Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 72 (9010 total)
55 online now:
xongsmith (1 member, 54 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,680 Year: 13,428/23,288 Month: 358/795 Week: 59/95 Day: 13/11 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hitch is dead
GDR
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 5409
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 526 of 560 (877100)
06-04-2020 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by Stile
06-02-2020 4:42 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
GDR writes:

But you are making a category mistake. You are confusing what was seen for what caused the happening. The pointer on the ouija board did move and everyone would agree.

Stile writes:

If those were the things I was comparing, I would agree - it would be a category mistake.
But, that's not the things I'm comparing.
By "eye witnesses to ouija boards, psychic entertainment shows and haunted house conventions" I meant physical claims (from large-amounts-of-agreeing-people) like:
-things floating through walls
-talking to the dead while the dead are physically present in the room
-seeing the dead/demons/angels physically present in the room
-floating objects
-things being moved or broken by non-human-alive-entities (such as dead people, or spirits or demons or angels)
Would you agree such physical claims are in the same category as the ressurection?


No
I have never heard of an account of any of these occurrences you talk about where the object of the vision is physical in the sense that it can be touched and felt physically. I have never heard of a case where there were multiple sightings in different locations involving large numbers of people.
You claim that you know of a case(s) where people have talked to people physically in the room. Do you know of a case where people were able to actually touch and feel the deceased person in the room. If you can find somebody who claimed that, can you then find anyone to verify it. Can you then show where a whole movement formed around the occurrence and subsequent teachings of the sightings.
You will likely mention Joseph Smith but that whole movement started based on his word alone that he had received a divine message, without any, let alone numerous, others to verify it. He then wrote a book about it and lived a privileged life as a result.

Firstly, I don’t accept that what you describe are physical events. However, I believe that in the majority of cases the happenings can be shown to be illusions performed by entertainers or fraudsters. There may be more to some of these occurrences, but I can’t go further than that. I had a friend that lost a 28 year old son and claimed to have had a conversation with him after his death. Was it psychosomatic? I don’t know. However, there isn’t anyone else who can verify her story.

Stile writes:

Sure.
Of course, there's no evidence that "we are the result of intelligence."
And there is evidence that suggests "life itself appeared in a min dless universe" without any requirement for intelligence at all.

Well, we’ve been down this road before and the evidence that we are the result of mindlessness is strictly that we can investigate the processes that resulted in us being alive. However there is no scientific evidence that the processes themselves had a mindless origin. I contend that there is an abundance of philosophical evidence, but then I know that you discount that as evidence at all.

Stile writes:

Ouija Boards - "demonic encounters, spirits physically attacking houseguests..."
Psychics - reviews from people all demanding in agreement that this guy is "for real."
Haunted Houses - including tales of "moving objects" and physical appearences/touching of the ghosts. Some have even claimed to have been raped by ghosts.
There are many, many more.
These kinds of physical claims are not rare.

There are many in agreement with the originators who demand such stories must be true.
Just as you demand (in agreement with many, and the authors of the Gospels) that the resurrection must be true.

There are also those (you may be among them?) who disagree that such physical ghost stories "must be true."
Just as I am among those who disagree that such physical stories of the resurrection "must be true."

When I asked for examples I meant specific examples.
Stile writes:

As is the case with many ouija board, psychis entertainment and haunted house convention stories believe whole-heartedly by their believers.

But how about specific cases. Did any of these cases happen to different groups at different times without there being any prior expectation that the occurrence could happen? I’m not talking about some charismatic leader getting people to follow him/her. This is a case of people completely adjusting their fundamental beliefs because of the event itself.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Stile, posted 06-02-2020 4:42 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by ringo, posted 06-04-2020 4:30 PM GDR has responded
 Message 529 by Stile, posted 06-05-2020 11:48 AM GDR has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18801
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 527 of 560 (877113)
06-04-2020 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by GDR
06-04-2020 12:00 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
GDR writes:

However there is no scientific evidence that the processes themselves had a mindless origin.


You have it backwards. There is no scientific evidence that the processes themseves
had a mind as an origin.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by GDR, posted 06-04-2020 12:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by GDR, posted 06-04-2020 5:28 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 530 by Phat, posted 06-05-2020 12:57 PM ringo has responded

GDR
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 5409
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 528 of 560 (877114)
06-04-2020 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by ringo
06-04-2020 4:30 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
I didn't say there was. I was responding to Stile's claim that there was scientific evidence for a mindless cause of our existence.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by ringo, posted 06-04-2020 4:30 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Stile
Member
Posts: 4004
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 529 of 560 (877133)
06-05-2020 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 526 by GDR
06-04-2020 12:00 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
GDR writes:

Firstly, I don’t accept that what you describe are physical events.

Why not? The claims of these physical events have as much support as the claims for your physical events.
The people who report them believe they are just as real as you believe your claims to be.
I think that your hesitation comes from social acceptance and popularity - which are both factors that have no relevance on if the event actually happened or not.

When I asked for examples I meant specific examples.

I gave you books and lists chock full of specific examples.
If you want to pick a few, we can still do that:

Here's a specific example of a girl claiming to have sex with ghosts.

That seems a lot more physical than just come "seeing and basic touching."

Does that mean this ghost is more likely to be real than the resurrection?

Here's one experienced by many people - all with "similar stories that only differ on the details"
The Mackenzie Poltergeist
-many, many eye witnesses
-many getting "cuts, bruises and burns" from the poltergeist - again, more than just touching.

Does this mean this poltergeist is more likely to be real than the resurrection?

These are not uncommon.
Any library you go to will have entire sections devoted to people who believe in their experiences as much, or maybe even more, than you believe in the resurrection.
All with the same sort of "eye witness" evidence of "physical events" occurring. Some to single people, other to many, multiples of people.
Many have recorded evidence, even - this is even more evidence the resurrection has.

They use exactly the same terminology you use to claim the resurrection is real.
-so many different people have witnessed it
-physical things have occurred that cannot be explained any other way
-no one is lying about it
-these people are all just searching for the truth and trying to let others know what they know
-there is no motivation for them to be trying to trick others

I don't see how you can claim the resurrection is "highly likely" but these stories are not.
Unless, of course, your measurement on "likelihood" is very much attached to your personal connection with the event - which is what I think is happening.
Unfortunately, such a "personal connection" is well understood to lead one away from reality, not towards it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by GDR, posted 06-04-2020 12:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by GDR, posted 06-06-2020 1:03 PM Stile has responded
 Message 553 by Phat, posted 06-14-2020 2:28 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Phat
Member
Posts: 14672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 530 of 560 (877137)
06-05-2020 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by ringo
06-04-2020 4:30 PM


In The Beginning? Certainly Not Chemicals
No, but the idea that in the beginning was chemicals is just plain silly.

You can argue that until the cows come home, but it makes far less intrinsic sense than does the premise of a mind as the origin of all.


“The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.”Calvin Coolidge
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

- You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
I Have Strong Arguments Which I Cant Say To You~CG

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by ringo, posted 06-04-2020 4:30 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by jar, posted 06-05-2020 1:16 PM Phat has responded
 Message 532 by kjsimons, posted 06-05-2020 1:21 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 533 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2020 1:21 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 534 by ringo, posted 06-05-2020 3:40 PM Phat has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32966
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 531 of 560 (877141)
06-05-2020 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Phat
06-05-2020 12:57 PM


Re: In The Beginning? Certainly Not Chemicals
Phat writes:

No, but the idea that in the beginning was chemicals is just plain silly.

Yet that is exactly what ALL of the evidence shows.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Phat, posted 06-05-2020 12:57 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by Phat, posted 06-05-2020 5:01 PM jar has not yet responded

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 706
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 532 of 560 (877142)
06-05-2020 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Phat
06-05-2020 12:57 PM


Re: In The Beginning? Certainly Not Chemicals
Phat writes:

No, but the idea that in the beginning was chemicals is just plain silly.
You can argue that until the cows come home, but it makes far less intrinsic sense than does the premise of a mind as the origin of all.


But Phat, your mind is just chemicals too, it doesn't exist outside the physical realm. The idea of a mind existing before the universe or life existing doesn't make any sense at all. The progression of universe->life->mind makes more sense then: discombobulated-mind->universe->life->life-based-minds

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Phat, posted 06-05-2020 12:57 PM Phat has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 16584
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 533 of 560 (877143)
06-05-2020 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Phat
06-05-2020 12:57 PM


Re: In The Beginning? Certainly Not Chemicals
quote:
No, but the idea that in the beginning was chemicals is just plain silly.

Indeed, quite a lot had to happen before chemicals could exist.

But the idea that a mind was the origin of all is not particularly sensible. Indeed, the existence of such a mind cries out for explanation - and there is none.

Edited by PaulK, : a correction and a clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Phat, posted 06-05-2020 12:57 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

ringo
Member
Posts: 18801
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 534 of 560 (877152)
06-05-2020 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Phat
06-05-2020 12:57 PM


Re: In The Beginning? Certainly Not Chemicals
Phat writes:

No, but the idea that in the beginning was chemicals is just plain silly.


That's a silly thing to say. We know there ARE chemicals. Why on earth is it silly to think they were around in "the beginning"?

Phat writes:

... it makes far less intrinsic sense than does the premise of a mind as the origin of all.


It makes far MORE "intrinsic" sense to think in terms of what we DO know - e.g. chemicals - than what we DON'T know - e.g. some spooky "mind". Every mind that we DO know about is made of chemicals.

You're welcome to believe whatever bullshit you like but don't try to pretend that it "makes more sense" than reality. That won't fly here.


"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Phat, posted 06-05-2020 12:57 PM Phat has not yet responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 14672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 535 of 560 (877158)
06-05-2020 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by ringo
05-12-2020 7:42 PM


Re: Historical and/or Fiction
Let's start here.

ringo writes:

We know that your fantasy is that you know "the real God" better than anybody else does, better than atheists, better than the people who wrote the Book. That just reinforces the conclusion that your God is entirely made up.

I DO know God better than the atheists do. All they know is what was written about God. And they don't even know the authors who wrote about Him. I DO NOT claim to know the book better than the authors. And I'm not so vain and egotistical as to attempt to write my own book. As a believer, I am a work in progress.
ringo, addressing GDR writes:

You conveniently ignore the occasions when God committed atrocities all on His own - the Flood, for example.

"OK, let's book Him, Inspector jar! Wait...whats that? We have no evidence? But surely this Flood had to have happened...after all, it's in the book!" You can't claim that God is limited to a character in the book and then turn around and charge the character with committing atrocities, claiming to prove the motive of that character.

You waffle back and forth, don't you? You use something written in the book when it supports your argument, yet dismiss other things as apologetic fantasies.

I suppose I do the same thing. Yet for me, belief in "The Flood" is unnecessary for my faith. Some things could be metaphorical. Either that or it all could be magical. Which is possible. Ringo, the only evidence you will ever ever have in your life will be the believers themselves. There are some genuine ones. They are the real deal and they walk in power and anointing.

But you don't think that God is even necessary, do you? You have a lot still to learn in the remaining years of your life. Let's get back to the Book, shall we?

Been there. Done that.
Now YOU get down off your arrogant high-horse and give us a valid rationale for choosing the cute-and-cuddly God of the New Testament over the war criminal of the Old Testament.
We have no evidence that God Himself committed any crimes. That is, unless you strip Him of His right to judge people who were proven unworthy and incapable of learning to do better.

But lets focus on the NT.

ringo writes:

And then you can give us a valid rationale for throwing out most of the New Testament too.

I dont recall throwing any of it out. If it pleases the court, present any evidence that I have thrown so much as a page of the NT away from my apologetic pile of goodies.

ringo writes:

I disparage Faith for having a view of scripture that directly contradicts scripture. I disparage you for having a made-up view of God that ignores most of scripture. Neither of you sees scripture for what it is.

And this just after accusing me of being arrogant! Why should we trust your teaching skills? Anybody can read word for word what a book says. It takes a good teacher to suggest a deeper meaning.

You just don't happen to agree with any of the teachers.

ringo writes:

Why would the creator of all things seen and unseen have any interest in you?


John 3:16 for starters. Honestly, though, I am humbled.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


“The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.”Calvin Coolidge
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

- You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
I Have Strong Arguments Which I Cant Say To You~CG

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by ringo, posted 05-12-2020 7:42 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by ringo, posted 06-07-2020 1:45 PM Phat has not yet responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 14672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 536 of 560 (877159)
06-05-2020 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 531 by jar
06-05-2020 1:16 PM


Re: In The Beginning? Certainly Not Chemicals
jar writes:

Yet that is exactly what ALL of the evidence shows.

So why do we have believers? Why would a rational guy such as yourself believe that God exists when there is not any evidence? Do you limit God to a character of the human mind and imagination?

“The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.”Calvin Coolidge
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

- You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
I Have Strong Arguments Which I Cant Say To You~CG

This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by jar, posted 06-05-2020 1:16 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by xongsmith, posted 06-05-2020 6:05 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 538 by xongsmith, posted 06-05-2020 6:14 PM Phat has not yet responded

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1990
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 537 of 560 (877164)
06-05-2020 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by Phat
06-05-2020 5:01 PM


Re: In The Beginning? Certainly Not Chemicals
I really dont care about whether a God exists or not. The recent developments that may shelve the Big Bang Theory are far more important to me.

"I'd rather be an American than a Trump Supporter."

- xongsmith, 5.7d


This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Phat, posted 06-05-2020 5:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1990
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 538 of 560 (877165)
06-05-2020 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by Phat
06-05-2020 5:01 PM


Re: In The Beginning? Certainly Not Chemicals
double post

Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.


"I'd rather be an American than a Trump Supporter."

- xongsmith, 5.7d


This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Phat, posted 06-05-2020 5:01 PM Phat has not yet responded

GDR
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 5409
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 539 of 560 (877173)
06-06-2020 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by Stile
06-05-2020 11:48 AM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
Stile writes:

I gave you books and lists chock full of specific examples.
If you want to pick a few, we can still do that:
Here's a specific example of a girl claiming to have sex with ghosts.
That seems a lot more physical than just come "seeing and basic touching."
Does that mean this ghost is more likely to be real than the resurrection?


Firstly the article is even titled sex with a ghost. That hardly sounds physical. In addition it is an experience of one individual at a time. There is no one to confirm the occurrence and no one has considered changing their world view because of it.
Stile writes:

Here's one experienced by many people - all with "similar stories that only differ on the details"
The Mackenzie Poltergeist
-many, many eye witnesses
-many getting "cuts, bruises and burns" from the poltergeist - again, more than just touching.

Does this mean this poltergeist is more likely to be real than the resurrection?

These a re not uncommon.
Any library you go to will have entire sections devoted to people who believe in their experiences as much, or maybe even more, than you believe in the resurrection.
All with the same sort of "eye witness" evidence of "physical events" occurring. Some to single people, other to many, multiples of people.
Many have recorded evidence, even - this is even more evidence the resurrection has.

They use exactly the same terminology you use to claim the resurrection is real.
-so many different people have witnessed it
-physical things have occurred that cannot be explained any other way
-no one is lying about it
-these people are all just searching for the truth and trying to let others know what they know
-there is no motivation for them to be trying to trick others

Firstly here is a more balanced article that even provides possible scientific explanations.
Mackenzie Poltergeist
Again you are using the term "poltergeist". Thst is synonymous with ghost. It is not physical.

This is a tourist site with people prospering from it. It is goulish from the point of view that they are profiting from the incredible sufferings of people who died at the hands of a psychopath.

People that go there have a foreboding sense of occurrences to start with, and are
prone to believing that something could happen. In the case of the resurrection we know from historic records of first century Judaism that the resurrection was not what anyone thought would happen, (which is consistent with the Gospel accounts), and were surprised by it.

The occurrences happened in multiple places to multiple people. It changed the world view of thousands in short order and was attested to by numerous people even decades later.

Stile writes:

I don't see how you can claim the resurrection is "highly likely" but these stories are not.
Unless, of course, your measurement on "likelihood" is very much attached to your per sonal connection with the event - which is what I think is happening.
Unfortunately, such a "personal connection" is well understood to lead one away from reality, not towards it.


The stories you quoted are not in the same category as the resurrection accounts, for the reasons I have outlined. I agree that resurrection is far removed from our life experiences. We know now, as they did then, that except in cases of resuscitation people who are dead remain dead.

However if we hold the theistic belief that life is the result of intelligence, then the resurrection accounts are open to consideration. If of course, we hold a materialistic or atheistic belief then the resurrection is impossible and there has to be another explanation.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Stile, posted 06-05-2020 11:48 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by Stile, posted 06-10-2020 9:00 AM GDR has responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 18801
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 540 of 560 (877190)
06-07-2020 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by Phat
06-05-2020 4:47 PM


Re: Historical and/or Fiction
Phat writes:

I DO know God better than the atheists do. All they know is what was written about God.


That's all that is possible to know. Your claims of "communion" are arrogant and empty.

Phat writes:

I DO NOT claim to know the book better than the authors.


Yes you do. The authors did not claim that their writing was part of one cohesive whole. You do.

Phat writes:

You can't claim that God is limited to a character in the book and then turn around and charge the character with committing atrocities, claiming to prove the motive of that character.


Why not? How is it inconsistent to point out that the ONLY information we have about Him includes information that He committed atrocities?

Phat writes:

You waffle back and forth, don't you? You use something written in the book when it supports your argument, yet dismiss other things as apologetic fantasies.


The Book says that God created the heavens and the earth and it says He committed the Flood atrocity. There's no waffling about that. It's the apologists who try to waffle Him into a wholly good God despite the atrocities.

Phat writes:

But you don't think that God is even necessary, do you?


The evidence shows that He is not.

Phat writes:

We have no evidence that God Himself committed any crimes.


This is not about a fictional God committing fictional crimes. It's about where your beliefs come from. You don't accept the Bible accounts and you don't accept reality. Your beliefs are entirely man-made.

Phat writes:

ringo writes:

And then you can give us a valid rationale for throwing out most of the New Testament too.


I dont recall throwing any of it out.

You reject what Jesus told the rich man about what he must do to be saved. You reject the story about the Roman church doing it.

Phat writes:

Why should we trust your teaching skills?


I have never even suggested that you should trust what I say. I have told you repeatedly to read what it SAYS.

Phat writes:

Anybody can read word for word what a book says.


Then do it.

Phat writes:

It takes a good teacher to suggest a deeper meaning.


Or a liar. Why are you afraid to discuss the apologists' lies?

Phat writes:

ringo writes:

Why would the creator of all things seen and unseen have any interest in you?


John 3:16 for starters.

If "God so loved the world", why did He destroy it with the Flood?

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by Phat, posted 06-05-2020 4:47 PM Phat has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020