stupid skeptic trick*

[Sheepdog]

*(so i don't get accused of commiting an ad hominem, "stupid" is qualifying "trick," not "skeptic")

if we are going to into the semantic nitty gritty about "atheism" and "faith", then i think it is best to simply concede to the proponent's definition and move on from there (otherwise, we are merely going in circles about the parsley when we should be discussing the meat of the issue here). that said, i want to focus on the term faith, as used by Christians.

specifically, the stupid skeptic trick is in regards to defining faith as having belief in something blindly, without evidence. no Christian i am aware of ever defines faith like this.

to understand how we think of faith, perhaps an illustration is useful. A husband and wife just got married. they went into the marriage with good faith that neither of them will cheat on the other. the man trusts his wife, and vice versa.

is their faith blind? i say no, because if their faith is blind (without evidence), they either wouldn't have married (trust being essential to a relationship), or won't last long as a couple. to the contrary, some aspect of the wife's character has been evidence that she is trustworthy. perhaps, she never notices attractive guys as they walk by, or she is highly affectionate to her husband. perhaps he has never caught her in a lie.

you will notice that none of it is hard proof: a good lyer may cover up adultry, and one can fake a good character. but, does this mean their faith is groundless? absolutely not-- if all the evidence available to the man indicates that his wife is trustworthy, then it is highly reasonable for him to have faith in her.

the Christian** has this sort of faith in God. he/she has looked at whatever evidence was available to them, and based on that concluded that the Christian God is trustworthy. perhaps we are dilluded-- but skeptics and people of other religions haven't been capable of showing me such. hence i am left to conclude their criticisms are based not on a reasonable investigation, but on the theological chip(s) on their shoulders.

so in short, if you want to burn strawmen, skeptics, please use the definition of faith you have created. if you want to actually discuss the issue, then it is wise to understand the Christian faith from the perspective of the faithful Christian.

** (here i am defining "Christian" as a disciple of Jesus as He is portrayed in the Bible, and AFAIK they have the Holy Spirit. this is to distinguish them from pseudo-Christians, who think they are Christians because they went to church as a kid or because they say so.)

[jimbo]

Sheepdog,


if all the evidence available to the man indicates that his wife is trustworthy, then it is highly reasonable for him to have faith in her.

Yes of course. Bible skeptics obviously have found that all the available evidence indicates that the Bible is not trustworthy. That's the problem.

Larry

[Faramir]

Today @ 02:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76781#post76781)
jimbo:

Sheepdog,



Yes of course. Bible skeptics obviously have found that all the available evidence indicates that the Bible is not trustworthy. That's the problem.

Larry

:doh:

If bible skeptics say it is so, it must be true. Thank you for such a well reasoned and well thought out argument.

:huh:

But wait, theologeans and bible apologist have found that all of the availavle evidence indicates that the bible is trustworthy. That is the problem.

If you insist that only the evidence that agrees with you is worthy of consideration, then I guess you are the one who has blind faith.

[Sheepdog]

jimbo:
Yes of course. Bible skeptics obviously have found that all the available evidence indicates that the Bible is not trustworthy. That's the problem.
(emph. me)

oops! :doh: i was refering to what was available to the person (Christian) himself. in spinning it against me, you refered to "all available evidence" without such qualification, you just shifted all the burden of proof onto yourself. ok Jimbo, please go out and find all of the available evidence in existance, then come back and prove that this "all available evidence" is indeed against the Bible. see you in 2430 :hi:

also, the context was about the Christian definition of faith, so at any rate your belch about what Bible skeptics have found is a red herring (meaning it is irrelavent to this discussion)

[WinAce]

I'm sure Muslims have enough confirmation bias, wishful thinking, overactive imaginations, question-begging and special pleading to think their faith is justified as well.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 07:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76793#post76793)
Faramir:
But wait, theologeans and bible apologist have found that all of the availavle evidence indicates that the bible is trustworthy. That is the problem.

What, you mean people with a vested interest in believing it have found that they believe it? Wow!

Of course, the OT doesn't stand up to much scrutiny...

Paul

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 05:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76927#post76927)
WinAce:

I'm sure Muslims have enough confirmation bias, wishful thinking, overactive imaginations, question-begging and special pleading to think their faith is justified as well.

phew! that was one stinky red herring.

"I'm sure atheists have enough confirmation bias, wishful thinking, overactive imaginations, question-begging and special pleading to think their faith is justified as well. " :tongue:

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 06:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76954#post76954)
lordsnooty:

What, you mean people with a vested interest in believing it have found that they believe it? Wow!


wow! what a circumstantial ad hominem.
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html

quite a few fallacies commited by the skeptics posting to this thread. i am disappointed, i expect better from self-professed "free-thinkers."


Of course, the OT doesn't stand up to much scrutiny...

neither does evolutionary "theory" (heh, see how easy it is to make unsupported assertions?)

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 11:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76965#post76965)
Sheepdog:
wow! what a circumstantial ad hominem.
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html

quite a few fallacies commited by the skeptics posting to this thread. i am disappointed, i expect better from self-professed "free-thinkers."

I'm sorry that you misinterpret fact as an insult.

However, it is a known fact that if someone wants to believe something, they can find many ways of forcing the facts to fit in with their ideas.

So the fact that Christians believe that the bible is reliable says nothing about it's reliability.


neither does evolutionary "theory" (heh, see how easy it is to make unsupported assertions?)

Okay. Let me rephrase that. The OT doesn't stand up to much scrutiny - it talks about a global flood that we know for certain did not occur. It also posits an earth that is around 6000 years old, which is certainly untrue. All these 'assertions' are completely backed up by all available scientific and archaeological evidence. For these reasons (and many more), we know that the OT is unreliable.

Paul

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 06:52 PM
lordsnooty:

I'm sorry that you misinterpret fact as an insult.

actually, no. a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is not an insult, per se, but some irrelavent character trait is brought up to discredit the person's argument. in this case, a charge of "vested interest" itself doesn't invalidate Faramir's point (which, when it is read it in context, was not making a positive case, but merely countering Jimbo's bad logic). typically, the one making the charge that bias has directly influenced a person's case gets the burden of proof (otherwise, no argument is realiable, because everyone is biased in some way-- see below)


However, it is a known fact that if someone wants to believe something, they can find many ways of forcing the facts to fit in with their ideas....

the same can be said about skeptics, so... the point is, without going into details, stating such doesn't help either side.


Okay. Let me rephrase that. The OT doesn't stand up to much scrutiny - it talks about a global flood that we know for certain did not occur. It also posits an earth that is around 6000 years old, which is certainly untrue. All these 'assertions' are completely backed up by all available scientific and archaeological evidence. For these reasons (and many more), we know that the OT is unreliable.

or, the skeptics don't want to believe in the flood, so they force the facts to fit that belief... (seriously, to my knowledge, the evidence isn't conclusive either way-- i suppose i'll have to spend more time in the "science" section of TWeb someday).

regarding the 6000 figure, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the earth is 6K years old. that is interpreted into the text, by doing calculations from genealogies, and taking Gen. 1 literally. but of course, the text may be validly interpreted different ways (whether or not it is rightfully so, of course, is debatable). also, as AiG shows, some of the scientific evidence may be interpreted differently. i generally avoid the YEC/OEC debate altogether, simply because it is not important compared to other biblical claims, like the Res.

[The Laughing Man]

More "evidence" that the OT "isn't trustworthy" -

-1 Kings 7:23 says pi equals 3! :rofl:
-Proverbs 26:4 and 5 are contradictory in regards to answering a fool! :rofl:
-Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation stories! :rofl:

:bonk:

[WinAce]

Today @ 06:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76961#post76961)
Sheepdog:

phew! that was one stinky red herring.

"I'm sure atheists have enough confirmation bias, wishful thinking, overactive imaginations, question-begging and special pleading to think their faith is justified as well. " :tongue:

I suppose that's true if you're referring to atheists who are also Raelians.

[AtheistArchon]

is their faith blind? i say no, because if their faith is blind (without evidence), they either wouldn't have married (trust being essential to a relationship), or won't last long as a couple. to the contrary, some aspect of the wife's character has been evidence that she is trustworthy. perhaps, she never notices attractive guys as they walk by, or she is highly affectionate to her husband. perhaps he has never caught her in a lie.

- But this faith also is not absolutely correct. People cheat, for instance. Anyhow, faith in Christianity is not a question of trust, it's a question of believing in god and miracles... things which have no capacity for verification.

- If I'm loyal to my wife, then every day her faith is justified, and vice versa. That's trust. But in Christianity, having faith doesn't get you anything but warm fuzzies. Christians are no less prone to accidents, untimely death, bankruptcy, and any number of other bad things that a Christian shouldn't deserve if a deity were watching out for them. The only "payoff" seems to come after you're dead, and I'm sorry, but by then you can't really come back and complain if it turns out to be a myth.

- Faith in worldly things, like people, is easy. My wife exists! Faith in immaterial beings is quite a different story, because there is never any verification other than "I feel XYZ".


the Christian** has this sort of faith in God. he/she has looked at whatever evidence was available to them, and based on that concluded that the Christian God is trustworthy.

- Circular. You are using faith to determine that your faith is justified!


so in short, if you want to burn strawmen, skeptics, please use the definition of faith you have created. if you want to actually discuss the issue, then it is wise to understand the Christian faith from the perspective of the faithful Christian.

- I'm sorry, but this definition of faith is logically flawed. Perhaps you can clear it up for us strawman burning folks?

[Alien Dragon]

Yesterday @ 06:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76766#post76766)
Sheepdog:
A husband and wife just got married. they went into the marriage with good faith that neither of them will cheat on the other. the man trusts his wife, and vice versa.

Is their faith blind?
I agree their faith is not blind. After all, we all know some marriages work out.

Xianity however IS blind faith, because the xian god is not known to exist as a matter of fact. Also, many gods (such as zeus) even xians have no problem dismissing as myth.

SO- many gods are easy to dismiss, no gods have been shown to be fact: hence blind faith.

[Socrates]

Lord Snooty the non-scientist pontificates:The OT doesn't stand up to much scrutiny - it talks about a global flood that we know for certain did not occur.If you're so certain, then refute the articles at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp

LS: It also posits an earth that is around 6000 years old, which is certainly untrue. Then certainly refute the articles at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

[Socrates]

Alien Dragon :Xianity however IS blind faith, because the xian god is not known to exist as a matter of fact. Totally missing the point of the thread (what's new for misotheists?). The whole point was, Christians DO claim to have some evidence, so the faith is NOT blind because that would assume there is no evidence at all. Rather, it's the anti-Christians who dismiss the huge amount of evidence for the Resurrection of Christ because of a DOGMA against miracles.Also, many gods (such as zeus) even xians have no problem dismissing as myth.Indeed, since there is no evidence for Zeus, e.g. no one who knew him as opposed to writing things that even stated they occurred long in the past. Conversely, Jesus was written about by people who knew Him.SO- many gods are easy to dismiss, no gods have been shown to be fact: hence blind faith.Rather, it's the atheist who has blind faith, since he asserts a universal negative: "no god exists", which is impossible to prove even in principle.

[Warcraft3]

WinAce:


I'm sure Muslims have enough confirmation bias, wishful thinking, overactive imaginations, question-begging and special pleading to think their faith is justified as well.

While I find many of your posts to be well thought out and very humorous, others are simply statements of opinion which contribute nothing to discussion.
I have many atheist friends who are quite intelligent and we frequently discuss issues related to religion. I assure you my beliefs are not simply based on such subjective and silly things as you list in the above statement. I have seen supernatural things with my own eyes---things I have tried to explain away, but can not. I am no idiot, as the many people I tutored in college would tell you, and I find it insulting you have to resort to such claims. I do not tell you why you dont believe in God and I also dont make such sweeping generalizations.
I ask that you do the same.

Russ

:rockon:

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
Conversely, Jesus was written about by people who knew Him.

[comment]
Actually, no!

Paul did not know Christ. The gospels were written about 60 years after Christ by other than the name they carry.. The are NO eyewitness writings in the bible.

[jpholding]

Today @ 07:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77724#post77724)
Bob Jenkins:

The gospels were written about 60 years after Christ by other than the name they carry.. The are NO eyewitness writings in the bible.

Want to debate me one on one on that, Bob? :cheers:

It so happens I have an open challenge for that subject for May. Someone already took Matthew, but you can pick Mark, Luke or John...

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 02:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77731#post77731)
jpholding:



Want to debate me one on one on that, Bob? :cheers:

It so happens I have an open challenge for that subject for May. Someone already took Matthew, but you can pick Mark, Luke or John...


Wow who didnt see that one coming a mile away?

Bob Jenkins: Im not sure how familiar you are with holding, but he has done a good job debating this point. If you plan on debating him you better do your homework.

Holding: Ive been reading your stuff for a while now and I can honestly say I do think you do a good job usually. Obviously since I am an OEC of the Hugh Ross variety I dont agree with you on everything, but I think some of your stuff is quite good.


Russ
:em7:

[jpholding]

Thank you Russ :bow:!

[WinAce]

Today @ 01:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77662#post77662)
steadele:

While I find many of your posts to be well thought out and very humorous, others are simply statements of opinion which contribute nothing to discussion.

I know. I guess I go by the "one stupid post deserves another" system ;)


I assure you my beliefs are not simply based on such subjective and silly things as you list in the above statement.

Without knowing what they are based on, you'll have to forgive me for not mentioning yours specifically as justified in lieu of others.


I have seen supernatural things with my own eyes---things I have tried to explain away, but can not. I am no idiot, as the many people I tutored in college would tell you, and I find it insulting you have to resort to such claims.

I've seen people misinterpret the most mundane things as evidence for the paranormal. Around here in Queens, NY, it's generally ghost stories and superstitious crap like witchery in lieu of standard religions, though. People havve a hinge that squeaks when it's pushed too hard, so they of course push it when they're nervous and, in their state of mind, think ghosts are haunting them.


I do not tell you why you dont believe in God and I also dont make such sweeping generalizations.
I ask that you do the same.

OK. I wasn't really making a generalization per se, just commenting on an individual post.

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
The gospels were written about 60 years after Christ by other than the name they carry.. The are NO eyewitness writings in the bible. ”



Want to debate me one on one on that, Bob?

It so happens I have an open challenge for that subject for May. Someone already took Matthew, but you can pick Mark, Luke or John...

[comment]
I will respectfully decline your offer as I have neither the time, expertise, or scholarship to effectively debate.. However, I will hold to my views unless you would like to generously dissuade me of (from?) them (privately, if you like or publically for re-edification of the gathering).

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 11:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77203#post77203)
WinAce:

I suppose that's true if you're referring to atheists who are also Raelians.

face it, man. atheists also make such mistakes. not all of them, all the time, i mean-- but nevertheless i have seen a many fallacies getting shot off from that side of the fence.

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 12:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77236#post77236)
AtheistArchon:

- But this faith also is not absolutely correct. People cheat, for instance.

:no: we are quite aware of that. if i knew for sure someone wasn't going to cheat, it is no longer faith, but knowledge. nevertheless, if there is good reason to believe one is being faithful, despite the fact you can't watch over them 24/7, is it not reasonable to have faith?


Anyhow, faith in Christianity is not a question of trust, it's a question of believing in god and miracles... things which have no capacity for verification.


and you need to rework your understanding of Christianity. you can believe that God exists, and that miracles occur, yet have no practical relationship with God or trust in Him.

with regards to having no capacity of verification, how so? meaning, "i don't want to believe, so i'll dismiss all the evidence you silly Christians can produce"? since it is a mere unsupported assertion, i'll move on.


- If I'm loyal to my wife, then every day her faith is justified, and vice versa. That's trust. But in Christianity, having faith doesn't get you anything but warm fuzzies.

:rofl:

says the atheist looking into Christianity, to the Christian. at least i am not as presumptuous about what atheism gives you (feet firmly planted on quicksand might make an amusing characterization)


Christians are no less prone to accidents, untimely death, bankruptcy, and any number of other bad things that a Christian shouldn't deserve if a deity were watching out for them.

hmm. i assume you looked at the statistics? not that it matters, since in reality, it matters little what happens to you, but what you do with what you are given. the "faithful" atheist hits bankruptcy, and says. "its hopeless!". the faithful Christian hits bankruptcy, and says, "we will get through this somehow."


The only "payoff" seems to come after you're dead, and I'm sorry, but by then you can't really come back and complain if it turns out to be a myth.

again, says the outsider looking in. these corn chips are good, too bad you dont' have some.


- Faith in worldly things, like people, is easy. My wife exists! Faith in immaterial beings is quite a different story, because there is never any verification other than "I feel XYZ".

funny. i'd say there is plenty of verification (probably not the same type you are expecting though). but, to you it is all warm fuzzy feelings. hey, AA, all your faith in your wife is based on "i feel XYZ." :whack:



the Christian** has this sort of faith in God. he/she has looked at whatever evidence was available to them, and based on that concluded that the Christian God is trustworthy.
- Circular. You are using faith to determine that your faith is justified!

what!? we are using faith to determine that our faith is justified. how that follows from the above, i can only conjecture. i think Archon has been getting into grandpa's cough medicine. how many bunnies do you see? :bunny: :bunny:

(in case it is what i conjecture, let me say this: the existance of God is included in whether or not He is trustworthy, since we both would agree that a non-existant deity is not trustworthy).


- I'm sorry, but this definition of faith is logically flawed. Perhaps you can clear it up for us strawman burning folks?

since you haven't shown any circular reasoning, or really anything, i don't know what else to say.

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 01:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77256#post77256)
Alien Dragon:

I agree their faith is not blind. After all, we all know some marriages work out.

Xianity however IS blind faith, because the xian god is not known to exist as a matter of fact.

wow, i haven't seen the "Xian" shorthand in a long time. good old fundamentalist atheism. :shrug:

sigh. yes God isn't known to exist. however, it imay be rational to believe he does based on available evidence. but of course, someone who uses the xian shorthand is surely too narrowminded to know that evidentiated faith is a long step from "blind faith." do you know that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago with your memory intact? or, that you aren't a brain in a vat that is wired to a computer that is simulating sensory information? nope, that is blind faith, according to your skeptic-in-a-box reasoning.


Also, many gods (such as zeus) even xians have no problem dismissing as myth.

since you likely haven't done and social-historical study of belief in YHWH vs belief in Zues, you aparantly fail to see how you commit the weak analogy fallacy.


SO- many gods are easy to dismiss, no gods have been shown to be fact: hence blind faith.

thus saith the skeptocentric. you need to rephrase your statement to "no gods have been shown to be fact to me," since the world obviously doesn't revolve around you.

[Joseph Alward]

BOB JENKINS
There are NO eyewitness writings in the Bible.

JOE ALWARD
I think there is good evidence that the Matthew in the following verse was not the Matthew who wrote the Gospel:

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. (Matthew 9:9)

Does this sound like something the apostle Matthew would write about himself? Speaking of himself in the royal third person? Jesus never spoke of himself this way, so it is hard to imagine that Matthew would be so presumptuous as to do so.

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 03:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77745#post77745)
WinAce:

I've seen people misinterpret the most mundane things as evidence for the paranormal. Around here in Queens, NY, it's generally ghost stories and superstitious crap like witchery in lieu of standard religions, though. People havve a hinge that squeaks when it's pushed too hard, so they of course push it when they're nervous and, in their state of mind, think ghosts are haunting them.

... ah, and Christian claims to miracles must surely fall into this category! good to see skeptocentrism hard at work :poke: (while, i'd agree that in most cases, your assessment of ghost stories is probably accurate. still, without actually investigating the cases in detail...)

[The Laughing Man]

Yesterday @ 10:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78096#post78096)
Bob Jenkins:

The gospels were written about 60 years after Christ by other than the name they carry.. The are NO eyewitness writings in the bible.

...

I will respectfully decline your offer as I have neither the time, expertise, or scholarship to effectively debate.. However, I will hold to my views unless you would like to generously dissuade me of (from?) them (privately, if you like or publically for re-edification of the gathering).

Bob doesn't have the expertise or scholarship to debate, but he apparently does have the expertise and scholarship to unequivocally assert three major allegations:

1) The gospels were written 60 years after Christ,
2) they were written by people other than whom they are named after, and
3) the Bible contains absolutely no eyewitness writings.

Does this seem daft to anyone else, or is it just me?

[Sher]

Today @ 01:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78145#post78145)
Joseph Alward:

Does this sound like something the apostle Matthew would write about himself? Speaking of himself in the royal third person? Jesus never spoke of himself this way, so it is hard to imagine that Matthew would be so presumptuous as to do so.

Matt 25:12-13 "But he [Jesus] answered and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you. Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."

Mark 14:21 [Jesus said,] "The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born."

Got third person quotes? :teeth: (Need some more, Joe?)

[Socrates]

WinAce:I've seen people misinterpret the most mundane things as evidence for the paranormal. Around here in Queens, NY, it's generally ghost stories and superstitious crap like witchery in lieu of standard religions, though. People havve a hinge that squeaks when it's pushed too hard, so they of course push it when they're nervous and, in their state of mind, think ghosts are haunting them. Even a Skeptical source had to grudgingly admit that Biblical Christianity was a great antidote to superstition --- see www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1335.asp

[jpholding]

Today @ 04:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78096#post78096)
Bob Jenkins:

[comment]
I will respectfully decline your offer as I have neither the time, expertise, or scholarship to effectively debate.. However, I will hold to my views unless you would like to generously dissuade me of (from?) them (privately, if you like or publically for re-edification of the gathering).

I have a deep respect for any person who acknowledges this.

I have written on this issue at

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

if you are interested.

[jpholding]

Today @ 06:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78145#post78145)
Joseph Alward:

BOB JENKINS
There are NO eyewitness writings in the Bible.

JOE ALWARD
I think there is good evidence that the Matthew in the following verse was not the Matthew who wrote the Gospel:

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. (Matthew 9:9)

Does this sound like something the apostle Matthew would write about himself? Speaking of himself in the royal third person? Jesus never spoke of himself this way, so it is hard to imagine that Matthew would be so presumptuous as to do so.

Doc,

In addition to what SherBrea said, I'm pretty sure Josephus wrote of himself in the third person in some of his work. I don't think it was considered presumptuous as much as it was reckoned a literary device.

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
Bob doesn't have the expertise or scholarship to debate, but he apparently does have the expertise and scholarship to unequivocally assert three major allegations:

1) The gospels were written 60 years after Christ,
2) they were written by people other than whom they are named after, and
3) the Bible contains absolutely no eyewitness writings.

Does this seem daft to anyone else, or is it just me?

[comment]
No contradiction here! Debate is a formalized art quite apart from knowledge. I have knowledge and will acquire more.

However, you post does nothing to increasre my knowlege nor does your tactic of personal attack prortray an example of behavioir for "loving" Christians. The question is - would Christ have slammed the speaker or educated him...

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
I have written on this issue at

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

if you are interested.

[comment]
I have casually (not critically) read your reference and I, in turn, offer my respect for your scholarship.

I will promise a more critical reading at a later time with the view that what I read must be "inwardly digested" ( a life quote from my first pastor} and thus balanced against my current conclusions

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 02:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78672#post78672)
Bob Jenkins:

No contradiction here!

Isn't there?


Debate is a formalized art quite apart from knowledge.

People aren't born to debate, Bob. People learn (i.e. acquire knowledge) to debate. But what is really needed to debate? Just knowledge of a particular subject, really. One doesn't necessarily need to take a special course on debating (though it can help) to participate in one.


I have knowledge and will acquire more.

Then you are qualified to debate.


However, you post does nothing to increasre my knowlege

Not even knowledge of yourself? Of course, you were the one to decline a debate in which you could have learned much. Oh, well...


nor does your tactic of personal attack

It wasn't a personal attack. I was pointing out that it was odd that you would display knowledge, scholarship and expertise by unequivocally asserting the 3 major points I listed, yet balk when someone asks you to debate (i.e. back up your assertions and respond to counterpoints) them. Are you unsure if your assertions are true? Do you not have facts to back them up?


prortray an example of behavioir for "loving" Christians.

And you accuse me of personal attacks?


The question is - would Christ have slammed the speaker or educated him...

Christ did both, really. It depended on who he was talking to. If it was his followers ,who were eager to learn, he educated them. If it was his detractors, who were eager to baselessly discredit him, he would "slam" them.

So... You discredited Christ and Christians, but refused a request to put forth your knowledge behind your assertions. How do you think Christ would have responded?

[AtheistArchon]

with regards to having no capacity of verification, how so? meaning, "i don't want to believe, so i'll dismiss all the evidence you silly Christians can produce"? since it is a mere unsupported assertion, i'll move on.

- Ehh, there's evidence for god? That would be a breakthrough. :smile: Is any of it empirical in nature?


the "faithful" atheist hits bankruptcy, and says. "its hopeless!". the faithful Christian hits bankruptcy, and says, "we will get through this somehow."

- Hardly. :smile: The atheist goes out and gets another job, rather than praying for magic money to fall from the sky "somehow" like manna, or relying upon charity.


again, says the outsider looking in. these corn chips are good, too bad you dont' have some.

- If you have anything objective to show for your belief system, feel free to offer it. Otherwise, it is as subjective and completely within your own mind as the taste of those corn chips.


what!? we are using faith to determine that our faith is justified. how that follows from the above, i can only conjecture.

- Yes. Let me draw what you said out a little.

A. Does god exist?
C. Yes, I have faith that he does.
A. How is that faith justified?
C. Because god is trustworthy.
A. How do you know he is trustworthy?
C. Because I have faith that he is.
A. And how is that faith justified?

- You are using faith to justify more faith. You don't know god is trustworthy, you simply have faith that the description you've been given is correct, and therefore, since you like the description, you feel it's okay to have faith that it's true.

- ERGO: It's what I really, really want to believe in, therefore faith is enough for me. (But it's not enough to tell us anything we can ever verify, like the color of my living room.)

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]
People aren't born to debate, Bob. //cut//

[comment]
I disagree. People are born with an aptitude to debate which IS an art as much as acting, signing, painting, etc.

I have knowledge of music but can not carry nor play a tune. I can memorize lines of a play but can not act. My only artistic acheivement is knowing color and composition but I am only a mediocre photographer and a terrible artist otherwise.

[quote]
“ nor does your tactic of personal attack ”

It wasn't a personal attack. I was pointing out that it was odd that you would display knowledge, scholarship and expertise by unequivocally asserting the 3 major points I listed, yet balk when someone asks you to debate (i.e. back up your assertions and respond to counterpoints) them.

[comment]
The word you used was "daft" and your tone was sarcastic throughout.

You seem to have a meager understanding of "debate".

[quote]
And you accuse me of personal attacks?

[comment]
Then be forewarned - I will reply in the manner of how I am addressed..or characterized..


[quote]
Christ did both, really. It depended on who he was talking to. If it was his followers ,who were eager to learn, he educated them. If it was his detractors, who were eager to baselessly discredit him, he would "slam" them.

[comment]
He educated followers - isn't, in this case, education and following a "chicken and egg thing" How did they get to be followers until after they had some education?

I know of no slamming Jesus did of his detracors. Do you have such knowledge of who he slammed and what he said? Did you mean the money-changers? - they were hardly detractors -just defoulers of the house. Then Jesus was quite physical in his slamming - so peculiar for a "loving" Christian god-head.

[jpholding]

Bob J,



I know of no slamming Jesus did of his detracors. Do you have such knowledge of who he slammed and what he said? Did you mean the money-changers? - they were hardly detractors -just defoulers of the house. Then Jesus was quite physical in his slamming - so peculiar for a "loving" Christian god-head.

The Pharisees and the Saducees were both targets of slamming. If you are interested in the socio-cultural background see

http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html

[Bob Jenkins]

jpholding,

[quote]
“
I know of no slamming Jesus did of his detracors. Do you have such knowledge of who he slammed and what he said? Did you mean the money-changers? - they were hardly detractors -just defoulers of the house. Then Jesus was quite physical in his slamming - so peculiar for a "loving" Christian god-head. ”



The Pharisees and the Saducees were both targets of slamming. If you are interested in the socio-cultural background see

http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html

[comment]
I thank you for your reference.. However, I have an understanding of the political climate but wished to see a specific slam made by Jesus. I am not aware that Jesus spoke of or to those Pharisees and Saducees only that he appeared before them.

[Nikolai]

04-24-2003 @ 10:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77373#post77373)
Socrates:

Rather, it's the atheist who has blind faith, since he asserts a universal negative: "no god exists", which is impossible to prove even in principle.

Oh thank you for defining atheist for me. I could have sworn there were two types: weak and strong. The strong state that they believe god does not exist while the weak, being the vast majority, state they do not believe a god exist. The second leaves room for further evidence, though with great claims comes a great burden of proof. So before you post strawmen, please educate yourself in the actual definitions.
:cool:

[jpholding]

Bob Jenkins,

The article notes one slam, but there are others; for example, there are extended discourses where they are particularly called whitewashed tombs, vipers, etc. Do you wish for references?

[Sheepdog]

Matt. 23?

i happen to know it because that is one of my favorite verbal-smack-down's

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 12:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79184#post79184)
AtheistArchon:

- Ehh, there's evidence for god? That would be a breakthrough. :smile: Is any of it empirical in nature?

depends on what you mean by empirical. do you mean:
(1) established by the scientific method
(2) first-hand experience, and/or sensory evidence?

if (1), please note you wouldn't use the scientific method to prove that President Bush exists, or that Julius Caesar existed at one time.

if (2), i'd say yes, but either you haven't experienced it, or you did but you dismissed it because of your loaded presumptions. remember, the world doesn't revolve around the nontheist, and that not everyone sees the same evidence.

[edited to add:] i suppose, then, you''d now expect such evidence. however, IMO, it is off topic in ths thread, and besides that is what this whole forum is for. there are other threads open now on the topic of particular issues, and hopefully more will come up.


- Hardly. :smile: The atheist goes out and gets another job, rather than praying for magic money to fall from the sky "somehow" like manna, or relying upon charity.

thanks for the really bad characterization. (though, i guess i may have deserved it for my past comment on what the atheist does). you may not realize this, but no Christian, except maybe in the Prosperity offshoot, would pray for money to fall from the sky. ideally, the Christian would (or, should?) have a hope that, no matter how bad it gets, everything will be alright (which, from my perspective, i don't see the nontheist having). furthermore, such a Christian also would go out to the job market without despair, and leave behind worries; for we are commanded to work (Bible ref. available upon request).


- If you have anything objective to show for your belief system, feel free to offer it. Otherwise, it is as subjective and completely within your own mind as the taste of those corn chips.

in other words, "if i don't see anything objective, then by golly, it is all subjective." as if there isn't relavent knowledge out there that you don't know. (even so, i am not sure that subjective evidence is useless. i.e. it is entirely subjective evidence you base your belief on that reality is real and you aren't really a brain in a vat hardwired to a reality-simulating CPU).


- Yes. Let me draw what you said out a little.

A. Does god exist?
C. Yes, I have faith that he does.
A. How is that faith justified?
C. Because god is trustworthy.
A. How do you know he is trustworthy?
C. Because I have faith that he is.
A. And how is that faith justified?

- You are using faith to justify more faith. You don't know god is trustworthy, you simply have faith that the description you've been given is correct, and therefore, since you like the description, you feel it's okay to have faith that it's true.

hmmkay, we are equivocating a bit. err, you are, i mean. (could be my fault-- i may not have defined my terms too well...) in the first bit you are confusing belief with faith, and they are not the same. "i have faith that something exists" is a meaningless statement, since faith refers more to trust than belief. do you have "faith" that the chair you are sitting on exists? you probably believe it exists (justifiably, we may add). but i, from a Christian epistemology, am more concerned about whether you have faith that the chair will support your weight.


- ERGO: It's what I really, really want to believe in, therefore faith is enough for me. (But it's not enough to tell us anything we can ever verify, like the color of my living room.)

again, there is some confusion about faith. faith is a relationshipal term, whereas belief deals more with validity of a concept. one can believe in the Christian God, yet have no interest what-so-ever in spending eternity with Him.

i mean, think about it, do Satanists believe in God? do they have faith in Him?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 06:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80094#post80094)
Sheepdog:
i mean, think about it, do Satanists believe in God? do they have faith in Him?

Satanists don't really exist. People claiming to be satanists are either a) not serious (as with the Church of Satan et al) or mentally derranged loners.

Paul

[jpholding]

Snoots,

Do Satanists think the same of people like you? :brow:

[Bob Jenkins]

jpholding,
[quote from jpholding]
The Pharisees and the Saducees were both targets of slamming. If you are interested in the socio-cultural background see

http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html

[quote from jpholding]
The article notes one slam, but there are others; for example, there are extended discourses where they are particularly called whitewashed tombs, vipers, etc. Do you wish for references?

[comment]
Having gone to the reference, I guess we have a problem with the meaning of a "slam". To me, the reference leads one to a biblical passage where Jesus rebukes rather than slams.. Slam is derisive; rebuke is not. If your further examples are not rebukes, I would certainly welcome them - but do me the courtesy of providing the example and not just a reference.

[quote from the reference]
The art of insult was highly valued in antiquity. Our modern "victim culture" encourages persons to find the art offensive,

[comment]
an example of slam. It implies there is something wrong about concern for those who become victims. We know that verbal abuse can be as devestating to the victim as physical abuse and those that promote and practise verbal abuse are as culpable as physical abusers.

Would you say, given your edorsement of/by reference, that the victims families should have no compensation for 9/11? or that victim's families should not have a chance to speak at trial or parole hearings?

[further comment]
I stand by my challenge to have a biblical cite for a "Jesus slam" one in the same vein as being charachterized as "daft"

[KingDavid8]

04-24-2003 @ 04:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77200#post77200)
Jinx72:

More "evidence" that the OT "isn't trustworthy" -

Haven't seen anyone respond to these yet...



-1 Kings 7:23 says pi equals 3! :rofl:


No, it doesn't. It is incredibly rare for the circumference of a circle to be exactly pi times the radius. In fact, this would be true only of PERFECT circles, which exist only in theory. Even a computer-generated circle wouldn't have a circumference which is exactly pi times the radius (since pi is an infinite number). In actuality, and especially when talking about man-made circles like the one being described here, the circumference will be only APPROXIMATELY pi times the radius. Since three is approximately pi, there is no mistake here. This is one of those "mistakes" that even a small amount of critical thinking will easily explain.



-Proverbs 26:4 and 5 are contradictory in regards to answering a fool! :rofl:


Yeah, just like Dickens was contradictory when he wrote "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" at the beginning of "A Tale Of Two Cities". Guess what? It was done that way on PURPOSE! The author was pointing out the catch-22 in responding to the arguments of fools. If you answer them, you justify foolish arguments. If you don't answer them, they think they're wiser than you. Again, a little critical thinking does come in handy.



-Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation stories! :rofl:


Funny that this book's been around for thousands of years and no one but some of the non-believers have thought they were two different creation stories. Do you really think the Hebrews and Christians have been reading this book for all these years, and never noticed they were different? You don't suppose the skeptics are misinterpreting the books, do you?

David

[AtheistArchon]

- KingDavid, I think Jinx was being sarcastic. :smile: He doesn't believe those examples he gave, he's saying that they aren't valid criticisms of the bible.


depends on what you mean by empirical. do you mean:
(1) established by the scientific method
(2) first-hand experience, and/or sensory evidence?


- The latter, yes.


if (2), i'd say yes, but either you haven't experienced it, or you did but you dismissed it because of your loaded presumptions.

- But remember I said empirical evidence, not pure empiricism. Experiencing god personally is not the same thing as having empirical evidence of god. And yes, you're right about me not having experienced any gods, but I don't see how I'm at fault for having "loaded presumptions". Nobody begins by believing, not even you. You were convinced, all I ask is the same thing.


in other words, "if i don't see anything objective, then by golly, it is all subjective." as if there isn't relavent knowledge out there that you don't know. (even so, i am not sure that subjective evidence is useless. i.e. it is entirely subjective evidence you base your belief on that reality is real and you aren't really a brain in a vat hardwired to a reality-simulating CPU).

- No, I didn't say that, but if you are claiming that such evidence is objective, then you should be able to provide it.


hmmkay, we are equivocating a bit. err, you are, i mean. (could be my fault-- i may not have defined my terms too well...) in the first bit you are confusing belief with faith, and they are not the same. "i have faith that something exists" is a meaningless statement, since faith refers more to trust than belief.

- Now wait. There just isn't any empirical evidence of any deities. Their existence MUST be taken on faith. Faith != trust.


do you have "faith" that the chair you are sitting on exists? you probably believe it exists (justifiably, we may add).

- Exactly... the chair exists, and I do not believe that it does via faith, I believe it because I can measure it. Gods are immeasurable. Faith is necessary.


but i, from a Christian epistemology, am more concerned about whether you have faith that the chair will support your weight.

- I wrote an essay on exactly this subject, in fact. :smile: Yes, I do have faith that the chair will support me, but I also do not claim that it absolutely positively WILL support me. I could fall! I do however have ample empirical experience sitting in chairs, and I can visually tell which ones look shabby enough to drop me onto my butt.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80319#post80319)
AtheistArchon:

- KingDavid, I think Jinx was being sarcastic. :smile: He doesn't believe those examples he gave, he's saying that they aren't valid criticisms of the bible.



Sorry, I'm a newbie. Looking back at the post, yeah, I can see he was being sarcastic. All apologies, Jinx.

David

[Nowhere357]

04-24-2003 @ 10:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77373#post77373)
Socrates:

Alien Dragon :Xianity however IS blind faith, because the xian god is not known to exist as a matter of fact. Totally missing the point of the thread (what's new for misotheists?). The whole point was, Christians DO claim to have some evidence, so the faith is NOT blind because that would assume there is no evidence at all. Rather, it's the anti-Christians who dismiss the huge amount of evidence for the Resurrection of Christ because of a DOGMA against miracles

One person's evidence is another persons mythology.

There is no evidence for the resurrection of christ, other than the bible. Which of course is chock full of contradictions, errors, inconsistencies, myth, legend, dogma, and superstition. SO any claim based on the bible requires further validation.


Conversely, Jesus was written about by people who knew Him.

Offer support please. I am under the impression that all writings about jesus occured long after his death.

At any rate, validation is needed to claim any supernatural reality to jesus. The bible just don't cut it.


Rather, it's the atheist who has blind faith, since he asserts a universal negative: "no god exists", which is impossible to prove even in principle.

False statement. For example, I am an atheist, yet I do not claim "no god exists". Socrates, you claim that requiring evidence is "dogma" and you claim lack of belief in god is "blind faith". I suggest you would benefit from a study period with a dictionary.

[Nowhere357]

04-25-2003 @ 05:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78139#post78139)
Sheepdog:

wow, i haven't seen the "Xian" shorthand in a long time. good old fundamentalist atheism. :shrug:


You are good at jumping to conclusions. You also are completely wrong. i am not a fundamentalist atheist.


sigh. yes God isn't known to exist. however, it imay be rational to believe he does based on available evidence. but of course, someone who uses the xian shorthand is surely too narrowminded to know that evidentiated faith is a long step from "blind faith."

The more you toss invective, the more your position is seen as weak.


do you know that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago with your memory intact? or, that you aren't a brain in a vat that is wired to a computer that is simulating sensory information? nope, that is blind faith, according to your skeptic-in-a-box reasoning.


A couple of interesting points, nullified by additional invective. It is indeed in the nature of freethought to disturb those with narrow and inconsistent world-views.


since you likely haven't done and social-historical study of belief in YHWH vs belief in Zues, you aparantly fail to see how you commit the weak analogy fallacy.


Or maybe you have no defense against the analogy.


thus saith the skeptocentric. you need to rephrase your statement to "no gods have been shown to be fact to me," since the world obviously doesn't revolve around you.


Despite the further invective, you have two points here I'll address.

First, "no gods...to me" is fair. There is only one type of evidence for the existence of god which carries any weight, and that is the existence of personal experience. If someone has had direct experience of god, only their interpretation of the event can be logically questioned.

Second, the world DOES revolve around me - to me! That is the nature of life. To have a subjective mental awareness is of necessity self-centered. It requires logic, reasoning, and empathy to expand one's view.

[Nowhere357]

Yesterday @ 08:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80186#post80186)
KingDavid8:

(since pi is an infinite number).


A never-ending decimal does not imply "infinite number". Consider 1/3 for example. BTW your answer seems to avoid the point - pi is NOT 3, and no amount of fussing will change that.


Funny that this book's been around for thousands of years and no one but some of the non-believers have thought they were two different creation stories. Do you really think the Hebrews and Christians have been reading this book for all these years, and never noticed they were different? You don't suppose the skeptics are misinterpreting the books, do you?


What I find funny is that the bible is so poorly written, especially for a "divinely inspired" text, that interpretation is REQUIRED, and even those who believe it's "truth" can't agree on what it means! So many xian sects!

Apply just a little critical thinking to the bible, and one learns it's myth, legend, superstition, dogma, and full of errors, fallacies, inconsistencies, and contradictions.

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 06:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80319#post80319)
AtheistArchon:

- But remember I said empirical evidence, not pure empiricism. Experiencing god personally is not the same thing as having empirical evidence of god. And yes, you're right about me not having experienced any gods, but I don't see how I'm at fault for having "loaded presumptions". Nobody begins by believing, not even you. You were convinced, all I ask is the same thing.

hmm. perhaps we have different understandings of personal experience. depending on the nature of a given event, it may be personal, yet have empirical aspects to it as well. then again, we may be working from different definitions of "empirical." from the definitions i got from dictionary.com, it seems to carry a connotation of observation and experience, along with experimentation-- one can observe and experience a real miracle, yet not really experiment with it (i am wondering if you are coming from the experimental connotation, or from a naturalist slant).

by the way, what i described was either/or. given a person is a nontheist skeptic, either (1) he* has experienced no evidence of God, or (2) he has, but dismissed it due to bias. after some thought, i'll add a 3rd: he hasn't experienced such evidence, but due to his prideor heavy bias God doesn't produce such evidence. you may be (2) or (3), but you might be (1) as well, so i won't judge you.

as far as being at fault for loaded presumptions, i personally dont think you are, but some skeptics certainly are. i suppose having a heavy bias itself isn't wrong (i'll admit that i had some bias going into Christianity), but more importantly, would you form you presuppositions to fit the evidence, or force-fit the evidence to your presuppositions?


- No, I didn't say that, but if you are claiming that such evidence is objective, then you should be able to provide it.

i have produced such in debates, and it has been unjustifiably dismissed by nontheists time and time again. these days i don't bother-- why load evidence upon evidence on skeptics who a vast majority (based on observation) have their heads in the sands? these days i focus more on trying to convince skeptics to take their heads out of the sand. then, maybe we can go over the evidence.

besides, shall i sink many hours of my much needed time in research and debate, trying to please nontheists, when most of the legwork has already been done by others? i challenge all of you self-professed free-thinkers, go out and buy a book or two, look at what cases Christians have already presented! William Lane Craig, Gary R. Hbermas, Norman Geisler, C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantiga, etc. (i'll add Josh McDowell, although he isn't the greatest, he does bring to the table a few hard arguments and evidences to respond to). have your browsed much of Holding's site yet? look at some of the books he recommends.


- Now wait. There just isn't any empirical evidence of any deities. Their existence MUST be taken on faith. Faith != trust.

sigh. you won't budge an inch on this, will you? just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean there is none. that is the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. i have been trying, unsuccessfully, to make you aware of the fact that you, personally, are not the sole determinator of truth (since you are one of the kinder skeptics here, i won't label you a skeptocentric. however, you are doing a good job of fitting the profile of such)


- Exactly... the chair exists, and I do not believe that it does via faith, I believe it because I can measure it. Gods are immeasurable. Faith is necessary.

i think we have a bad categorization: mearuarability is not identical to reality. for instance, we can measure the length of the equator around the world, yet the equator doesn't really exist: it is an imaginary circle. likewise, given there is a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, we cannot not measure anything about that planet, since we currenlty have no information on such a planet. electrons exist, yet you cannot measure their position and momentum at the same time.


- I wrote an essay on exactly this subject, in fact. :smile: Yes, I do have faith that the chair will support me, but I also do not claim that it absolutely positively WILL support me. I could fall! I do however have ample empirical experience sitting in chairs, and I can visually tell which ones look shabby enough to drop me onto my butt.

:smile:

hmm. i seriously think the objective, or empirical or whatever, side of this discussion has more to do with entry belief than actual faith (as defined by Christianity). so, i wonder if we are merely arguing past each other :-/

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 12:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80971#post80971)
Nowhere357:

You are good at jumping to conclusions. You also are completely wrong. i am not a fundamentalist atheist.

my conclusion is based on valid observation. so, if i am wrong, you get to show su why that is so.


The more you toss invective, the more your position is seen as weak.

actually, it is riposte and challenge. it is a debate tactic that makes things a lot more interesting.

by the way, you commited the fallacist fallacy-- the truth of my position has no bearing on how i attempt to present it.


A couple of interesting points, nullified by additional invective. It is indeed in the nature of freethought to disturb those with narrow and inconsistent world-views.

the problem is, many "freethinkers" themselves have narrow and inconsistent world-views. if freethought is by nature as you say, it isn't doing a very good job.


Or maybe you have no defense against the analogy.

there is no need to defend against an invalid analogy. i might as well expect you to respond to the comparison of (insert name of your favorite freethinking philosopher here) with Homer Simpson.


Despite the further invective, you have two points here I'll address.

again, riposte has its uses in debate. lighten up. why just refute a bad point when you can also pummel it with humor?


First, "no gods...to me" is fair. There is only one type of evidence for the existence of god which carries any weight, and that is the existence of personal experience. If someone has had direct experience of god, only their interpretation of the event can be logically questioned.

more skeptic-in-a-box reasoning. unless you have read and refuted every single argument and evidence produced by Christian Apologists since infinity plus one,* you are in no position to claim nonpersonal evidences carry no weight.

with regards to interpreting personal experience, well, i actually agree. however, if one's epistemology** is inconsistent with their experience, they would be foolish not to change the epistemology.

*(high humor content. to interpret, place tongue firmly in cheek)

**(epistemology is a foundational theory of knowledge. i.e. the freethought epistomology is there is no deity and only the physical universe exists)


Second, the world DOES revolve around me - to me! That is the nature of life. To have a subjective mental awareness is of necessity self-centered. It requires logic, reasoning, and empathy to expand one's view.

ah, so you are a skeptocentric. forget the fact that there are people who disagree with you, who experienced and observed evidence you haven't, and have formulated different epistelolgical frameworks than yours-- heck, forget the fact anything exists outside of that which you are aware of. who died and made you the decider of all that is true? :bow: all hail Nowhere357, the self-established deity of freethought-flavored cowpies. can my roommate begin to exist again? :deal:

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 08:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81102#post81102)
Sheepdog:

my conclusion is based on valid observation. so, if i am wrong, you get to show su why that is so.


I just did show you to be wrong.So much for your "valid observation". This puts all of your opinions into perspective.


ctually, it is riposte and challenge. it is a debate tactic that makes things a lot more interesting.

And now I know your rationalization for your rudeness.


by the way, you commited the fallacist fallacy-- the truth of my position has no bearing on how i attempt to present it.


I have commited no such thing. The ruder you get, the more I see your position as weak. That is a fact.


the problem is, many "freethinkers" themselves have narrow and inconsistent world-views.

I would never claim otherwise.


if freethought is by nature as you say, it isn't doing a very good job.


Says you. Freethinkers are people who form opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. The movement is sound and secure, and does not require defense from the likes of me.


there is no need to defend against an invalid analogy

There is however a need to avoid an analogy which hurts your position. Which explains your behavior.


again, riposte has its uses in debate. lighten up.

I'll try. I do get moody sometimes.


why just refute a bad point when you can also pummel it with humor?


Again, calling it a "bad point" without explanation, reveals weakness in your position.


more skeptic-in-a-box reasoning. unless you have read and refuted every single argument and evidence produced by Christian Apologists since infinity plus one,* you are in no position to claim nonpersonal evidences carry no weight.


The box I am in is called "reality". I have searched out all the evidence available for the existence of the xian god. It has been a long time since I have uncovered any new information. I am very comfortable with the idea that there IS NO credible evidence for the xian god. You think I'm wrong? Prove it. Provide your evidence.

BTW in your experience, how many skeptics have acknowledged the legitimacy of personal experience?


the freethought epistomology is there is no deity and only the physical universe exists


Incorrect. The freethought position is that the natural universe is all that exists, and that no supernatural explanation is needed.


forget the fact that there are people who disagree with you, who experienced and observed evidence you haven't, and have formulated different epistelolgical frameworks than yours-- heck, forget the fact anything exists outside of that which you are aware of.

This comment takes what I said out of context. I suspect you do this willfully, because your position is unable to stand on it's own merit.

We all view reality from our own perspective. I say again - it requires logic and reason and empathy to expand this view.


who died and made you the decider of all that is true?

No one died, yet still I will decide what I believe to be true. I'm surprised you find this idea worth attacking. Is it your position that we should not think for ourselves?


all hail Nowhere357

After all, the theology web home page has made it clear : GODISNOWHERE. :)

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote from sheepdog]
think we have a bad categorization: mearuarability is not identical to reality. for instance, we can measure the length of the equator around the world, yet the equator doesn't really exist: it is an imaginary circle. likewise, given there is a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, we cannot not measure anything about that planet, since we currenlty have no information on such a planet. electrons exist, yet you cannot measure their position and momentum at the same time.

[comment]
The world has an infinite number of circles upon it.. The equator is one of those as is latitude and longitude. Global topology of the circles makes them not true circles but there are in no way imaginary.

I am also sure that in the mere scientific observation of your specified planet provides some, albeit meager, knowledge. Would the planet's period be one of those things known? Relative mass may also be known.

As for electrons, thier measurement of their position and momentum can be done independantly.

I would suggest an example of unmeasureablity might be the thought process. We can know where it originates in the brain and the chemical/electrical processes involved but not directly measure a thought. We deem thoughts (including faith) as real

[quote from sheepdog]
hmm. i seriously think the objective, or empirical or whatever, side of this discussion has more to do with entry belief than actual faith (as defined by Christianity). so, i wonder if we are merely arguing past each other :-/

[comment]
I'm not sure what you mean by an "entry belief'. Is this like the relationship of yeast to bread? Do you have to have evidence "objective, or empirical or whatever" to obtain an "entry believe" before it becomes full blown faith and then is not needed once it is "baked", the "baked" faith being sufficient for your relationship with God?

[KingDavid8]

Yesterday @ 05:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80989#post80989)
Nowhere357:

A never-ending decimal does not imply "infinite number". Consider 1/3 for example.

Good point. 1/3 isn't an infinite number, since its exact figure can be given without listing an infinite amount of numbers. But the only way to give the exact number for pi DOES involve listing an infinite amount of numbers, since it does not repeat the way 1/3 does.


BTW your answer seems to avoid the point - pi is NOT 3, and no amount of fussing will change that.

Exactly. And the Bible doesn't say it is. And no amount of twisting will change that (unless you honestly believe that the circle being described in that passage IS a perfect circle).


What I find funny is that the bible is so poorly written, especially for a "divinely inspired" text, that interpretation is REQUIRED, and even those who believe it's "truth" can't agree on what it means! So many xian sects!

By 'poorly', do you mean 'without plenty', 'meanly', 'unhealthy' or 'without skill and merit'? I think, according to the context, you must mean the last one. That I just had to interpret your posting in order to make sense of it must mean that you're a terrible writer whose posts are impossible to understand.

Can you name even one book that doesn't require interpretation in order to be understood, or do you believe that all books are poorly written?


Apply just a little critical thinking to the bible, and one learns it's myth, legend, superstition, dogma, and full of errors, fallacies, inconsistencies, and contradictions.

Funny, that was what I thought of the Bible BEFORE I applied critical thinking to it.

David

[Nikolai]

Today @ 03:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81497#post81497)
KingDavid8:

Can you name even one book that doesn't require interpretation in order to be understood, or do you believe that all books are poorly written?



Most books do not claim to be the word of god, and those that do have the burden of being at least better written then most books of the time, which is hard to say about the Bible. If you salvation depends on it, wouldn't you want a straight-forward book with not double-meanings?



Funny, that was what I thought of the Bible BEFORE I applied critical thinking to it.


Are we to assume from this statement that you believe the Bible has no contradictions and indoconsistencies? I would gladly debate you seeing how easy it would be.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 03:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81533#post81533)
Nikolai:

Most books do not claim to be the word of god, and those that do have the burden of being at least better written then most books of the time, which is hard to say about the Bible. If you salvation depends on it, wouldn't you want a straight-forward book with not double-meanings?

"Better written" is a matter of opinion, and mine is that there is no book better-written than the Bible. However, my salvation doesn't depend on the Bible, but on the God the Bible is about. If I were to toss out all of my Bibles and never pick one up again, I'd still be saved by my relationship with Jesus. On the issue of whether accepting Jesus as your savior frees you from the burden of sin, the Bible is completely clear. That said...no double-meanings? What book could possibly have no double-meanings in it, and what language would it be written in? Even "See Dick Run" has words with more than one meaning in it (the title alone has three)



Are we to assume from this statement that you believe the Bible has no contradictions and indoconsistencies? I would gladly debate you seeing how easy it would be.

I think it's possible that the Bible coud have contradictions and inconsistencies in it. The people who wrote the Bible were undoubtedly inspired by God, but being inspired by God doesn't make you as perfect as He is. However, I have yet to see a 'contradiction' that doesn't have a reasonable answer from the Christian camp, and I've looked at over 400. If you want to argue that there's a few, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. But if you want to argue that the Bible is riddled with them and thus can't be trusted, that's a ridiculous argument that can easily be dismissed.

You know, I recently read a book that mentioned that there were three deaths at the Woodstock festival, and then listed four names for the people who died. By the logic of some skeptics, that must mean the Woodstock festival never happened, right?

David

[Bob Jenkins]

You know, I recently read a book that mentioned that there were three deaths at the Woodstock festival, and then listed four names for the people who died. By the logic of some skeptics, that must mean the Woodstock festival never happened, right?

David

[comment]
Only if it were the only book and fairly translated.

I see there are independant sources concerning Woodstock including other books, video of Woodstock, recorded music from Woodstock, court records, contracts requesting supplying services, transportation schedules, and on, and on, and on.

There are no such records regarding Christ.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 05:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81606#post81606)
Bob Jenkins:

[comment]
Only if it were the only book and fairly translated.

I see there are independant sources concerning Woodstock including other books, video of Woodstock, recorded music from Woodstock, court records, contracts requesting supplying services, transportation schedules, and on, and on, and on.


Which was why I used that example. Inconsistencies in the reports of events we KNOW happened has absolutely zero bearing on whether those events happened. We even kind of expect it to happen. Just as inconsistencies in the reports of events that some argue might not have happened has absolutely zero bearing on whether those events happened. Do you still want to argue that the resurrection, etc. never happened? Feel free. But trying to argue from a handful of supposed 'inconsistencies' is pointless when inconsistencies pop up in the reports of events we KNOW happened as well. They don't disprove, or shed doubt on, anything.

The only people who should lose sleep over the idea that the Bible might have contradictions in it would be those who claim that God dictated the Bible to the authors. I'm not among them.
Inspired by God from Genesis to Revelation - yes.
Dictated by God from Genesis to Revelation - no.

David

[Nowhere357]

KingDavid8:

Good point. 1/3 isn't an infinite number, since its exact figure can be given without listing an infinite amount of numbers. But the only way to give the exact number for pi DOES involve listing an infinite amount of numbers, since it does not repeat the way 1/3 does.


Incorrect. The problem comes from representing fractions in decimal form. Pi is just as finite as 1/3. Pi is represented EXACTLY as circumference over diameter : c/d.


By 'poorly', do you mean 'without plenty', 'meanly', 'unhealthy' or 'without skill and merit'? I think, according to the context, you must mean the last one. That I just had to interpret your posting in order to make sense of it must mean that you're a terrible writer whose posts are impossible to understand.


Nice strawman. Of course, I haven't claimed the bible is impossible to understand.


Can you name even one book that doesn't require interpretation in order to be understood, or do you believe that all books are poorly written?


No, and no. Can you name a valid reason for supposing the bible is divinely inspired? How about a reason for supposing the genesis story is not just myth? Or a reason for believing that jesus "died for our sins"?

Note if your only reasons are because the bible says so, then it is equally valid to believe in ANYTHING that ANY book might say, regardless of how silly or absurd.

[jpholding]

There are no such records regarding Christ.

How about for other ancient events? Hmm. Biased history, written by Tacitus and Josephus...

Doesn't seem like a very good reason to complain to me. :brow:

[Bob Jenkins]

How about for other ancient events? Hmm. Biased history, written by Tacitus and Josephus...

Doesn't seem like a very good reason to complain to me.

[comment]
Other events are recorded -absolutely true! Biblical events regarding the central core of Christianity are not..

BTW, I was not complaining to you

[jpholding]

Other events are recorded -absolutely true! Biblical events regarding the central core of Christianity are not..

Er, what events do you have in mind? :smile:

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 03:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81897#post81897)
Nowhere357:

Nice strawman. Of course, I haven't claimed the bible is impossible to understand.


So I guess we have no real disagreement on the fact that the Bible can be difficult to understand at times, though by no means impossible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying God made a mistake in making it difficult to understand. I say that the fact that it was written by people who spoke a different language than ours and were part of a culture vastly different than ours makes it inevitible. Again, I say that God did not write, or dictate, the Bible, but inspired the authors who were, of course, people of their time. And if you're worried that this language/cultural barrier is preventing people from attaining salvation, worry no further. The Bible is very clear, in all translations, that accepting Jesus as your savior is the way to go.



Can you name a valid reason for supposing the bible is divinely inspired? How about a reason for supposing the genesis story is not just myth? Or a reason for believing that jesus "died for our sins"?

Note if your only reasons are because the bible says so, then it is equally valid to believe in ANYTHING that ANY book might say, regardless of how silly or absurd.

Good point. My reasons for believing the Bible are many, including what the Bible says, as well as the historical evidence, my personal experiences and relationship with Jesus, and other things as well. All of these things add up to convince me that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that Jesus' resurrection is historical fact, not fiction. Among what I feel are the strongest reasons are that the Bible was clearly written as historical accounts, and, with few if any exceptions, nothing in it is contradicted by other historical texts and archeology. It really stands up as a historical text in a way that only other historical texts do. That does cause me to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt in historical matters. I also think that few people in the first century would have been willing to follow Jesus so completely as they did, and write what they wrote about Him, had the resurrection not happened. Without a resurrected Jesus, I seriously doubt that Christianity would have survived the first century, much less thrive the way it has.

As for the Genesis story, I accept the possibility that parts of it may be fictional, though I won't say that any parts certainly are (though I definitely do not believe in Young-Earth Creationism). I think whether we get meaning from Genesis is more important than whether we take it literally or not. The fact that the author of Genesis was not a witness (even second- or third-hand) means it could be mythology. I don't have a problem with that idea. Jesus spoke in parables at times. Why couldn't God have?

David

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 04:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81126#post81126)
Nowhere357:

I just did show you to be wrong.So much for your "valid observation". This puts all of your opinions into perspective.

when? how?


And now I know your rationalization for your rudeness.

actually no. my "rationalization" for my "rudeness" is that skeptics deserve nothing but contempt until they show that they are competent enough to made valid arguments.

for quite a while i have been irritated with really stupid arguments coming from the skeptic side of the fense (some actually make good arguments, but most are riddled with fallacies and verbal diarhea). now, i figure, what better way to discourage blantent and intentional stupidity, other than reposte and challenge? riposte and challenge, that is, being a rhetorical art form that is common in 95% of history, and even today in about 90% of the world.

in short, i have been kind to skeptics, even in this forum... but, they shown that they deserve respect. you haven't yet, as far as i can see.



by the way, you commited the fallacist fallacy-- the truth of my position has no bearing on how i attempt to present it.

I have commited no such thing. The ruder you get, the more I see your position as weak. That is a fact.

:rofl:!!!! please. educate yourself a bit, and look up the logical fallacy i mentioned. don't come back until you understand why my riposte is irrelavent to the validity of my arguments.


Says you. Freethinkers are people who form opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. The movement is sound and secure, and does not require defense from the likes of me.

LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!! i think that is sig-worthy. translation of the above:

"Freethinkers are people who form opinions about religion on the basis of intentional ignorance, dependently on novelty, questionable authority, and wishful thinking. The movement is skeptic dogma and whimsy, and does not require defense from the likes of me-- becuase it is indefensable."


There is however a need to avoid an analogy which hurts your position. Which explains your behavior.

and you still haven't shown us what Zeus is comparable to YHWH. next!


Again, calling it a "bad point" without explanation, reveals weakness in your position.

i have explained. albeit the explanation may have been loaded with biting humor: it's in there.


The box I am in is called "reality". I have searched out all the evidence available for the existence of the xian god. It has been a long time since I have uncovered any new information. I am very comfortable with the idea that there IS NO credible evidence for the xian god.

hmm: perhaps you have. the way you have conducted yourself so far seems to indicate otherwise :hrm: do you want to uncover new information? if so, i have some recommendations: read anything by William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Alvin Plantiga (look for his "trilogy"-- a three book series, i forgot the name of it though), C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, and anything on JP Holding's book recommendations page. if all you have looked for is stuff on the internet, in my opinion you are missing out on a lot.


You think I'm wrong? Prove it. Provide your evidence.

*sigh.* there is too much to go over, that it will go over the 24K character limit. besides, it is off topic on this thread, which the topis is the definition of "faith."


BTW in your experience, how many skeptics have acknowledged the legitimacy of personal experience?

implicitly, more than you know. with exception to those who followed postmodern thought to its conclusion, most skeptics believe reality exists. however, how do you know reality exists? how do you know you are not a brain in a vat that is hardwired to a reality-simulating computer? personal experience of reality?


Incorrect. The freethought position is that the natural universe is all that exists, and that no supernatural explanation is needed.

:hrm: more of a semantic difference to what i wrote than anything, but ok.


This comment takes what I said out of context. I suspect you do this willfully, because your position is unable to stand on it's own merit.

how so? making bald assertions won't save your argument


We all view reality from our own perspective. I say again - it requires logic and reason and empathy to expand this view.

true-- now you get to tell me why your view is superior to all others. who died and made you deity?


No one died, yet still I will decide what I believe to be true. I'm surprised you find this idea worth attacking. Is it your position that we should not think for ourselves?

i find it worth attacking because i am trying to get you to realize that the truths about reality exist independantly of what any of us believe. when you expound your belief as though it is absolute truth and everything else is fiction, then i'll be right there to heckle you.

do i believe you can think for yourself? of course. but once you start thinking out loud, expect others to want to critique you.


After all, the theology web home page has made it clear : GODISNOWHERE. :)

that caught me as odd at first, but it means "God is now here," not "God is no where." of course, i think we both agree that the name of that ministry is ambiguous (probably should be changed)

[Sheepdog]

eh, Bob, you av is kind of blurry. http://www.msu.edu/~moserjus/misc/x_3.gif would you like it if i tweeked it with my imaging software?


Yesterday @ 06:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81229#post81229)
Bob Jenkins:

[quote from sheepdog]
think we have a bad categorization: mearuarability is not identical to reality. for instance, we can measure the length of the equator around the world, yet the equator doesn't really exist: it is an imaginary circle. likewise, given there is a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, we cannot not measure anything about that planet, since we currenlty have no information on such a planet. electrons exist, yet you cannot measure their position and momentum at the same time.

[comment]
The world has an infinite number of circles upon it.. The equator is one of those as is latitude and longitude. Global topology of the circles makes them not true circles but there are in no way imaginary.

actually, the circles are imaginary-- that is, unless you believe there is a literal, thick, black line running across the entire planet. see the definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=equator

indeed, the equator is a real circle, but in the sense that it is conceptual, not material.


I am also sure that in the mere scientific observation of your specified planet provides some, albeit meager, knowledge. Would the planet's period be one of those things known? Relative mass may also be known.

well, right at this moment, we kno nothing at all of this hypothetical planet-- but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. sort of like how the Americas didn't just start to exist when they were first discovered. the point i am trying to make here is, being unable to measure something is not determinative of whether that thing exists.


As for electrons, thier measurement of their position and momentum can be done independantly.

that is true, but IMO, it misses the reason i brought them up as an analogy.


I would suggest an example of unmeasureablity might be the thought process. We can know where it originates in the brain and the chemical/electrical processes involved but not directly measure a thought. We deem thoughts (including faith) as real

excellent :thumb: good point :)


[quote from sheepdog]
hmm. i seriously think the objective, or empirical or whatever, side of this discussion has more to do with entry belief than actual faith (as defined by Christianity). so, i wonder if we are merely arguing past each other :-/

[comment]
I'm not sure what you mean by an "entry belief'. Is this like the relationship of yeast to bread? Do you have to have evidence "objective, or empirical or whatever" to obtain an "entry believe" before it becomes full blown faith and then is not needed once it is "baked", the "baked" faith being sufficient for your relationship with God?

:huh: perhaps i should have chosen better terminology. i did not intent to imply that at any point belief no longer exists or changes form or stops being necessary. what i was trying to get at was belief is a prerequisite of faith, but belief itself is not faith-- and it isn't belief that saves, but faith. is that a bit more clear?

[Bob Jenkins]

[quote]Other events are recorded -absolutely true! Biblical events regarding the central core of Christianity are not..

Er, what events do you have in mind?

[comment]
I don't care - you pick - you brought it up with "How about for other ancient events" which I paraphrased into "other events"..

[Bob Jenkins]

From Sheepdog
actually, the circles are imaginary-- that is, unless you believe there is a literal, thick, black line running across the entire planet. see the definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=equator

indeed, the equator is a real circle, but in the sense that it is conceptual, not material.

[comment]
This little topic is more fun than serious I hope you take it the same way I do.

The circle has position and is the breadth of one point so I wouldn't have used the term imaginary ( just me folks!) What I realy focused on is your earlier assertion that they don't exist.


Sheepdog cutting to the chase -

what i was trying to get at was belief is a prerequisite of faith, but belief itself is not faith-- and it isn't belief that saves, but faith. is that a bit more clear?

[Comment]
Oh yeah! For me, I always assumed faith and belief were symnonymous. Your disctinction revises that.. Thanks.

And thanks too for your offer but it's something I can play with and like to do I'm afraid I posted it in a hurry just to get one there..

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 12:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82716#post82716)
Bob Jenkins:

[Comment]
Oh yeah! For me, I always assumed faith and belief were symnonymous. Your disctinction revises that.. Thanks.

wow. your welcome. thank you for being very level headed :cheers:


And thanks too for your offer but it's something I can play with and like to do I'm afraid I posted it in a hurry just to get one there..

ah ok. no prob at all.

[Nowhere357]

Sheepdog:

actually no. my "rationalization" for my "rudeness" is that skeptics deserve nothing but contempt until they show that they are competent enough to made valid arguments.


Interesting. My view is that theists (and anyone else) deserve respect until they show themselves to be unworthy.

Based on your comments up to this point, and based on my reading of your various postings, I have no interest in earning your respect.


for quite a while i have been irritated with really stupid arguments coming from the skeptic side of the fense (some actually make good arguments, but most are riddled with fallacies and verbal diarhea).

Keep that phrase "verbal diarhea" in mind.


in short, i have been kind to skeptics, even in this forum... but, they shown that they deserve respect. you haven't yet, as far as i can see.


Again, I have no interest in your "kindness", nor in your "respect". You have shown yourself to be unworthy of consideration.


:rofl:!!!! please. educate yourself a bit, and look up the logical fallacy i mentioned. don't come back until you understand why my riposte is irrelavent to the validity of my arguments.


Take your own advice. My comment did not claim your position was false, due to your "irrelevant riposte". My comment DID claim that my opinion of your position decreases as your verbal abuse increases.

IOW you hurt your own position with your "verbal diarhea". When I talk with someone who holds your same view, and I hold respect for that person, then my opinion of that position returns to my current default. I predict you will be unable to grasp this concept. Your abuse hurts your position.


"Freethinkers are people who form opinions about religion on the basis of intentional ignorance, dependently on novelty, questionable authority, and wishful thinking. The movement is skeptic dogma and whimsy, and does not require defense from the likes of me-- becuase it is indefensable."


I've noticed that the value of someones opinion, tends to vary inversely with the number of insults and ROFL's they feel compelled to add. This applies to atheists as well as theists. You provide support for this observation.


and you still haven't shown us what Zeus is comparable to YHWH. next!


I had said: "Xianity however IS blind faith, because the xian god is not known to exist as a matter of fact. Also, many gods (such as zeus) even xians have no problem dismissing as myth. "

You had admitted: "sigh. yes God isn't known to exist."

If you don't see the connection, then I can't help you.


hmm: perhaps you have. the way you have conducted yourself so far seems to indicate otherwise :hrm: do you want to uncover new information? if so, i have some recommendations: read anything by William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Alvin Plantiga (look for his "trilogy"-- a three book series, i forgot the name of it though), C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, and anything on JP Holding's book recommendations page. if all you have looked for is stuff on the internet, in my opinion you are missing out on a lot.


I have started a thread to explore whether I can find any new information on the divinity of the bible.

Meanwhile, I accept reading suggestions only from people I respect. It is interesting that you mention Holding - I've already learned there is no reason to read his posts.


there is too much to go over, that it will go over the 24K character limit.

Point taken. Luckily, I have started the relevant thread, so you can contribute there, if you like. I promise to consider what you have to say there, regardless of what happens with this thread.


implicitly, more than you know. with exception to those who followed postmodern thought to its conclusion, most skeptics believe reality exists.

I meant "acceptance of validity of personal experience of god". Either you took my comment out of context, or just plain missed my point. I should have been more clear.


more of a semantic difference to what i wrote than anything, but ok.

Cool. I find semantics to often be a distraction, but in the case of defining someone's belief system, I'm sure it's important.


how so? making bald assertions won't save your argument


I'll bet money that you've made more "bald assertions" than I have, in this thread.


true-- now you get to tell me why your view is superior to all others. who died and made you deity?


No one died; I don't claim to be a diety; and I haven't claimed that my view is superior to all others. Sheepdog, you EXCEL at "verbal diarhea".


i find it worth attacking because i am trying to get you to realize that the truths about reality exist independantly of what any of us believe.

I held that view before I ever came to this place.


when you expound your belief as though it is absolute truth and everything else is fiction, then i'll be right there to heckle you.

I hold only one belief to be "absolute truth", and I haven't mentioned that belief here. You really do excel at dribbling "verbal diarhea". Heckle away - you are only hurting your own cause.


but once you start thinking out loud, expect others to want to critique you.


That's why I'm here. To learn when appropriate, and to plant seeds, again when appropriate.


that caught me as odd at first, but it means "God is now here," not "God is no where." of course, i think we both agree that the name of that ministry is ambiguous (probably should be changed)


I think it's great. It shows that the appearance of truth changes with perspective.


i have explained. albeit the explanation may have been loaded with biting humor: it's in there.


Whatever. One man's "biting humor" is another man's "verbal diarhea".



YOU: "wow, i haven't seen the "Xian" shorthand in a long time. good old fundamentalist atheism."

ME : "You are good at jumping to conclusions. You also are completely wrong. I am not a fundamentalist atheist."

YOU: "my conclusion is based on valid observation. so, if i am wrong, you get to show su why that is so."

ME : "I just did show you to be wrong.So much for your "valid observation". This puts all of your opinions into perspective."


when? how?

Clear now? I am not a fundamental atheist. Your "conclusion based on valid observation" was wrong.

[Nowhere357]

KingDavid8:

So I guess we have no real disagreement on the fact that the Bible can be difficult to understand at times, though by no means impossible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying God made a mistake in making it difficult to understand. I say that the fact that it was written by people who spoke a different language than ours and were part of a culture vastly different than ours makes it inevitible. Again, I say that God did not write, or dictate, the Bible, but inspired the authors who were, of course, people of their time. And if you're worried that this language/cultural barrier is preventing people from attaining salvation, worry no further. The Bible is very clear, in all translations, that accepting Jesus as your savior is the way to go.


I agree with what you say here, with two, maybe three, exceptions.

First, I haven't said that "...you're saying God made a mistake in making it difficult to understand." That must have been someone else.

Second, I don't believe the bible is divinely inspired. The point is important, and has come up in several threads, so I've started a thread in Religion 101, to explore the question.

Third, I accept that jesus can be a path to heaven. I advocate the idea that god must be interested in our morality, and not our religion. This idea is explored is Philosophy :"The Existence of Hell".

If you visit there, be warned: I got rather pissy, and I apologize for that. Please don't take my comments there out of context.

Thanks for the insult-and-ROFL-free post. :)

[jpholding]

Today @ 04:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82691#post82691)
Bob Jenkins:

[quote]Other events are recorded -absolutely true! Biblical events regarding the central core of Christianity are not..

Er, what events do you have in mind?

[comment]
I don't care - you pick - you brought it up with "How about for other ancient events" which I paraphrased into "other events"..

I think we just talked past each other. :huh: I mean, what events do you say are part of that "central core"?

[Bob Jenkins]

(post#75 )

“ Today @ 04:35 AM post located here
Bob Jenkins:

[quote]Other events are recorded -absolutely true! Biblical events regarding the central core of Christianity are not..

Er, what events do you have in mind?

[comment]
I don't care - you pick - you brought it up with "How about for other ancient events" which I paraphrased into "other events".. ”



I think we just talked past each other. I mean, what events do you say are part of that "central core"?

I'll leave it to you - your choice since "core" is often nebulous. If you leave any out that I consider "core" I'll let you know .

[jpholding]

The Resurrection is really the only core event for Christianity (though obviously the Crucifixion and Jesus' existence have to precede that).

[Sheepdog]

Nowhere,

after some reflection, i think i treated you unfairly. i still maintain that humor and biting satire have their place in debate, but you, being a new poster, didn't deserve the brunt of it. so, i apologize.

also, on the topic of respect, i don't think stated my position very well... i do respect skeptics as people, as i would anyone else. if a skeptic was on fire, i would not hesitate to grab a fire extinguisher and help him out. let me make this clear-- it is nontheistic skepticism that has to work for my respect. i have seen too many bad arguments from their side, and too few good ones. so, after being wearied trying to run in circles to please the skeptic, i realized, why bother? most skeptics i have talked to are so hardened in their beliefs that nothing i'll say will change that-- no argument is ever compelling enough to the person who doesn't want to believe. thus, we could have a conversation about anything else and have a great time; but, once the skeptic makes a dumb argument, the gloves will come off, so to speak. i will have nothing but contempt for close-mindedness and bad argumentation-- but as you see how Bob Jenkins and I talked, you can see that the skeptic doesn't have to do much to gain my respect. just show me you are open minded and are willing to learn-- be willing to step out of your box, so to speak (don't take that personal, i have had a lot of boxes to break myself out of)

[Nowhere357]

Sheepdog:


Thanks for the good post.

I think spirituality is real, and that faith can be valid.

[DBoone]

Nowhere357 -

I'm looking for your thread on the Divinity of the Bible, and I can't seem to find it. What happened? I was hoping that the smoke would clear from the first volley, and the rest of us could climb out of our bomb shelters and have a decent conversation on the matter.

[Nowhere357]

DBoone:

Nowhere357 -

I'm looking for your thread on the Divinity of the Bible, and I can't seem to find it. What happened? I was hoping that the smoke would clear from the first volley, and the rest of us could climb out of our bomb shelters and have a decent conversation on the matter.

I'm giving it time and attention. I think it's a serious matter, and I promise you'll hear from me. Thanks for your interest! :)

[Bob Jenkins]

From Holding

The Resurrection is really the only core event for Christianity (though obviously the Crucifixion and Jesus' existence have to precede that).

[comment]
excellent list. Now can we have those unbibical references and why they should refer to the bibical resurection, salvation and life of Jesus

[Bob Jenkins]

my posts 73
my spam points o
my anti spam points 19
my pearls 200

does posting a "spam" to a thread that honors anti-spam decrease the numbe of anti-spam points?

editted to add:
nope!
Thanks for the test

[jpholding]

Now can we have those unbibical references and why they should refer to the bibical resurection, salvation and life of Jesus

I assume you mean NONBiblical. If you are asking for references to resurrection and salvation and more than an affirmation of existence and a few deeds, I know of no reason why any extant nonbiblical source (other than by Christians) should mention those things. Is that your point?

[Bob Jenkins]

(mine)Now can we have those unbibical references and why they should refer to the bibical resurection, salvation and life of Jesus

(jpholding)I assume you mean NONBiblical. If you are asking for references to resurrection and salvation and more than an affirmation of existence and a few deeds, I know of no reason why any extant nonbiblical source (other than by Christians) should mention those things. Is that your point?

[comment]
Umm, no

Here I just just finished saying for the record I was pleased with the maturity of TWeb memners for not calling attention to speeling (LOL) errors and lo and behold I spoke too soon.

To finish the "no" - I first have to digress.. JPH shows again what Till says is his (Till's) frustration with exchanges with JPH - he (JPH) doesn't address all the points. This of course allows JPH to "look' good pronouncing opinion with out the distraction of advancing another weak apologetic position (or even making up his own apology). In my case, JPH conviently overlooked my mention of Paul when I spoke about the erronious statement that those who knew Jesus wrote about him. He instead issued a challange on other parts of my statement intending to use, perhaps, his already published opinions. Scholarily though they may be, JPH's opionion of the Gospel IS challenged by other equally adept scholars. (This comment completes the promise I made to you to critically read your reference)

He (Holding), in this case, neglects to address the historical Jesus I asked about.. Thus the "no". He admits to "affirmation of existence and a few deeds" but no explanation, no cites, and no reasoning why this should apply.

Geez, Holding, you can't have a resurrection without the corresponding crucification. Shouldn't there be records of that civil event???? And isn't the crucification the act of salvation? Come on, JP, think!.. And I think there might be temple records of "that upstart Jesus" and there might be mention of the "cult" by other historians that became the greatest fractured religion on the world.

[Squircifer]

For the most part I allow the christian to define faith. I mean if I am going to argue or discuss faith within the context of their religion, they should be the one to define. Only fair I think.

Also for the most part, the majority of the christians I have talked to about this, used the bible as the main point of their definition. What better definition to use?

(also I am just plain lazy in this regard... it moves quicker to let the other person define things lol.... )

Okay, enough of that. I have taken flack for this appraoch many times from other skeptics. But, why should I argue against their definiton? Why not use it, consider it, and see if it helps my position or hurts it? It is very possible that a few things may happen:
1. I will learn to view something in a different light, and allow myself the possibility of reconsideration upon certain points I may have held prior to the conversation.
2. Learn a new slant to take my argument towards. It may very well help me iron out problems with my position and argumentation (isn't that what arguing and debate is all about anyways?)
3. It may also provide me with more than enough ammo to rebut my opponent, or better address his position, by using his definition, and I can show there to be problems or holes with it... it would be a tad more difficult for him in the long run. (the exact same is true of the skeptical side of the house. our definitions may turn about and bite us on the rear.)

I know that in the end, there is little chance of a conversion on either side.

what I would like to know, is how do YOU as a christian define faith?

[Nowhere357]

Squircifer:

For the most part I allow the christian to define faith.

Every point in your post is right on.

I consider faith to be an intuitive belief (as opposed to reasonable belief). These are our two methods of knowing (knowledge).

Two points: Neither method is inherently superior, and ALL our knowledge is based on a combination of reason and intuition. Neither is ever entirely free of the other.

When looked at this way, science and religion are so yin/yang that I think it's sound. Which makes me wonder; am I sqeezing reality into a (pre-formed) concept, or is the concept truly reflective of reality? :)

[jpholding]

To finish the "no" - I first have to digress.. JPH shows again what Till says is his (Till's) frustration with exchanges with JPH - he (JPH) doesn't address all the points.

As yet you made none to address. I have been trying to get you to explain your point for days.

He instead issued a challange on other parts of my statement intending to use, perhaps, his already published opinions.

And the problem with this is, what? That you're now backing off and tossing generalities into the air?

Geez, Holding, you can't have a resurrection without the corresponding crucification. Shouldn't there be records of that civil event????

Uh, yeah -- Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian. Who else do you want?

And isn't the crucification the act of salvation?

To believers, certainly. To others, merely a disgrace. What's your point?

Come on, JP, think!.. And I think there might be temple records of "that upstart Jesus"

"Temple records"? The Temple and all inside was destroyed by fire in 70 AD.

and there might be mention of the "cult" by other historians that became the greatest fractured religion on the world.

Other historians like whom, and WHY? Do you plan on evading some more? :rofl:

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 04:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87094#post87094)
Bob Jenkins:
Come on, JP, think!.. And I think there might be temple records of "that upstart Jesus"

Today @ 03:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88245#post88245)
jpholding:

"Temple records"? The Temple and all inside was destroyed by fire in 70 AD.

:doh:





(:rofl:)

[Bob Jenkins]

My post


“ From Holding

The Resurrection is really the only core event for Christianity (though obviously the Crucifixion and Jesus' existence have to precede that). ”



[comment]
excellent list. Now can we have those unbibical references and why they should refer to the bibical resurection, salvation and life of Jesus

Holdings post

Now can we have those unbibical references and why they should refer to the bibical resurection, salvation and life of Jesus

I assume you mean NONBiblical. If you are asking for references to resurrection and salvation and more than an affirmation of existence and a few deeds, I know of no reason why any extant nonbiblical source (other than by Christians) should mention those things. Is that your point

Notice there is no cite in this message

from holdings post My posts quoted in italics by Holding

To finish the "no" - I first have to digress.. JPH shows again what Till says is his (Till's) frustration with exchanges with JPH - he (JPH) doesn't address all the points.

As yet you made none to address. I have been trying to get you to explain your point for days.

He instead issued a challange on other parts of my statement intending to use, perhaps, his already published opinions.

And the problem with this is, what? That you're now backing off and tossing generalities into the air?

Geez, Holding, you can't have a resurrection without the corresponding crucification. Shouldn't there be records of that civil event????

Uh, yeah -- Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian. Who else do you want?

And isn't the crucification the act of salvation?

To believers, certainly. To others, merely a disgrace. What's your point?

Come on, JP, think!.. And I think there might be temple records of "that upstart Jesus"

"Temple records"? The Temple and all inside was destroyed by fire in 70 AD.[ed.. what a shame - a lost opportunity]

and there might be mention of the "cult" by other historians that became the greatest fractured religion on the world

Other historians like whom, and WHY? Do you plan on evading some more? [/quote]

[comment]
Other historians as mentioned in my preceeding sentence

Poor Holding holding to the asumption that I have made or even have a point in this thread when he says and I quote from his post As yet you made none to address. I have been trying to get you to explain your point for days. I certianly can't be expected to make a point about the concept of an historical Jesus without the cites and the reasons those cites refer to the the crucifiction, salavtion {that should be fairly easy since salvation is not a recorded "happening" outside of the bible but the is already an apologetic reason given in this thread) and the life of Jesus

Holding has yet to answer the question Then we can procede to points/ comments or whatever Holding would like to call it.

At least in the last post he mentions "Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian" but no cites and no resoning to conclude they answer my question. We're getting closer but to quote an applicable Latin request "Verus scribus posse te disertos affirmas, ..., quid ergo non vis?"

Till is right! Long live Till's truth

[Bob Jenkins]

From Sherbear}

“
(post#89 )

“ Yesterday @ 04:31 AM post located here
Bob Jenkins:
Come on, JP, think!.. And I think there might be temple records of "that upstart Jesus" ”

Today @ 03:10 PM post located here
jpholding:

"Temple records"? The Temple and all inside was destroyed by fire in 70 AD. ” [Ed.. with inclusion of smilies that indicate "doh' and "rolf']

Was the temple the only library of the time? Might there have been other depositories of Jewish records to shed light on the histocracy of Jesus?

I made a broad conjecture and James's comment takes a narrow view based on the temple as only one particular place. Hardly a reason to risk sweeping up dust balls on the floor.

[jpholding]

Jenkins,

Your messages are becoming a confused mess. I am not even sure what is your words, what is mine, what is Sherbear's, or what. You are also using hundreds of words to state a non-position. Try to get better organized if you can next round.

Was the temple the only library of the time? Might there have been other depositories of Jewish records to shed light on the histocracy of Jesus?

You mean "historicity"? No, probably not. And if there were they were lost too along with 99.9999% of everything from that time. Rome issued millions of army pay slips but we only have about 8 of them left.

So I ask you again: Name a historian whose work is left to us, who should have said something about Jesus, but did not, then explain why it is a problem.

[Bob Jenkins]

James...

Till is the only winner here

I made the first assertion and challange and you have done so little to answer it. Yet it would have been so easy for you if only to have posted a web link. Shame on you.

I gave you the oppotunity to select the historian of your choice. You suggested a list of 3 but were not dignified enough to inculded the requestd data and opinion pertaining to any of them.

It's a game and tactic to you James that should be beneath you.

[Bob Jenkins]

Is this Holding our James Patrick Holding?

taken from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#82 by Jeffery Jay Lowder


79] Holding suggests that Pliny, as a former "state priest," would have had firsthand knowledge of the historicity of Jesus. However, there are two problems with that view. First, Pliny makes it clear in his letter to Trajan that he was quite ignorant of Christians. When Pliny needed to deal with the Christians, he did not know what to do; he turned to Trajan for advice. He wrote, "It is a rule, Sir, which I inviolably observe, to refer myself to you in all my doubts; for who is more capable of guiding my uncertainty or informing my ignorance?" Furthermore, Pliny acknowledged that he did not have an understanding of Christians until he interrogated the deaconesses. (Holding objects that prior to torturing the deaconesses, Pliny "knew that Christianity was a 'cult,' for he refers to investigations in which 'several forms of the mischief came to light.'" However, Pliny's reference to 'investigations' is a reference to his interviews of Christians during the trials; Pliny had no knowledge of Christians prior to those trials.) Finally, consider Pliny's off-hand reference to Christian belief: "For whatever the nature of [the Christians'] creed might be." These are not the words of a man with prior knowledge of Christianity.

Second, if it were really true that priests would have investigated Christians, Holding should be able to provide multiple examples of Roman priests investigating Christianity. He has produced nothing of the sort. Twice I have asked Holding to produce any evidence that Roman priests investigated Christians; Holding has completely ignored my requests. (Indeed, in his rebuttal to me, Holding does not even acknowledge my request!) Furthermore, in private correspondence, ancient historian Richard Carrier provided the following counterexample to Holding's unsupported claim:


Consider, for example, Plutarch, a prominent priest and elder contemporary of Pliny, whose voluminous writings almost entirely survive--and of those that don't we still have all the titles: never once does Plutarch ever mention Christians, even though he went out of his way to write on many religious subjects, even to attack popular superstitions and foreign cults. On Superstition and Advice to Bride and Groom reveal a serious concern with superstitions and unsavory religions and a desire to elaborate and oppose them. On Isis and Osiris, On the E at Delphi, On the Oracles of the Pythia, On the Decline of Oracles, On the Slowness of Divinities to Anger, On the Demon of Socrates, etc., prove his interest in researching or discussing foreign or exotic religious views. Platonic Questions, On the Repugnant Beliefs of Stoics, Against the Stoics, Against Colotes, Table Talk, and so on, all show Plutarch to have had a keen concern to investigate and attack theological opinions opposed to his own. Also of note is the conspicuous absence of priests presenting evidence for Pliny's prosecutions, even though Pliny mentions (and no doubt exaggerates) the decline of attention to local temples as a result of the Christian fad. Instead, Pliny has no accusers at all, only anonymous lists, and must investigate the matter himself, on the spot. Also worthy of note is the college of silversmiths in Acts: the priestesses of Artemis are again conspicuously absent, and it is only the smiths, who make her statues, that get all riled up (although even they make no effort to "investigate" Christians but simply seek to trump up charges against them).

In direct response to this point, Holding objects that "Plutarch never had a situation like Pliny's to handle, where he had to make judgments upon Christians." However, this is irrelevant to Holding's claim that Pliny, as a former state priest, would have had prior knowledge of Christianity. This is only relevant to Pliny's role as Governor which, as we've seen, provides no support for Holding's conjecture.

In short, Holding has provided no evidence whatsoever that contemporary Roman priests (prior to the third century) investigated Christianity. In contrast, we've seen one example of a contemporary Roman priest (Plutarch) who did not investigate the Christians. As Carrier concludes, "Priests were NEVER involved in investigating Christians and would have had no interest in someone else's cult. Only magistrates are involved." See Holding, n.d.; idem, "A Slightly Shorter Concerto" (<URL:http://www.integrityonline15.com/jpholding/tekton/ajinod_05.html>, March 23, 2000), spotted April 19, 2000.

If so, it is little wonder why our James would be reluctant to cite historians, the historians work, and the reason why they apply to the biblical Jesus.

I might also mention, if indeed the Holdings are the same, that Lowder too is a victim of our James' tactics of avoidance...

[jpholding]

Till is the only winner here

Explain how. Oops, no, that would involve WORK. :rofl:

I made the first assertion and challange and you have done so little to answer it. Yet it would have been so easy for you if only to have posted a web link.

That's against the rules last I checked. Shame on YOU for encouraging rulebreaking. As yet it is far from clear what your "assertion and challenge" is and you have refused to explain it.

I gave you the oppotunity to select the historian of your choice. You suggested a list of 3 but were not dignified enough to inculded the requestd data and opinion pertaining to any of them.

It's rather hard to accomplish anything when your alleged debate partner dodges giving an answer explaining his actual position. Did you apply your hot butter and weasel oil this morning?

It's a game and tactic to you James that should be beneath you.

You're so good at projection you need to be showing movies at the Cinemark. :rofl:

If so, it is little wonder why our James would be reluctant to cite historians, the historians work, and the reason why they apply to the biblical Jesus.

I already have. I have a full article on the subject but links are verboten. But if a dispensation may be permitted:

http://www.tektonics.org/remslist.html

I might also mention, if indeed the Holdings are the same, that Lowder too is a victim of our James' tactics of avoidance...

That seems true until you read my replies to the above. Rather than a link folks can access my Christ myth article on the front page and check the parts about Tacitus and Pliny. Been there. Done that.

So long, Bob Jenkins, and say hi to the weasel oil salesman for me.

[Bob Jenkins]

From James' post #95 on this thread

I made the first assertion and challange and you have done so little to answer it. Yet it would have been so easy for you if only to have posted a web link.

That's against the rules last I checked. Shame on YOU for encouraging rulebreaking. As yet it is far from clear what your "assertion and challenge" is and you have refused to explain it.

It's against the rules??? I missed that in the orientation, sorry.

But then I had a teacher who in his second or third post to me did include links and since he was sooo well respected I thought it must have been proper.

from message #32, this thread

“ Today @ 04:15 AM post located here
Bob Jenkins:

[comment]
I will respectfully decline your offer as I have neither the time, expertise, or scholarship to effectively debate.. However, I will hold to my views unless you would like to generously dissuade me of (from?) them (privately, if you like or publically for re-edification of the gathering). ”



I have a deep respect for any person who acknowledges this.

I have written on this issue at

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

if you are interested.

and here, other links - message #39, this thread


Bob J,

“
I know of no slamming Jesus did of his detracors. Do you have such knowledge of who he slammed and what he said? Did you mean the money-changers? - they were hardly detractors -just defoulers of the house. Then Jesus was quite physical in his slamming - so peculiar for a "loving" Christian god-head. ”



The Pharisees and the Saducees were both targets of slamming. If you are interested in the socio-cultural background see

http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html

These posts, mentioned above, do not follow under the rule for advertizing

Do not post on the board, in Private Message or email any content that are primarily for self-promotion or the advertising of any website, business, ministry, event or other entities such as a website link without prior consent of a moderator or administrator. Advertisements such as a website link including a brief description is welcome in profiles, journals and signature lines.

From the latest post of James' he shows that either he has trouble reading the rules or he is dishonest about them for he has posted links. I suspect James is willing to bend the truth for whatever serves him at the time.

[jpholding]

Already answered. I was either unaware of the rule of those were before the rule.