Posts: 2660/2825
(05-Mar-2011 at 20:10) ![]() |
Quote:
It's a hypothetical situation. I can define them as credible for the sake of the point being made, without explaining what makes them credible. Perhaps you may want to look up the concept of "hypothetical".
Quote:
My hypothetical situation did not include a staged murder, just as it DID include credible witnesses. You seem to want to redefine my scenario to nit pick on factors that weren't included in the first place.
Quote:
Does it lower the credibility when one esteemed scientist has a theory based on huge amounts of solid data, and another esteemed colleague has another theory which is based on the same data? What if these theories created a rift in the scientific community, and half of the greatest minds on the planet found one more plausible and the other half thought the other theory was? Are all these people less credible because they believe one theory over another very plausible theory? Does this rift make their original solid data, which was used by both, void?
Quote:
The same concept can be applied to the Old Testament being the solid data that all 3 of these major religions use.
Quote:
BTW I love your thorough comments to most of my post, I say the majority of the world's population believes in the God of Abraham. You simply dismiss it as ridiculous. Great comeback!
Quote:
Call my comments ridiculous if you like but with out explaining why just shows that your ability to have well thought out conversation is found wanting. I respect your beliefs no matter how opposed or ridiculous I think they are. But, I would be mature enough to explain why I feel that way.
Failure to do so lowers your credibility, and makes you look like a guy without answers..... who resorts to quick little insults in lieu of a reason why. Your situation with the murder has all the flaws I pointed out. You ignore them because you haven't reached your through a logical path frbut you have already the answer that in your mind is right and therefore you are simply trying to prove it. In this case by making up a fantasy scenario then try to claim it's identical to a historical scenario even thought everybody who has brain cells can see that it's not and claim this as proof As for your numbers point do I really need to explain to you why it's stupid? Because that would be just sad. The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views |
||
|
Posts: 10/33
(06-Mar-2011 at 08:52) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
Unless you want your hypothetical situation to go into the realms of fantasy they are always degrees of credibility for anybody
I am defining it to apply to human beings. Because we are not gods. We can't be completely certain. And the more are involved the less certain we become because the less information we have. This goes a million time for historic events And now you are jumping from one wild example to another and as always missing the point Nope it can't. You can't just say one thing applies like this. One has to take in account the context, the thousands of small details. It's not a comeback. It's depressuion due to how you can't seem to grasp basic logic Explaining why your comments are ridiculous is like explaining that the sun rises everyday. It's so obvious that it's pointless to waste time. However fine here you go Your situation with the murder has all the flaws I pointed out. You ignore them because you haven't reached your through a logical path frbut you have already the answer that in your mind is right and therefore you are simply trying to prove it. In this case by making up a fantasy scenario then try to claim it's identical to a historical scenario even thought everybody who has brain cells can see that it's not and claim this as proof As for your numbers point do I really need to explain to you why it's stupid? Because that would be just sad. Just consider for one moment, that it is a real murder, and the witnesses are all credible by your standards. Can you do that? Assume that any doubts about either have been established so firmly that there is no doubt. It is hypothetical!!! All you have to do is add your thoughts on the situation that is already established!! If you can do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some. I know your type, the guys who think they know alot but when you ask them a question they don't answer. Instead they ask you a question back. I don't play those games. If you want a serious, thoughtful discussion on the these theological subjects it has to be tit for tat. I'll be waiting if you ever decide to respond to my first post as it stands. In a formal debate you would have failed. Trying to reword your opponents question to suit what answer you want to give is absurd, and such behavior wouldn't be fit for even a high school level debate team. |
||
|
Posts: 11/33
(06-Mar-2011 at 13:02) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
If you can do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some.
"If you can't do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some." Last edited by adam332, 06-Mar-2011 at 13:03. |
||
|
Posts: 2661/2825
(06-Mar-2011 at 14:16) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
Good grief are you serious? I'm not trying to convert you. I am simply trying to give an example. But you don't like where that example takes you, so you want so desperately to redefine it so you can defend your position.
Just consider for one moment, that it is a real murder, and the witnesses are all credible by your standards. Can you do that? Assume that any doubts about either have been established so firmly that there is no doubt. It is hypothetical!!! All you have to do is add your thoughts on the situation that is already established!! If you can do that simple task without redefining my scenario then you have no argument with which I am willing to hear. You have to give some to get some. I know your type, the guys who think they know alot but when you ask them a question they don't answer. Instead they ask you a question back. I don't play those games. If you want a serious, thoughtful discussion on the these theological subjects it has to be tit for tat. I'll be waiting if you ever decide to respond to my first post as it stands. In a formal debate you would have failed. Trying to reword your opponents question to suit what answer you want to give is absurd, and such behavior wouldn't be fit for even a high school level debate team. And do you honestly can't see how bad it is try and compare to a historic event which due to it's nature has even less credibility. Yes we can agree that well doumented people like Napoleon existed but there is still a lot of arguing about the details of their life Same with your Bible. One can easily agree that parts of it are historical in nature but that is NO proof for the supernatural part. And if it was it was(and it isn't) then the SAME would apply to other religions and their myths. And no please don't evne mention numbers. If you stop just for a second you will realise how idiotic this argument makes you sound So do you finally get it are you still going to try and limp with your horribly mispalced and illogical comparsions? The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views |
||
|
Posts: 12/33
(07-Mar-2011 at 03:37) ![]() |
If I said the sky was blue, you would argue that it's actually light blue.
If I said what if you and I were on the moon who do you think could jump higher?. You would argue on how two civilians like us could never go to the moon and that since it's not realistic I won't answer. Like I said, if you can't answer a hypothetical scenario as it stands then I have nothing to say to you. You are a little nitpicker who wants to argue, not talk. Toodles Noodle. |
||
|
Posts: 2825
(07-Mar-2011 at 13:01) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
If I said the sky was blue, you would argue that it's actually light blue.
If I said what if you and I were on the moon who do you think could jump higher?. You would argue on how two civilians like us could never go to the moon and that since it's not realistic I won't answer. Like I said, if you can't answer a hypothetical scenario as it stands then I have nothing to say to you. You are a little nitpicker who wants to argue, not talk. Toodles Noodle. The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views |
||
|
Posts: 13/33
(07-Mar-2011 at 22:53) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
How exactly is the big bang "proven"? Last I checked it's a theory, based on current scientific evidence. Even the scientists who have come to this conclusion have altered their theory over time and in some cases they disagree on details of this theory. So it is definitely a theory at best.
|
||
|
Posts: 7/31
(07-Mar-2011 at 23:30) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
If there were over a 100 eyewitnesses to a murder that happened last week in broad daylight, would you believe them? By what standard would you believe them, faith? Wouldn't it be your faith in the credibility of more than a 100 complete strangers that led you to believe them.
What if the murder had happened 250 yrs ago, and there were over a hundred recorded accounts of that murder, would you believe that it occurred. So why is the faith of people who believe in the Bible, and all the accounts of the events within, any less valid than those who believe that Napoleon ever existed? |
||
|
Posts: 8/31
(07-Mar-2011 at 23:35) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
I believe in the second sentence, which you happened to omit in your quote of my inquiry, I defined them as credible. Which happens to answer your first remark about the reliability of said witnesses. If you think that it's not hard to "stage" a murder witnessed in broad daylight by more than a hundred credible witnesses....well we are on completely different wavelengths.
Simply put; with the factors I mentioned such a comment is ridiculous. No, you can't say that about any religion. You may want to look at current population numbers of said religions before making such a claim. If you consider that as of year 2000..... statistics show there were more Christians on the planet than any other religion. If you then consider that combined with Judaism, and Islamic believers. We are talking a majority of the entire planets population. Why would I include all three of those major religions as a single populous? Just ask a Christian, an Israelite(Jew), and a Muslim if they believe in the God of Abraham. All were founded on essentially the same group of writings. It was only less than 2000 yrs ago that the Christians broke off from Judaism based on their belief that the current events they had witnessed were indeed proof of a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Then it was hundreds of years after that in which the Islamic believers were formed based on their belief that Muhammad was the latest prophet in a continuation of the base religion. To act as if those who believe in the God of the old testament are just the same as any piddly religion is a incredibly huge understatement. In actuality, they make up the majority of the entire planet. So, when I say that those who have faith that all those Biblical events that are recorded(for arguments sake just the Old Testament) should be counted as credible as those who say Napoleon existed is very fair indeed. Last edited by xfrodobagginsx, 07-Mar-2011 at 23:37. |
||
|
Posts: 14/33
(08-Mar-2011 at 01:56) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
There's actually a lot more reason to trust the bible as well. It is supported by secular history, the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, the testimonies of those who have converted, the fact of how it has endured unspeakable opposition throughout history, the manner in which is was preserved, the manner in which the books were compiled, the way it fits with the actual scientific evidence as well and let's not forget the fact that it doesn't contradict it's self even though it was written over a 1500 year period through 40 men who lived in different parts of the world and were from different walks of life.
Which puts these accounts found in the Old Testament in a very different light. To doubt their validity would be the equivalent of calling their ancestors liars. They thought lying was a sin worthy of damnation and took that even more seriously than their meticulous record keeping. |
||
|
Posts: 736/742
(09-Mar-2011 at 16:44) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
Methinks that the word "evidence" is subjective. So what evidence do you require for it be a valid belief?
Having to provide evidence for your claims is common-sense in all domains of human knowledge; and for very obvious reasons. It is what has allowed us to learn over the millennia, to slowly build up a body of knowledge, collectively, not subjectively. There is no good reason to exempt religious and spiritual experiences and their resultant knowledge from that common-sense requirement whatsoever. |
||
|
Posts: 19/33
(10-Mar-2011 at 10:00) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
You're wrong, it isn't. In fact, the entire notion of evidence presupposes that it isn't: if evidence was subjective we could never establish the truth of any assertion, hence never know anything. Yet we obviously do. How do we do so? By providing evidence, which can be checked by others, who can repeat the tests you did to see if they arrive at the same conclusions.
Having to provide evidence for your claims is common-sense in all domains of human knowledge; and for very obvious reasons. It is what has allowed us to learn over the millennia, to slowly build up a body of knowledge, collectively, not subjectively. There is no good reason to exempt religious and spiritual experiences and their resultant knowledge from that common-sense requirement whatsoever. One laboratory may have certain standards and another lab may have a completely different rules before they consider something evidence. In courts what evidence is can vary from state to state, country to country, etc..... |
||
|
Posts: 3836/3983
(14-Mar-2011 at 22:28) ![]() |
Originally Posted by adam332:
If there were over a 100 eyewitnesses to a murder that happened last week in broad daylight, would you believe them? By what standard would you believe them, faith? Wouldn't it be your faith in the credibility of more than a 100 complete strangers that led you to believe them.
Originally Posted by adam332:
We are talking a majority of the entire planets population.
“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
Originally Posted by adam332:
So why is the faith of people who believe in the Bible, and all the accounts of the events within, any less valid than those who believe that Napoleon ever existed?
The accounts of the existence of Napoleon are many fold, and his legacy is still with us today. The evidence beyond credible witnesses is that he lived and was a conqueror of most of Europe. There is too much evidence that Napoleon was an actual historical figure to dismiss as non credible. The same can not be said for God, or Jesus or Mohammed. We can make a case that Jesus and Mohammed were actual people, but especially in the case of Jesus, there is no way we can verify the truth of the gospels, they were written after his death and in some cases only based on the stories of the Apostles, not written by the Apostles themselves. Again dealing with Christianity, there have been times when various Gospels have been suppressed as contrary to the will of the Church, and there are even writings considered as the word of God (so they cannot be destroyed) that are not in the average bible.
Quote:
How exactly is the big bang "proven"? Last I checked it's a theory, based on current scientific evidence. Even the scientists who have come to this conclusion have altered their theory over time and in some cases they disagree on details of this theory. So it is definitely a theory at best.
Originally Posted by Xfrodobagginsx:
There's actually a lot more reason to trust the bible as well.
Quote:
It is supported by secular history,
Quote:
the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies,
Quote:
the testimonies of those who have converted
Quote:
the fact of how it has endured unspeakable opposition throughout history
Quote:
the manner in which is was preserved
Quote:
the manner in which the books were compiled,
Quote:
the way it fits with the actual scientific evidence as well
Quote:
and let's not forget the fact that it doesn't contradict it's self even though it was written over a 1500 year period through 40 men who lived in different parts of the world and were from different walks of life.
Originally Posted by adam332:
One could also point out the extreme measures they went through to preserve their lineage. They placed huge importance in tracing the ancestors back to the original twelve tribes and ultimately to Abraham himself.
Quote:
Which puts these accounts found in the Old Testament in a very different light. To doubt their validity would be the equivalent of calling their ancestors liars. They thought lying was a sin worthy of damnation and took that even more seriously than their meticulous record keeping.
Quote:
Methinks that the word "evidence" is subjective. So what evidence do you require for it be a valid belief?
Quote:
So every person on this planet no matter what the subject will always agree with what is and what isn't evidence? Obviously the answer is no. Therefore evidence is subjective.
Quote:
One laboratory may have certain standards and another lab may have a completely different rules before they consider something evidence.
Quote:
n courts what evidence is can vary from state to state, country to country, etc.....
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” |
||
|
Posts: 21/33
(18-Mar-2011 at 11:19) ![]() |
Filcher, you have written quite a bit but fell incredibly short of answering the gist of the points I was making.
You said; "It would not be faith but evidence that we use as a criteria for belief..." The criteria for ones belief that something occurred, could easily be said that it is the criteria that one has faith that something occurred. The words are interchangeable to an extent, unless you are just arguing semantics. If that's the case then just assume that everywhere I wrote faith, I actually wrote belief. That should satisfy any semantics issues you have with the word "faith". You said; Again, truth is not based on the popularity of an event or idea. Hmmm... didn't you indicate that if just one lab recorded something it was an anomaly? I am not speaking of an anomaly. We are talking huge amounts of people that over the history of mankind have recorded that they saw God, talked to God, touched God, saw miracles, etc.... No anomaly at all. I am sorry that not everyone has been able to "replicate" these things to satisfy their personal beliefs, but it is no reason to dismiss all the accounts that have ever been recorded. You said; "You may as well as ask that about the early worship of the Sumerians, Babylonians, Celts, Norse, and all other religions." Great example of missing my point. Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived? I was making a point about the sheer numbers. In the scope of things non-believers would be the anomaly and dismissed as being wrong by the majority. Which according to you is quite logical and even a scientific norm. About your comments on Napoleon, where is the cut off line? How far back does one have to go to before you doubt the recorded existence or events of a person. Constantine? Alexander the Great? I am sure you heard the saying that the winners write the history books. In that line of thinking not only was early Christianity denounced and oppressed by Judaism from which it sprang, but also by the Roman Empire. It's amazing that the gospel accounts survived at all. A lack of definitive outside confirmation about miracles and such performed by Jesus is absolutely to be expected. At what point does the Bible become reliable source for historical accounts instead of a book of myths? Was it in 1906, when the Hittite Empire was discovered as being more than a Biblical myth? Maybe it was the discovery of the City of Ur which Abraham was said to have lived. Perhaps the city of Pithom that was found to be real. Or the city of Neta'im. Need I drone on about all the items recorded in the Bible which are continually being discovered as fact. So much so that scholars use the Bible as a road map to help them locate these formerly non-existent events and places. So who gets to claim that one passage by a writer is historically accurate, but the very next passage by the same author isn't? Does the minority get to choose? Sorry, that just doesn't sit well with me. Yet it seems that some allegedly logically thinking people would do just that. I have to go, and don't have time to address every counter-point you said. Perhaps that will give you a little to chew on in the meantime. |
||
|
|
Quote:
Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived?
Cause early Christians went to war with and killed anyone that opposed their beliefs and as it was the last religion to arise in such a way right before our age of industry and enlightenment ... its the one we got stuck with Hit me up on Facebook ![]() |
||
|
Posts: 3840/3983
(18-Mar-2011 at 21:38) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
Filcher, you have written quite a bit but fell incredibly short of answering the gist of the points I was making.
Quote:
You said;
"It would not be faith but evidence that we use as a criteria for belief..." The criteria for ones belief that something occurred, could easily be said that it is the criteria that one has faith that something occurred. The words are interchangeable to an extent, unless you are just arguing semantics. If that's the case then just assume that everywhere I wrote faith, I actually wrote belief. That should satisfy any semantics issues you have with the word "faith".
Quote:
Hmmm... didn't you indicate that if just one lab recorded something it was an anomaly?
Quote:
I am not speaking of an anomaly. We are talking huge amounts of people that over the history of mankind have recorded that they saw God, talked to God, touched God, saw miracles, etc.... No anomaly at all. I am sorry that not everyone has been able to "replicate" these things to satisfy their personal beliefs, but it is no reason to dismiss all the accounts that have ever been recorded.
Quote:
Great example of missing my point. Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived? I was making a point about the sheer numbers. In the scope of things non-believers would be the anomaly and dismissed as being wrong by the majority. Which according to you is quite logical and even a scientific norm.
Quote:
About your comments on Napoleon, where is the cut off line? How far back does one have to go to before you doubt the recorded existence or events of a person. Constantine? Alexander the Great?
Quote:
I am sure you heard the saying that the winners write the history books. In that line of thinking not only was early Christianity denounced and oppressed by Judaism from which it sprang, but also by the Roman Empire. It's amazing that the gospel accounts survived at all. A lack of definitive outside confirmation about miracles and such performed by Jesus is absolutely to be expected.
Quote:
At what point does the Bible become reliable source for historical accounts instead of a book of myths?
Quote:
Was it in 1906, when the Hittite Empire was discovered as being more than a Biblical myth?
Maybe it was the discovery of the City of Ur which Abraham was said to have lived. Perhaps the city of Pithom that was found to be real. Or the city of Neta'im. Need I drone on about all the items recorded in the Bible which are continually being discovered as fact.
Quote:
So much so that scholars use the Bible as a road map to help them locate these formerly non-existent events and places. So who gets to claim that one passage by a writer is historically accurate, but the very next passage by the same author isn't? Does the minority get to choose?
Quote:
Sorry, that just doesn't sit well with me. Yet it seems that some allegedly logically thinking people would do just that.
All the evidences that you have presented rely on hearsay evidences and circumstantial evidences, there is no evidence that you have bought forth showing God exists.
Quote:
I have to go, and don't have time to address every counter-point you said. Perhaps that will give you a little to chew on in the meantime.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” |
||
|
Posts: 3347/3642
(18-Mar-2011 at 23:33) ![]() |
Re: Faith based arguments.
Quote:
Hmmm... didn't you indicate that if just one lab recorded something it was an anomaly? I am not speaking of an anomaly. We are talking huge amounts of people that over the history of mankind have recorded that they saw God, talked to God, touched God, saw miracles, etc.... No anomaly at all. I am sorry that not everyone has been able to "replicate" these things to satisfy their personal beliefs, but it is no reason to dismiss all the accounts that have ever been recorded.
Quote:
Great example of missing my point. Why is the God of Abraham still the belief of the majority of the world when other religions were so short lived?
Quote:
I was making a point about the sheer numbers. In the scope of things non-believers would be the anomaly and dismissed as being wrong by the majority. Which according to you is quite logical and even a scientific norm.
Quote:
I am sure you heard the saying that the winners write the history books. In that line of thinking not only was early Christianity denounced and oppressed by Judaism from which it sprang, but also by the Roman Empire. It's amazing that the gospel accounts survived at all. A lack of definitive outside confirmation about miracles and such performed by Jesus is absolutely to be expected.
Quote:
At what point does the Bible become reliable source for historical accounts instead of a book of myths?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html If you go to court and claim you saw someone murder someone else, when it can be proven that you were nowhere near the scene, even if the person your accusing did commit murder, your testimony on anything you have ever said in court counts as nothing and you deserve to be tried for perjury. The fact that there is so much in the bible that has been proven wrong makes it more than hard for a logical person to accept it as reliable.
Quote:
Need I drone on about all the items recorded in the Bible which are continually being discovered as fact.
|
||
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Atheism History & Arguments (youtube links) | Peppie | Religious Discussions | 62 | 24-Dec-2006 15:38 |
Why ask the monothesists about God ? | Grashnak | Religious Discussions | 30 | 24-Sep-2004 20:00 |
Grabs based on NW? | Wavelength | Utopia Suggestions | 10 | 18-Jun-2002 07:15 |
religious system | solistus | Utopia Suggestions | 8 | 18-Mar-2002 09:44 |
Next Age | Digger | The Lunatic Asylum | 30 | 14-Apr-2001 07:56 |