PHILOSOPHY IS KING

Nobody would believe that I accused you of contending the Earth was not round.In context, I said that you refused to recognize the evidence presented about recantation, then I compared this absurdity to be equivalent to denying the Earth is round.My point was and still is that despite evidence - evidence which is on the same level as evidence which proves the Earth round, my opponent clowned the debate. If you cannot even recognize an obvious point which was evidenced then in this context I challenged your honesty in general. To this day you rarely if ever recognize any evidence that contradicts scientific worldview. If I say iron is hard you will say it is not - it is less soft.You best symbolize the typical scientific worldview with their head in a tunnell. Isn't this how you all view the religious fundementalists ? Its the same business on the other side of the street. I don't think I am right - I know I am.

I only repeated your own words.The fact is of course that you did not produce any significant evidence. The fact is that you ignored the problems with your evidence. The fact is that you ignored relevant evidence - such as Tacitus' statement that the persecution under Nero was about the Great Fire for which the Christians were blamed.Lets face it, the apostles were obscure figures whose lives and deaths left little real evidence. We don't know really know how or even where most of them died, let alone the details of their deaths. The evidence for your claims isn;t there, it never was there and trying to pretend otherwise is just continuing the lie.

Hi Willowtree! So you're saying that the tradition itself counts as positive evidence.Does this mean that the tradition that the Prophet Muhammed ascended to heaven on a horse is also true, then?If not, can you provide evidence to the contrary?If you can't, then don't worry, this site has all the info you'll ever need about converting to Islam. (If you decide to become a twelver Shia, then you'll find that 11 of the 12 imams following the Prophet were all martyred. Historical tradition says so. The 12th imam is of course in occultation and will return, with Jesus, on the Day of Judgement).PE

---

404 Not Found

Hi P-Egg !P-Egg quote:
______________________________________________________________________
So you're saying that the tradition itself counts as positive evidence.
______________________________________________________________________I am saying the tradition counts as to what it is claiming UNLESS there is evidence to adequately refute and/or disbelieve it.We have, lets say, 9 or 10 traditions of the apostles/disciples deaths and the circumstances thereof.An objective researcher/historian concludes that these different traditions all originating from various sources could not be the product of some conspiracy, and the accounts all contain common denominators. The common denominators are also substantiated by the totality of the other evidence. On this basis the traditions can be rightly judged as true. Isn't it ironic that there does not exist one shred of evidence contradicting the traditions of the apostles/disciples deaths ?But if someones "a priori" worldview contains mechanisms to automatically disregard certain types of evidence then closed minded brainwashed dogma driven fundementalism cannot be penetrated. Egg, I am not speaking of you, they know who they are. The scientific worldview THINKS they are open minded and parade as such. Their minds are completely closed to any and all evidence that contradicts their worldview and its prejudices.Did the Prophet ascend on a horse to heaven ?Biblical truth, confirmed by the fact that the God of Abraham is God precludes this from being true. But this is not the point. The tradition must have corroborating/supporting evidence as does the apostles deaths do.

You say Yet earlier you say that no supporting evidence is needed since you don't consider there to be any evidence to the contrary. Which one is it, Willowtree, which one is it?I'm also a little bit fed up with you continually trying to denigrate thos who disagree with you by saying that they are closed-minded scientific types and wittering on about brainwashing. If you're so concerned about brainwashing, why don't you read some of your replies which deal at length with the heroic Dr Scott. What does that look like to you? You parrot his utterances as if they were dropping from the lips of God in front of you, when he's only giving you his opinion, and a pretty biased one at that.Yet again, you have attacked the person and not the point - a bad habit which you seem to be good at.

Trixie quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Yet earlier you say that no supporting evidence is needed since you don't consider there to be any evidence to the contrary. Which one is it, Willowtree, which one is it?
______________________________________________________________________You are misunderstanding my dear.Never did I say "no supporting evidence is needed", in fact, I said the exact opposite, that supporting evidence helps objectively determine IF the tradition should be believed.A tradition makes a claim - fine.If the claim has no contradicting evidence against it then guess what ? - the claim has nothing refuting it. That is a plus for the claim. THEN other evidence that supports the claim helps the claim in its believability. This makes sense. This is how historians approach traditions. What say you.......Trixie quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I'm also a little bit fed up with you continually trying to denigrate thos who disagree with you by saying that they are closed-minded scientific types and wittering on about brainwashing. If you're so concerned about brainwashing,
______________________________________________________________________For what it is worth this was not intended to include you. It is intended for anyone to whom the shoe fits.I just find it hard to overlook the fact that certain persons who I assume view themself as open minded are in fact as closed minded as a religious fundie.And for the record: In a previous topic I admitted I was brainwashed and I will reiterate it here again: I am brainwashed with the truth as revealed in the Bible, as explained by Dr. Scott.

quote:

---

If the claim has no contradicting evidence against it then guess what ? - the claim has nothing refuting it. That is a plus for the claim. THEN other evidence that supports the claim helps the claim in its believability.

---

I notice that you included EVIDENCE as part of the criteria. Evidence is much more important than the claim made by the tradition alone. For instance, if there was a tradition that UFO's came out of the skies and built the pyramids in Central America, would you swallow it whole? I would think not. The fact that you accept traditions that back your religious viewpoint while ignoring other traditions is a strike against you. Being open minded means accepting the traditions of other religions (such as Islam and Buddhism) as equal with your own religion. In my judgement, you don't hold other traditions as being equal, such as the enlightenment of Siddhara (Buddha). If a consistent claim is enough, do you believe in the enlightenment of Buddha.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 05-18-2004 05:33 PM

You conveniently disregard the fact that I apply the rules about traditions across the board.In my case, I have taken a position based upon the evidence. I do not ignore other traditions, but the issue is that there are no other traditions that contradict the traditions in question.You seem to be saying that there is no way to know which traditions are true and which are not. The way to find out is the same way you discover any truth - research and study.You seem to be angling to dismiss it all because there is no way to know.IF Jesus rose then this makes Him God because He predicted His death
and resurrection prior to His death, and this then validates everything else He said to be true (found in the Bible). In the gospels Jesus THOUGHT He was God. He forgave sins and raised the dead.
IF He resurrected then the Bible is the truth and anything that contradicts it is now verified as untrue. This is the philosophy and claims of christianity - do you understand ?This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 05-18-2004 06:33 PM

I feel compelled to bring up the invisible pink unicorns....

Hi WT!I know what you mean about a priori worldviews So here's the problem, as I see it: I don't believe for a moment that you believe that Muhammed ascended to heaven on a horse. Let me assure you that there are numerous traditions (hadith) that speak of this, and that the practice of finding reliable hadiths was actually turned into a science by early Islamic scholars, such was their concern about ensuring accuracy in what was reported.To date, I have never seen a single source refuting this claim.Now, there's no way that you'd believe that Muhammed went to heaven, which is why I deliberately chose that example, but it seems to fit your criteria that it is a claim that has never been refuted, and is therefore probably true.So what, for you, makes the case for the apostles' martyrdoms any different?If its the fact that there actually is some other proof, outside of the claim itself, then you should share it, so that it can be properly evaluated. You allude to Biblical truth, but then you say its not really the point, which is a shame, because I think there's a possibility you might be believing in the apostle's martyrdom because of your religion, and not because of any historical evidence. I mean, offhand, do you happen to know how much corroborating/supporting evidence there is for the Prophet's ascension, to evaluate the claim?PE

---

404 Not Found

Hi P-Egg ! (quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I don't believe for a moment that you believe that Muhammed ascended to heaven on a horse.
______________________________________________________________________Yes, this is true.Because Jesus came from God and He resurrected which makes the above belief/tradition not true.P-Egg quote:
______________________________________________________________________
To date, I have never seen a single source refuting this claim.
______________________________________________________________________Never have I BUT where is the mandatory supporting and corroborating evidence that is necessary to validate the claim ? OTOH, the apostles deaths/circumstances has much corroborating and supporting evidence, which according to how I have argued, gives a rational and evidenciary basis to believe the traditions.ALSO, the traditions of the apostles deaths/circumstances are 10 or 11 SEPARATE accounts, this makes the totality of the claim much more stronger, and of course this evidence is but a component/member of the entire body of evidence which when looked at in its entirety becomes most compelling.P-Egg quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Now, there's no way that you'd believe that Muhammed went to heaven, which is why I deliberately chose that example, but it seems to fit your criteria that it is a claim that has never been refuted, and is therefore probably true.
______________________________________________________________________It has and is refuted IF Jesus rose. The Bible, which the Church claims is the word of God/authored by God does not allow for the claims of Islam to be true.If a Muslim wants to lay out the evidence for their faith being true in place of christainity then please do so.P-Egg quote:
______________________________________________________________________
So what, for you, makes the case for the apostles' martyrdoms any different?
______________________________________________________________________The supporting and corroborating evidence - the totality of ALL the evidence viewed as one body.No I do not know the evidence that supports the claim of the Prophet's acension into heaven.It doesn't matter for me BECAUSE I know Jesus is God. This makes all other "competing" religions riddled with error. Besides, the Prophet never claimed to be Divine or the Son of God. The Prophet claimed to be the Prophet of the one and true God - Allah. Jesus OTOH, CLAIMED eternal pre-existence, forgave sins, and said "before Abraham was I was". He also CLAIMED Divinity. The claims are logically validated IF He did indeed rise from the dead as He predicted - thats the claim of christianity.

Is God the Father the God of Abraham and Isaac?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes.Where Islam and Christianity depart (basically) IS the claims of Jesus. Islam believes Jesus was also a prophet, but of course christianity claims Jesus is the Logos - the Divine Son Of God.
These are massive and irreconciable differences.

Which only proves that Muslims are not Christians. Nothing more.The GOD of Islam is the GOD of the Jews and the Christians.But there is another religion that does accept Jesus as GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Is post 107 in this thread to which this is a reply.There are plenty of others - such as my last reply to you in the Resurrection thread. I supposed embarassment at having been caught questioning something you yourself had said played a part in that one.