Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 3:48 AM
21 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,986 Year: 15,022/19,786 Month: 1,745/3,058 Week: 119/404 Day: 6/113 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
107108
109
110111112Next
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1621 of 1677 (847770)
01-26-2019 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1619 by ringo
01-26-2019 10:46 AM


Research Delusions
ringo writes:

We have an explanation, the same explanation that we have for Gollum's Ring.

Not even close. There are many people with advanced degrees who have studied much of the available literature. We all know that Gollum was meant to be fiction. We have no such conclusion from Biblical writings. Tell me...what specifically have you read and studied which led you to your conclusions? A random guy in Canada who hangs out at the library has nothing apart from his intuitive wisdom with which to challenge the Biblical scholars. At least show us an autobiography of some books and research which led to your evidence and conclusions.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1619 by ringo, posted 01-26-2019 10:46 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1622 by ringo, posted 01-26-2019 1:22 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17138
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1622 of 1677 (847772)
01-26-2019 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1621 by Thugpreacha
01-26-2019 1:02 PM


Re: Research Delusions
Phat writes:

We all know that Gollum was meant to be fiction. We have no such conclusion from Biblical writings.


Why would you say that? Except that you wish it was true.

Phat writes:

Tell me...what specifically have you read and studied which led you to your conclusions?


The Bible.

Phat writes:

A random guy in Canada who hangs out at the library has nothing apart from his intuitive wisdom with which to challenge the Biblical scholars.


Why would a bunch of goobers who BELIEVE the Bible have an opinion more valuable than somebody who approaches it more objectively?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1621 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-26-2019 1:02 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1623 by GDR, posted 01-26-2019 9:44 PM ringo has responded
 Message 1625 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 4:56 AM ringo has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1623 of 1677 (847784)
01-26-2019 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1622 by ringo
01-26-2019 1:22 PM


Re: Research Delusions
ringo writes:

Why would you say that? Except that you wish it was true.


C'mon. We know Gollum was a fictional character. The Gospels were clearly meant to be understood as historical. Two of the compilers of the Gospels even make the statement that they are to be understood that way.

You can argue that they made it all up for some unknown reason, or that they got it partly, or all wrong, but they are clearly written to be believed as historical.

I don't get the point of simply stirring the pot in frivolous ways.


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 1622 by ringo, posted 01-26-2019 1:22 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1624 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2019 4:06 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 1633 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2019 5:19 PM GDR has responded
 Message 1640 by ringo, posted 01-28-2019 10:55 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7004
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 1624 of 1677 (847792)
01-27-2019 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1623 by GDR
01-26-2019 9:44 PM


Re: Research Delusions
GDR writes:

The Gospels were clearly meant to be understood as historical.

As is the book of Mormon. Which, as I'm sure you agree, is a total fabrication. It currently has 15 million believers.

People believe what they're born into and what suits them. They are uncritical and unable to see what those outside the belief can see as obvious.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1623 by GDR, posted 01-26-2019 9:44 PM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1626 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 5:03 AM Tangle has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1625 of 1677 (847793)
01-27-2019 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1622 by ringo
01-26-2019 1:22 PM


Re: Research Delusions
ringo writes:

Why would a bunch of goobers who BELIEVE the Bible have an opinion more valuable than somebody who approaches it more objectively?

The real question is whether the stories actually happened or whether they were made up from the beginning. The problem with reading the Bible objectively is that you yourself decide what is and is not possible. As an example, lets take

2 Peter 1:20-21 writes:

NIV-
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


I forget you like KJV so here:

To be objective, one has to question the intent, experience, and honesty of the original authors. Would you conclude, for example, that since Resurrections Don't Happen~Ringo that any eyewitness would have to either make one up or have been convinced that an impossible event became possible?

random apologist writes:

When we talk about inerrancy, we refer to the original writings of Scripture. We do not have any of the original “autographs,” as they are called, but only copies, including many copies of each book. There are small differences here and there, but in reality, they are amazingly similar. One eighteenth-century New Testament scholar claimed that not one-thousandth part of the text was affected by these differences.1 Now that we know what inerrancy means, let’s cover what it doesn’t mean.

Inerrancy doesn’t mean everything in the Bible is true. We have the record of men lying (e.g., Joshua 9) and even the words of the devil himself. But we can be sure these are accurate records of what took place.
Inerrancy doesn’t mean apparent contradictions are not in the text, but these can be resolved. At times different words may be used in recounting what appears to be the same incident. For example, Matthew 3:11 refers to John the Baptist carrying the sandals of the Messiah, whereas John 1:27 refers to him untying them. John preached over a period of time, and he would repeat himself; like any preacher he would use different ways of expressing the same thing.
Inerrancy doesn’t mean every extant copy is inerrant. It is important to understand that the doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts.
Inerrancy does mean it is incorrect to claim the Bible is only “reasonably accurate,” as some do.2 That would leave us uncertain as to where we could trust God’s Word.

In contrast, your objectivity taints the quest from the beginning. You would claim that "holy men of God cant be moved by God any more than CS Lewis could be moved by Gollums Ring". You would claim that " Since Resurrections don't happen, (according to the best science we have, ) then the stories were clearly made up."

In other words, your objectivity is clearly grounded in what we have in known reality and presupposes that God is fiction and that Jesus is an amalgamation similar to Elmer Gantry. Now to be fair, I have little doubt that many "church councils" through early Church of Rome History and even as far along as John Calvin were not men being carried along by the Holy Spirit but rather political and control issues decided by committee. Your question to me could be framed as asking what difference between those councils and the people in the upper room in Acts? My answer would be that in the case of Acts,(Upper Room) those people were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Besides....you would claim that God is fiction even before we got to the Upper Room. Which is hardly objective nor a fair assessment

So to again answer your question:

Why would a bunch of goobers who BELIEVE the Bible have an opinion more valuable than somebody who approaches it more objectively?
Because at some point the goobers were there. They recorded what happened. Not what they wanted to happen or were trying to sell.

And to be fair, you are trying to sell the idea that reality (as understood by humans) trumps belief from day 1.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1622 by ringo, posted 01-26-2019 1:22 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1627 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2019 5:22 AM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 1641 by ringo, posted 01-28-2019 11:12 AM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 1644 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2019 12:14 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1626 of 1677 (847794)
01-27-2019 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1624 by Tangle
01-27-2019 4:06 AM


Re: Research Delusions
People believe what they're born into and what suits them. They are uncritical and unable to see what those outside the belief can see as obvious.
You are the same way. You believe what you have grown up into. You believe that banks are sound. You believe that your money will always be safe. You believe that if we stomp out all religious superstition throughout the world that rationality will at last prevail and that people will have a better shot at carrying on our species.

It suits you.

But how do you really know that each and every story was made up from the beginning?

And how do you know that today's science and logic has the best story for our future?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1624 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2019 4:06 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1628 by Tangle, posted 01-27-2019 5:23 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15317
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1627 of 1677 (847795)
01-27-2019 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1625 by Thugpreacha
01-27-2019 4:56 AM


Re: Research Delusions
I don’t see how objectivity can taint a quest for the truth. In fact a lack of objectivity would seem to be a worse problem. Because of his lack of objectivity “random apologist” is lead into error.

The unknown authors of the Gospels were human. We know that their intent was to promote Christianity. We know that they were reliant on Christian sources. We know that they got some things wrong. We also know that parts appear to be based on OT stories. The Gospels are not good sources even compared to ancient histories.

There is a lot more to the doubts than Resurrections don’t happen. A lot more.

quote:

Because at some point the goobers were there. They recorded what happened. Not what they wanted to happen or were trying to sell.

Rings was talking about your “Biblical scholars” who certainly weren’t there. But the Gospel writers probably weren’t there either, and definitely were trying to sell Christianity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1625 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 4:56 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1629 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 7:36 AM PaulK has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7004
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 1628 of 1677 (847796)
01-27-2019 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1626 by Thugpreacha
01-27-2019 5:03 AM


Re: Research Delusions
Phat writes:

You are the same way.

You're fotgetting - yet again - that I once believed what you believe.

You believe what you have grown up into.

See above.

You believe that banks are sound.

No I don't. Are you going to continue being wrong?

You believe that your money will always be safe.

Yes, you're going to continue being wrong. Perhaps these are/where your beliefs?

You believe that if we stomp out all religious superstition throughout the world that rationality will at last prevail and that people will have a better shot at carrying on our species.

No I don't.

I know that we can not ever stamp out supertstion and irrationality. It's part of us and any attempt to 'stamp it out' will only make it thrive. What will happen naturally is that the more stupid beliefs will gradually die out as the world becomes better educated. As we see happening now. It will take many generations.

But how do you really know that each and every story was made up from the beginning?

I don't have to know that, all I need to know is that thousands of gods and religions and cults exist and have been and gone. That tells me that there is no grounds for thinking that the one YOU believe in - totally by an accident of birth - is any different than the others. Especially as you have absolutely no evidence to support it.

How *do* you explain Mormonism?

And how do you know that today's science and logic has the best story for our future?

It doesn't have a story for our future, it explains what is around us. Our best hope for our future is ourselves. In fact that's our *only* hope. Your bloody rediculous god is doing nothing for anybody.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1626 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 5:03 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1629 of 1677 (847798)
01-27-2019 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1627 by PaulK
01-27-2019 5:22 AM


Re: Research Delusions
I dont believe your information. What are your sources?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1627 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2019 5:22 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1630 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2019 8:14 AM Thugpreacha has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15317
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1630 of 1677 (847800)
01-27-2019 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1629 by Thugpreacha
01-27-2019 7:36 AM


Re: Research Delusions
quote:

I dont believe your information. What are your sources?

My sources are the Bible itself, Bible scholars and historians.

Disagreements between the Gospels are enough to tell us that they got some things wrong.

The Gospels do not directly identify the authors, nor their sources (although scholars can discern considerable copying of material between Mark, Matthew and Luke - and Luke also uses either Matthew or a common source). The better historians of the time often did identify their sources.

We see the author of Matthew taking scriptures out of context in his Nativity story (which disagrees with that of Luke and, by the historical markers seems to be set 10 years earlier)

We see drastic differences in the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances, too (Mark stops before reaching the appearances). The Gospels don’t even seem to agree with Paul’s list of appearances (1 Corinthians 15).

But instead of being vague why don’t you pick out a point you want to go into depth on ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1629 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 7:36 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1631 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 2:02 PM PaulK has responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1631 of 1677 (847811)
01-27-2019 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1630 by PaulK
01-27-2019 8:14 AM


Re: Research Delusions
Im more interested in the sources of such information both pro and con and on what led you to conclude much of what you conclude. The apologists have many of the pro sources, and some of them appear quite credible. Of course I recall the "experts" that the apologist cited (Parson) in the videos I showed on ICANTS Great Debate Thread. I also heard the "experts" that Lee Strobel cited in his Case For Christ and case For Faith books...which were refuted by Internet Infidels counter-apologist arguments. So I hear two basic argument/counter-argument narratives from two sides of the issue regarding Biblical Accuracy, Authorship, and Motive for such.

What I have not concluded, which you obviously have, is why one set of arguments is more accurate and persuasive than the other set of arguments.

I will allow that there are basic disagreements between the gospels. I am not so naive as to believe that the Bible is divinely perfect. There is some room for personal belief and bias to sway a researcher one way or the other.

So far nobody has convinced me that the stories were contrived or presented with the human intention of selling a message or persuading a population to believe in a movement. Especially if such a figure as a resurrected Messiah or human actually occurred. What specifically leads you to conclude that Jesus never rose from the dead? What specifically led you to conclude that God is fiction in all human literature generally and in the bible specifically? In other words, why are you an atheist? And why do you like to talk about these topics in an attempt to "set the record straight" with naive believers?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1630 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2019 8:14 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1632 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2019 3:32 PM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 1638 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2019 10:25 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15317
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1632 of 1677 (847814)
01-27-2019 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1631 by Thugpreacha
01-27-2019 2:02 PM


Re: Research Delusions
quote:

Im more interested in the sources of such information both pro and con and on what led you to conclude much of what you conclude. The apologists have many of the pro sources, and some of them appear quite credible. Of course I recall the "experts" that the apologist cited (Parson) in the videos I showed on ICANTS Great Debate Thread. I also heard the "experts" that Lee Strobel cited in his Case For Christ and case For Faith books...which were refuted by Internet Infidels counter-apologist arguments. So I hear two basic argument/counter-argument narratives from two sides of the issue regarding Biblical Accuracy, Authorship, and Motive for such.

It’s not just about what experts appear credible. Strobel specialises in throwing softball questions at experts (or sometimes non-experts) who agree with him. He’s not acting as an investigative reporter, he’s promoting a viewpoint - and I suppose there is no harm in reading his books so long as you know that he is only presenting one side and the other (or others) is never going to be given a fair hearing in his work.

It’s also about checking what they say - especially online sources. I almost always look up any Bible verses that are cited, sometimes in multiple translations, I’ve checked Josephus and other classical sources (all the famous ones can be found on line, in translation). I’ve even looked up interlinear Bibles to check the original language on occasion. That is one way to tell good sources from bad. I also do that with historical claims.

Although I suppose that there are a lot of really bad apologetics in print, so don’t think that print automatically gets a pass.

Books I have used are Robin Lane Fox’s The Unauthorised Version and Finkelstein and Silberman’s The Bible Unearthed

The Internet Infidel’s Library is not bad but I do not endorse everything in it.

Wikipedia is a lot better than you might think - I won’t unreservedly recommend it and it can be sabotaged but it is usually quite good at giving mainstream views.

Peter Kirby’s Early Christian Writings and Early Jewish Writings are useful resources. Mainly for the translated texts themselves than the offsite links which are often broken.

Other sites of interest are Celsus run by ancient historian Matthew Ferguson. Rarely updated these data but with some interesting stuff.

He also has some interesting links in his blog roll (except some are dead). Is That in the Bible seems decent even if the writer is an amateur. NT Blog hasn’t been updated lately, but it’s host, Mark Goodacre, is a genuine Bible scholar.

Richard Carrier’s blog is there, too, but it’s a bit of a mixed bag. He can be OK but his Jesus mythicism looks dodgy to me (bad enough that I refuse to buy his book to see if his argument is as bad as it seems) - and his personal life is not a topic I want to look at at all.

quote:

What I have not concluded, which you obviously have, is why one set of arguments is more accurate and persuasive than the other set of arguments.

That is where the checking comes in. And where examining the arguments comes in too. It is not just a matter of deciding that one is more plausible than the other. It’s about finding out which one really is the best.

quote:

So far nobody has convinced me that the stories were contrived or presented with the human intention of selling a message or persuading a population to believe in a movement.

I am sure that the Gospel writers had the intent of promoting their religion. But that is different from actually contriving the stories. However, the stories very likely changed over time and the author’s biases will reflect how they present them. Compare, for instance the two stories of Judas’ death. They both depict a tale pleasing to believers (in Matthew 27 Judas is overcome with remorse and kills himself. In Acts 1 Peter says that Judas died mysteriously while inspecting his reward). It’s likely that these two stories were told and believed in Christian communities (and at least one other story existed!) and we can’t say where they came from. But it is obvious that at least one and possibly both are fiction, and their pleasing nature may well have more to do with their survival than any truth they may have had.

quote:

What specifically leads you to conclude that Jesus never rose from the dead?

At first it was the lack of any good evidence. Now I have a stronger case that the evidence we have is better explained by Jesus remaining dead.

quote:

What specifically led you to conclude that God is fiction in all human literature generally and in the bible specifically?

Studying comparative religion (at school) lead me to the realisation that there really wasn’t anything so special about Christianity that put it above the many other religions. Which lead to more questioning and a shortage of good answers. The dishonesty I’ve encountered here even from liberal Christians (who are generally better than fundamentalists) hasn’t exactly changed my mind.

quote:

And why do you like to talk about these topics in an attempt to "set the record straight" with naive believers?

One thing I will say is that I do not go to Christian (or Muslim or Hindu etc etc) forums to argue with them. People who come here - or come to the atheist sites I’ve been on have to expect disagreement and discussion. And why should I not discuss matters I’ve found interesting enough to investigate ? Or why should I not correct false claims - especially on a site which is supposed to be about getting to the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1631 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 2:02 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1634 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-27-2019 8:21 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6488
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1633 of 1677 (847822)
01-27-2019 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1623 by GDR
01-26-2019 9:44 PM


Re: Research Delusions
The Gospels were clearly meant to be understood as historical.

So all texts written as historical, whether religious or not, should be given equal weight?

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1623 by GDR, posted 01-26-2019 9:44 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1635 by GDR, posted 01-27-2019 8:57 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12678
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1634 of 1677 (847826)
01-27-2019 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1632 by PaulK
01-27-2019 3:32 PM


Re: Research Delusions
Fair enough. I appreciate your honest answer.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1632 by PaulK, posted 01-27-2019 3:32 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4911
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 1635 of 1677 (847828)
01-27-2019 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1633 by Theodoric
01-27-2019 5:19 PM


Re: Research Delusions
Theodorice writes:

So all texts written as historical, whether religious or not, should be given equal weight?

Any book that is written to represent historical truths can be considered to be evidence. We then judge books based on what ever else we might know about cultures, other written material etc. In the case of the Bible it is a collection of 66 books involving hundreds of authors and numerous translators. We all form our own beliefs of what to accept and what to reject.

Religious texts are in a bit of a class of their own though, as they have had, and continue to have, a major impact on the world we live in. Books on the rise and fall of the Roman empire are interesting and might even give us food for thought for our lives today, they don't have the impact of the Quran or the Bible.


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 1633 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2019 5:19 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1636 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2019 9:14 PM GDR has responded
 Message 1646 by Theodoric, posted 01-31-2019 8:06 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
107108
109
110111112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019