed as can be attested to by the fact that many at the time and still now do believe the accounts to be accurate to one degree or another.Percy writes: I guess you've forgotten you said this already and it was rebutted already. The intent of the author is not a measure of fidelity to reality, nor is the number of people who believe his accounts. If this were so then many contradictory spiritual beliefs would have to be simultaneously true. You missed my point. I was not arguing for any measure of fidelity to accuracy, (there is a convoluted way of saying accuracy ) but simply to the idea that they were written to be believed regardless of their accuracy. I didn't miss your point. You never stated it. And if that was what you really intended to say, why didn't you say it that way the last time you brought it up or at least this time. And anyway, there's also no need to state the glaringly obvious.
Incidentally, I haven't mentioned him before but all the reading I have done has led me to conclusions that are pretty much bang on with Brian McLaren. Here is a short review of a book that he wrote recently that give a bit of an outline as to what his thoughts are and pretty much those of my own.
Do I stay Christian. The review starts off with the heading 10 Solid reasons to abandon Christianity. And it ends with a retelling of McLaren's call for Christians to let religion help them become the best people they can be. If religion helps you be a better person then I'm sure everyone here thinks that's wonderful. But you becoming a better person has nothing to to with the lack of credibility of your religious book as a historical account of the life and death of Jesus. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Funny you should say that. World War II ended the Depression because of enormous government expenditures. More precisely, (and according to Dalio's model) World War II rescued America from the Great Depression. And how is "rescued" more precise than "saved"?Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Which is why everybody should be skeptical all the time. Don't trust your own instincts. See what other people think. If you can't reason out your own ideas, you may be wrong. Confirmation bias exists in atheists as well as believers.Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024