|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
We pray Lord that our lives will model the life to come, when you will bring about the resurrection of all things, in a renewed world, where the wolf lies down with the lamb, and with true joy and peace for all. With the power of your Holy Spirit, may we be Christ like people, living lives of Christ like love." Word salad. Means nothing.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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
GDR writes: OK, but the point of worship as I said earlier in this thread is not for God but for me. I often lead the prayers of the people in our Anglican church as a lay person. I usually end with this. "We pray Lord that our lives will model the life to come, when you will bring about the resurrection of all things, in a renewed world, where the wolf lies down with the lamb, and with true joy and peace for all. With the power of your Holy Spirit, may we be Christ like people, living lives of Christ like love." This is the sort of stuff that turns my stomach. It makes me feel embarrassed for you. I hear that sort of ingratiating twaddle spoken at the services I'm forced to attend for weddings and funerals and it's all I can do to not scream at the preacher. What do you think you're doing here? You say you're not stroking god or asking for anything but it looks like that's exactly what you're doing - grovelling to your Lord, asking for a better life now and in a future afterlife. This loving overlord of your belief created the world where the wolf will only lie down when its killed and eaten the lamb, so why would he change that? He obviously approves of his creation the way he deliberately created it. Why, if a better world is one where life doesn't have to consume other life just to exist, do we not have that world already? After all, you believe that there is an afterlife of perfection, so why create a life of imperfection and suffering that you have to pray will end? I'm really struggling to find the words to say how utterly stupid I think the whole thing is.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Hi Phat, hope all is well.
Phat writes: How are you Stile? Stressed. Busy.Looking to move from Canada to USA based on Canada's failing/troubled healthcare system and attempting to get proper care for my wife's health issues. Luckily, wifey has very good family in Chicago-area we're close with and they're willing to sponsor me and house us for a bit upon approval. So many major hurdles are taken care of for us. However, it's still a very stressful transition, and a years-long process (I'm about 1 year into it right now.) We always get along even if we usually disagree. I like to think I get along with Dredge and Kleinman, too... even if they don't want to get along with me
GDR and I differ in some ways as believers, but I think we all agree that the supernatural cannot ever leave evidence except perhaps anecdotally, and there are always alternate explanations and interpretations, given that there is never objective evidence. Why do you think that is? There's lots of objective evidence by supernatural events in any form they've ever been depicted.-werewolves leave long wolf-like hair behind, and the human-to-wolf transition can be monitored (source -> I was a Teenage Werewolf, Underworld...) -vampires have no reflection and can grow their fangs within seconds (source -> True Blood, Blade...) -wizards and magic can be seen and the results can be felt and measured (source -> Harry Potter, Dr. Strange...) -miracles occur and their results can be monitored and measured (source -> Bible, Koran...) -God interacts with humans and such interactions can be monitored and measured (source -> Bible, Koran...) So, on what grounds do you say that the Supernatural never leaves objective evidence? If, indeed, the Supernatural never leaves objective evidence:-never makes sound-waves, so the Supernatural can never be heard -never reflects light, so the Supernatural can never be seen -never moves an atom, so the Supernatural can never be felt -never adjusts brain-waves, so the Supernatural can never inject thoughts/voices into your soul ...if all that is true, as you seem to claim, how do you (or anyone else) know anything about the Supernatural?Seems like by saying "the Supernatural never leaves evidence!" you're admitting that everything we describe/understand about the Supernatural comes from our own made-up imagination. Just like this exchange from Pirates of the Caribbean - Curse of the Black Pearl: Pirate #1 - "Black Pearl? I've heard stories. She's been preying on ships and settlements for near ten years."Pirate #2 - "Never leaves any survivors." Captain Jack Sparrow - "No survivors. Then where do the stories come from, I wonder?" If you think the Supernatural has ever:-made a sound -been seen -been felt -injected thoughts into someone's soul ...then you're claiming that the Supernatural does, indeed, leave objective evidence. Critics will cite "appeal to popularity" and dismiss personal testimonies as worthless, which I suppose is fair game in an evidence-based discussion, although within a family, for example, brothers and sisters are not simply dismissed as incredulous simply because their individual and personal "experience" never happened to you personally. I don't think personal testimonies are worthless.They are very worthwhile. Especially when many, many join together and the opposing side is only very few, and has great motivation for lying. But, you seem to be the one who thinks personal testimonies are worthless. For every 1000 people with a "the Supernatural did it!" testimony... there are 1000 others with a "no, it wasn't the Supernatural...." testimony.Why do you ignore the other, equally strong testimonies? Do you ignore them simply because they don't agree with you? That doesn't seem to reflect someone looking for the truth about reality. I don't ignore any of them.But, when there are conflicting testimonies, and one side has great motivation for wanting something to be true... it really calls it into question and creates a low-confidence, high-risk-of-being-wrong scenario. It's just, well... that takes a long time to write out and explain. It's just easier/faster to say "personal testimony isn't evidence" because, in general... there usually are conflicting personal testimonies (or everyone knows there are on the God question) and so that isn't explicitly mentioned every single time.
If we assume that human definition (using our minds and rationality) is the source of belief, the argument is basically one and done. If we're looking for the truth of reality, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion. The evidence vastly supports the idea that human definition really is the source of belief. The assumption, based on evidence, really is very sound. It is, of course, still just an assumption. If you can identify anything at all that can be shown to be a valid part of reality and also call this assumption into question... I (and all of science) would love you to provide it. Can you imagine how amazing and fantastic it would be to have a real investigation into a world we never new existed? It's like the first submarine being able to go underwater, or the first airplane flight, or the first time discovering a new island/continent... it's fascinating! Of course, many have tried, for thousands of years, and come up with nothing but more "human definition." Which is why the current assumption is so strong.
GDR and (as he himself would argue) other theists would likely say that God by definition existed eternally, long before humans even evolved to the language and thought capability of making Him/Her/It up. Your side would again point to that E word and say that without evidence all that we have is speculation. That's a pretty good summary. If we're looking for "ways for GDR to be happy" - then I think mentioning the evidence requirement is unnecessary and quite possibly verging on being rude.If we're looking for "the truth about reality" - then why wouldn't we bring up evidence as it's our best known method to identify the truth about reality? That seems very reasonable. So, what are you after, Phat? Do you just want to be happy? Or do you want to know the truth about reality?You don't have to answer here, it doesn't matter much to me... it's a very personal question and each and every one of us needs to answer honestly in order to sleep soundly at night. If you don't answer that honestly, and you continue to mull about in this "controversy" - it's going to be very stressful for your mental health.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
GDR writes: I usually end with this. "We pray Lord that our lives will model the life to come, when you will bring about the resurrection of all things, in a renewed world, where the wolf lies down with the lamb, and with true joy and peace for all. With the power of your Holy Spirit, may we be Christ like people, living lives of Christ like love." Looking back, one of the first signs of my eventual deconversion was when I started seeing empty platitudes as empty platitudes. At first, I was a bit confused as to why I once thought these types of psalm-ish sayings were so amazing, and why they seemed to crumble when I barely started to critique and analyze them. Since then, I tend to think it is part of the psychology of belief.
What do you know about Plato that didn't come from a book? Is that circular? I'm certainly not inventing platitudes about my reflections on the divinity of Plato.
Why are you, or anyone else here for that matter, trying to convince me that I'm wrong? History has a lot of inertia. For centuries it has been the atheist who has had to explain why they don't believe, as if belief is the default condition. Even today there are a lot of misconceptions we atheists have to deal with on a regular basis. More than anything, we are trying to explain why our atheism is justified.
I agree that there is no evidence that you would agree is evidence. I consider conscious life evidence of an external consciousness. You don't. Simple as that. That seems to be the most rational place to arrive at. You are convinced, and we are not. There is evidence that we would need to be convinced, and it doesn't appear to exist. There is evidence that you would need to be convinced, and you have found it. They aren't the same type of evidence, but they don't need to be. As long as we are all honest about where we stand I don't see a problem with it. On the flip side, misrepresentation of evidence is where we often see the most friction. When someone tries to falsely claim they have scientific evidence for the supernatural that tends to invite debate. The same for subjective evidence falsely represented as objective evidence. I think this also ties into some of the modern views on faith. There seems to be a movement within Christian apologetics where faith is considered a weakness. It's as if apologists have agreed with some atheists that faith is not to be trusted. In order to fix this weakness they invent these bait-and-switch schemes to dress up faith as objective evidence of some kind (e.g. Kalam Cosmological Argument, Lee Strobel's stuff). Faith should be enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The problem is that to make GDR happy we have to pretend that he’s making a diligent search for the truth. We have to pretend that his “evidence” is good, no matter how false it is. We have to pretend his arguments are reasonable no matter how fallacious. We have to ignore the obvious evasions and diversions. And we certainly mustn’t mention that he’s desperately looking for excuses to pretend his beliefs are true, without any concern for the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
PaulK writes: The problem is that to make GDR happy we have to pretend that he’s making a diligent search for the truth. We have to pretend that his “evidence” is good, no matter how false it is. We have to pretend his arguments are reasonable no matter how fallacious. We have to ignore the obvious evasions and diversions. And we certainly mustn’t mention that he’s desperately looking for excuses to pretend his beliefs are true, without any concern for the facts. I was more talking in a very pulled-back general sense. There's a time and a place for everything. If GDR is in his own home, doing his own thing, loving his own family...And doesn't tend to bring up such topics when: -in general public discourse where one might think he's making a claim to reality -in any setting where claims to reality are of a very high priority ...then I think his beliefs/thoughts/ideas/personal-ways/culture/subjective-feelings should be respected and I would support very strongly protecting his ability to hold such thoughts as much as he'd like.I think it would be extremely rude, perhaps even criminal, to interject oneself into GDR's life and bombard him with alternative claims/ideas/evidence/whatever. I think GDR has a right to live his life the way he wants... within the boundaries of where such things should be protected. Of course, "EvC Forum" is sort of a public discourse where, if one wants to discuss the pros/cons/reality of such topics, they should congregate here and say whatever they would like at any point in time (according to general levels of respect.)-in this sense, I absolutely agree with you that EvC is not the place to hold back from interjecting with another thought on the topic, no matter how GDR may feel about it. Otherwise known as: "Gotta pick your battles."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
GDR writes: I have said several times is all have for evidence is what is written in the Bible, what others have said about what is written in the Bible and my own subjective conclusions about the physical world and our interaction with it. But now you're back to claiming you have evidence. You have both claimed to have evidence and to have no evidence. The flip-flopping is driving people crazy, or at least me.
I have nothing beyond what I have already said about my rationale as to why I believe what I do. I know that's not enough for you or anyone else, but it is all I've got. I think everyone's fine with what you believe religiously. It's your belief that there's evidence for what you believe that people take issue with.
So, if you don't want me to keep saying the same thing then don't keep asking the same questions. This is just a mindless tit-for-tat attempt of, "He accused me of raising the same issues, so I'll accuse him of asking the same questions." What's actually happens is that we raise an issue, you provide an answer, we point out problems with the answer, and you complete the cycle by saying things that begin with phrases like, "I just can't believe...", and then you give the same answer again. Your answers have no foundation of evidence. For example, if I again state Jesus likely didn't exist, you'll begin citing what you believe is evidence he did exist, despite acknowledging on numerous occasions that you have no evidence. I don't get you. Even though this discussion hasn't changed your beliefs, even you have to recognize how inconsistent you've been about evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Percy, responding to GDR writes: And were it you and I talking, I would care little about any "evidence" that any scholar has provided due to the fact that
For example, if I again state Jesus likely didn't exist, you'll begin citing what you believe is evidence he did exist, despite acknowledging on numerous occasions that you have no evidence.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
GDR writes: We both know that there is no convincing evidence. It is just like any historical account. All we have is what is written and then we come to our own conclusions about the veracity of the account, by looking at other written material etc. The Bible is not a "historical account." It's a mishmash of fact, history, religion, fantasy, and fallacies that people thought true over 2000 years ago. You're correct about confidence depending upon cross-confirming accounts, but there are no such accounts for the religious stories in Bible, including the accounts in the NT. And historical evidence is not just written accounts. It also includes archeological evidence. For example, the absence of archeological evidence for temple constructions from when Solomon was presumed to have ruled have raised serious doubts about the dating in the Bible, and even of the reality of Solomon himself. Historical evidence also includes oral accounts. Much of what we know of American Indian history comes from oral accounts. It also includes writings that were never intended as a historical record, such as stories, novels, plays, poems, advertisements, etc. Concerning the gospel stories, there are no confirmatory accounts. Concerning Jesus's existence, there's nothing contemporary despite the amazing claims in the gospels which had they really happened would have sent every literate person of the period scrambling for their writing instruments.
Tangle writes: Wiki - the website - is a non-Christian source, it's who posts there that makes it Christian or otherwise. Almost every biblical "scholar" is a Christian and most are not historians, they're theologians. Read some non-Christian stuff, get a full view. The article was not about Biblical scholars. Here is a quote where it is about "scholars of antiquity". I think you missed Tangle's meaning. I saw him saying something different, that when you say something like "most scholars" you really mean "most Christian scholars." The study of Christian history is strongly dominated by Christians, who are unsurprisingly very credulous of its claims. Non-Christian students of Christian history, whose numbers are far fewer, unsurprisingly arrive at different conclusions. I'm sorry you put yourself through the pain of reading Dawkins if it was The God Delusion. It's just a lengthy screed. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
The case for the prosecution. Exhibit 1.
quote: The Ruse Of Atheist New Testament ScholarsBY ROBERT CLIFTON ROBINSON on AUGUST 3, 2021 • 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
... and NT Wright really oughtn't be saying stuff like this if he wants any rational skeptic or real historian to take him seriously
quote:– N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996) 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: Tangle writes: That is quite likely true, however as I said earlier they did have short hand which could have possibly been used. Also of course it could have been written and kept with Jesus dictating it to Matthew after giving the sermon, or also quite possibly a compilation of more than one sermon. I did warn you, but I also gave you the summary, the crux being that the "speech" is a literary construct not an oral one. It's written not spoken. Or it could have been this or it could have been that or it could have been the other thing. You have no evidence by which to narrow the possibilities. And you continue to ignore the obvious possibility, that this is just what people promoting religions have done since time immemorial, make things up.
Tangle writes: I'm not sure what you are referring to here. That's the text but it's also out of its time, there are things referred to as history that hadn't yet happened - and it's not a prophecy. He might be referring to Jesus's prophecy of the destruction of the temple:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
As a person trained in historical research, archival science and a smattering of training in archaeology I think this is an amazing post. It is a great overview of what historical evidence is and isn't.
As for Dawkins, he needs to stay in his field. He no spokesperson for atheists and is a misogynist, racist ass. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I actually agree with the statement. Is my answer a case for the prosecution or the defense?
I would say that the statement is evidence of preconceived bias but nothing more. One would expect a believer to have a preconceived bias. This brings to mind the book I read in High School, Inherit The Wind.Brady was biased, pompous, and self-assured. Whether he was in fact a believer, he was mos def a "patriot". (Conservative) Drummond was a critical-thinking skeptic/atheist. I forget the details of the book without googling...it has been nearly fifty years since I read it. But the fictionalized Brady represented William Jennings Bryan and Henry Drummond represented Clarance Darrow. Add by edit:
Atheists In our own little Echo Chamber, Theodoric of the peanut gallery will likely charge Robinson with being no true scholar. The jury is still out on *that* one! Edited by Phat, . Edited by Phat, . 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: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Phat writes: I would say that the statement is evidence of preconceived bias but nothing more. It's almost like you didn't read it. It says that "A person without the Spirit of God is not capable of genuine scholarship concerning the New Testament." He's saying explicitly that only those that already believe fervently in the Jesus and the bible can study it in a scholarly fashion. The exact opposite of what scholarship is - independent analysis not tainted by bias and pre-conviction. Lucky he's absolutely dead wrong. What a dickhead.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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024