Theists, answer please!

enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Theists, answer please!

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 I strive for knowledge I

 I strive for knowledge I question my beliefs all the time. I study, I learn and I think about my beliefs.

 

My room is full of books. Both pop science and university texts. I read I learn.

 

So yeah. It's not Easter Bunny/Santa Clause.

 

 


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
You don't appear to be doing

You don't appear to be doing either. What's your point?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
enzoconti wrote:You don't

enzoconti wrote:

You don't appear to be doing either.

 

O RLY? What makes you think that?

 

 

Quote:

What's your point?

 

My point is I do apply reason to my beliefs. Your question was why does reasoning stop at religion.

 

I answered that it shouldn't.


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for your response. So

Thanks for your response.

So does logic give a little way for faith to support your beliefs?


drummermonkey
Theist
Posts: 54
Joined: 2006-12-17
User is offlineOffline
enzoconti wrote:At some

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

First I'm not sure that I learned, or reasoned without the assistance of adults (who taught me how to reason) that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny aren't real. I personally was told that they weren't real and then accepted that they weren't real, and moved on. But, for the record, I don't think Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are in the same epistemic boat. Mainly because I've never seen any cosmological, or teleological arguments for Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. And also because I've never seen any arguements from evil for why Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny don't exist. I'm not entirely sure that I understand what "reason" is, nor am I entirely sure that religiouse beliefs are unreasonable; this is a huge epistemological question and I'm not sure I've found an answer to it yet; nor do I think a lot of so called rationalists, even though they are quite sure that they have. So, i'm not sure i understand your question.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
First, I blame Tim Allen for

First, I blame Tim Allen for my personal misspelling of Santa Claus. I add the "e" almost every time. It usually takes someone else to write it before I realize what I've done.

drummermonkey wrote:

But, for the record, I don't think Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are in the same epistemic boat. Mainly because I've never seen any cosmological, or teleological arguments for Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny.

It's fair to say that neither of those characters have the emotional weight attached to them that a personal deity has. Nor the kind of "ultimate" status that allows for a cosmological or teleological argument.

drummermonkey wrote:
I'm not entirely sure that I understand what "reason" is, nor am I entirely sure that religiouse beliefs are unreasonable

Certainly not in the sense that "that price is unreasonable" or "you're being unreasonable" they're not. But "reason" does tend to move in the direction of knowable facts.

drummermonkey wrote:
this is a huge epistemological question and I'm not sure I've found an answer to it yet; nor do I think a lot of so called rationalists, even though they are quite sure that they have. 

You may not find the answer satisfactory, but science does make for an extremely successful epistemology. More successful, in fact, than any other by far. I'm guessing the divide you feel between yourself and rationalists is the conclusion that there is no supernatural. My personal definition (by no means exhaustive or definitive) of "reasonable" includes the rejection of the supernatural as unfounded fiction.

I'm guessing that in your case, the supernatural only gets to have one element, and that's a personal god. Does anyone ever address other gods that have been worshipped? Or are they simply the "wrong" gods, like an attempt at doing religion right, and failing? (There's no counter-punch there - I'm just asking your personal opinion.)

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


drummermonkey
Theist
Posts: 54
Joined: 2006-12-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:It's fair

HisWillness wrote:

It's fair to say that neither of those characters have the emotional weight attached to them that a personal deity has. Nor the kind of "ultimate" status that allows for a cosmological or teleological argument.

So why assume that they are in the same epistemic boat as well? I see these sorts of assertions all the time as hand waving arguments, most noteably by dawkins and it always confuses me. If we look at the arguments or the apparent evidence presented for the intimation to believe in a God, I'm kind of lead to believe that God is in an entirely different epistemic and metaphysical boat as these characters, the same goes for monsters of pasta and celestial tea pots.

Quote:

Certainly not in the sense that "that price is unreasonable" or "you're being unreasonable" they're not. But "reason" does tend to move in the direction of knowable facts.

No it doesn't. I could believe in a fact without sufficient evidence, and just be right by luck. So something being a fact is not sufficient for reason. Most rationalists seem to think that sufficient evidence leads to facts, but they never actually reveal how much evidence is "sufficient", nor do they actually tell us what "evidence" is. Nor is it entirely clear that rationality is purely a matter of having the right amount of evidence. These are major buzz words they use to support their position, but never actually do any philosophical work in defining what these are. Further it seems to me that one could be sufficiently justified in believing something, and they could just be wrong. For example, I can be sufficiently justified in having hands and indeed i am sufficiently justified in believing that I have hands. But if I'm a brain in a vat, being decieved, I could just be wrong.

Quote:

You may not find the answer satisfactory, but science does make for an extremely successful epistemology. More successful, in fact, than any other by far. I'm guessing the divide you feel between yourself and rationalists is the conclusion that there is no supernatural. My personal definition (by no means exhaustive or definitive) of "reasonable" includes the rejection of the supernatural as unfounded fiction.

I'm guessing that in your case, the supernatural only gets to have one element, and that's a personal god. Does anyone ever address other gods that have been worshipped? Or are they simply the "wrong" gods, like an attempt at doing religion right, and failing? (There's no counter-punch there - I'm just asking your personal opinion.)

I actually think that defining rationality as "not including supernatural", is ad hoc. Nor am i entirely convinced that science cancel's out religiouse belief. And as I stated before, i'm not entirely sure about the epistemic status of religiouse belief, these are huge questions in philosophy of religion. In my opinion supernatural is a word that carries with it certain metaphysical baggage, that includes other Gods, other than a personal one that can be worshipped. Certainly the question as to what type of supernatural dieties exist, and the nature of those dieties are important theological questions, and it is still something that every theist should explore and be ready to follow the arguments wherever they lead. But it seems to me that these questions are rather unimportant to atheists, since they don't believe in any diety, or dieties, so why on earth do they ask them? Further, if it is not entirely clear what the answers to these theological questions are, it doesn't mean theism is false. I think first you should probably have a genuine interest in these questions, probably by being convinced that there is a God, then you should inquire as to what the nature of the said God is. My personal opinion is that every religion has overlapping truth claims, some of them contradict others, in which case you should probably make an inference as to what the best explanation is, and continue to carry on an open theological and philosophical dialogue with these other religions. On the other hand these other religions do a lot of things right, and it's important to recognize these things as well. Throughout the process I aim to be intellectually modest and continue to inquire; I believe that this is the best process, if you believe in a diety, to get at what the nature of the diety is.


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
the adhd kicked in but i gave you all i can think of honestly

i can tell you the reason christianity mainly wont change and it is quite simply in their book and traditions. if you want me to go find verses i will even though i dont want to because i will get interested in a story and get sidetracked but will if you really need them.

first reason the bible says in different areas throughout old and new testament that man hates god and man is evil.

second the bible says also that man would rather believe a lie then hear about god.

third it says in psalms 2 i think might be wrong on chapter. it says that man has hated god and conspires againest god. 

fourth in pslams somewhere that a fool has said his heart god does not exist.

fifth the prophets were sent to warn and where repaid by being killed or threatened with their lives just go look at ahab and jeezbal so paints a picture that not believing in god will turn to anything first and only as a last resort turn to god.

sixth i am sure this is in the bible if not actual wording it is protrayed man thinks he is greater than god

seventh do disobey god for he is a jealous and angry god. this uses the tactic of fear which you will find common in the old testanment go ask rook hawkins since hes the expert or rich the other historian  if i make a fair assemet of this character or what way was i wrong on the great i am protrayed himself  throughout the old testament and in reavelation  i believe an angry and jealous god that always needs attention and credit and used fear to get his way so in return the people would do what he said at first out of fear but they always had to be reminded after he let up.

eighth god told isreallites that you could tell if it was a prophet or god or not by if the person was a 100 percent accurate if for telling the future so if i apply this logic and someone predicts something claimed to be told  by god then what they claim no matter if it was that could happen because the person knew ahead of time by logically guessing he know that this was a nice gig to have.

nineth people like power and control with money and this god love to use conquering to convince people along with other stories like parting the red sea

tenth do not be decieved by man meaning in simplier terms if they dont agree with the belief you were raised on then they are wrong.

11th in the world will hate you and you will be prescuted for my namesake.

12th paul mentions as does john and peter that christians must be of same mind and not divided

thirteenth in 1peter 2:9  i think  that christians are an elite race chosen by god. that would to them let them think they are better and superior to humankind because god choose them. and it was worse paul had to fix peter who started to believe jewish christian were better then gentile christians because god gave the jews the law. but this didnt stop christian leaders not to act like they were superior to the non-christian because god told them to spread the good news and i dont see how that would work if you are acting like they are 2nd or 3rd class but throughout what i have seen christian leaders and church liked this idea over actual message.

14th i think the number one reason is this right here if you believed in my son you will be forgiving and get to go to heaven and live forever. but if you dont choose him then you get to go to hell. see the idea is to use fear and then mask it as claiming that i always have loved you but i hate sin and if i didnt love you would i have sent my son(nevermind that somehow is the son and also apart of the holy trinty and triune god head that all three parts are seperate but the same god the son which is god in the body and the spirit of truth which is god also) to die on the cross for your sins and rose again so you had a way to heaven and live forever and be happy which sort of begs this question that if it sounds to good to be true then is it not normally false we are taught. but the bible discourages anything that disagrees with. 

fifteenth and this must be also in important of why it is unlike to use that reason with christianity. the notion of being able to have a relationship with god and he will consoul you when you are in bad times and will be happy with you when you are in good times. the bible claiming this and what i percieve as human nature to give credit to the devine. and never hurts to use the idea of punishment if you dont expect and i am sure no shortage of verses to nail this home rather then actually promote and follow the example of  Jesus's life and principles. i can name three verses  that are overused like roman 3:23 but romans 6:23 is the best on to see the point of accept gift get reward dont accept be punished so without further wait "For the wages of sins is death but the gift of god is eternal life through christ jesus our lord romans 6:23" and just to show it is not man that god can only save our lead to being save is verses like ephesians2:8,9 and everyones favorite john 3:16 which is another example of accept gift rewarded but if you decide againest accepting then punishment is coming in the form of hell and then to john 14:6 which is the notion that not only can you have a personally relationship with god but also you accept christ is the only way to heaven i do believe is "john 14:6 says jesus saith unto him, i am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to my father but by me." so with verses like this you would think that could be only one way which is mentioned in john 10:27-30 points out this and then verse thirty is where it says both the father and son are one. which will later will start to come up with the belief that christians are children of god, and some people that were church leaders got a lot believing this stupid thing called the rapture which had a book series in fiction to describe the rapture and end times and the book series was called left behind and had like 12 -14 books by tim lehaye and jerry b jenkins. the rapture i shouldnt need to tell you what it is and the word rapture is not in the bible. as for someone that sees this and says lets talk about the rapture i will then laugh at because their needs to be a phrase invented come to christianity and believe in the father son and spirit of truth and you will get to heaven and also rapture before the world is destroyed by gods anger and wrath in reavelation even though to believe the rapture from what i understood then you have to forget about wolves in sheeps  colthing and the lion is seeking and waiting to devour. and yeah another thing people that do not scribe to this so called peace and love and great religion the nice verses that paul john and peter along with Jesus wrote telling christians be aware of false prophets that would send you and your soul to hell.

so if

i am a double major in the fields of History and Religion in Society so that is a main reason i know a lot about the bible and the a.d.h.d does have benifits of being able to grasp what something means. and i really dont know what i believe or dont believe but i will say i want the truth and not some opinion because they say so. just because i know the bible in noWAY IN HELL DO I THINK ITS FUCKING INFOULIBLE SO DONT SEND ME THATS GOD WORD STUNT and if it wasnt infoulible whats the purpose of following line or that you believe its infoulible but yet you have no probelm becoming a judge and exucitioner in god's place i do believe that no where in that bible god gave man the power to judge anyone. because this is another favorite of gods who says in the bible i am the judge and i know what a person has done. and ps if you think i am some idiot that you can convince just by using fear and judging tactics then think again christian. because clearly it was mentioned enough times in the new testament  do not judge others unless you want to be judged the same way you judge someone else. so dont judge unless you are willing to be judged the same way you judge. i am sorry for such a long post here enzoconti but i was trying to remember everything that could help out.and why it is not likely someone will give up on the belief of god.

Hope this helps out in understanding it and if i got something wrong about the bible then i am sorry but in no way am i saying or telling anyone what to believe that is a matter everyone has to decide i dont know where to look for understanding belief or nonbelief in religion or no religion because i want to know!!!


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Whoa!That's some

Whoa!

That's some reply.

Firstly, thanks for taking the time and effort, however, I really think people are over complicating their answers. I'm not asking for you to look IN the bible, I'm asking you to look AT the bible. You can't just open a bible, read some verses and simply accept them as true, anymore than I can open a Superman comic and believe in Superman. The bible is a book of magic and miracles it is NO PLACE TO LOOK FOR THE TRUTH! The truth is right in front of your eyes, and you will see it as soon as you open them. The real physical world with which you interact with everyday is the truth. Why does it have to be inextricably linked to some magical divine deity?

You refer to the bible as though the whole world accepts it as "the truth" I'm sorry but I don't.  If you accept it out of hand as the word of God right from the get go, you leave yourself with no choice BUT to believe. It could be, after all - just a book, just a bunch of stories that have endured in the lack of science.

 


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
hey you!! ill make you famous!!

well i used the verse as actual basis for reasons they would not use logic over faith plain and simple no more answers to that question sorry again for the long post earlier and was only tring to help out.

 

ill put this in big letters so you can see it better!

 

 

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE IN OR NOT BELIEVE IN.

 

 

General

 


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
drummermonkey

drummermonkey wrote:

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

First I'm not sure that I learned, or reasoned without the assistance of adults (who taught me how to reason) that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny aren't real. I personally was told that they weren't real and then accepted that they weren't real, and moved on. But, for the record, I don't think Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are in the same epistemic boat. Mainly because I've never seen any cosmological, or teleological arguments for Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny.

1) He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake (Santa is omnicient)

2) He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sakes (Santa is omnicient, and he wants you to be good, he is omnibenevolent)

3) You will be punished for not being good. Being good, according to the gospel of the Claus can be interpreted as leaving out milk and cookies, hanging stockings and sitting on an old man's lap.

4) Santa can deliver billions of gifts in a few hours and defy the laws of physics (Santa is omnipotent)

5) If Santa is omnicient, omnipotent and benevolent, where do bad little boys and girls come from and what sort of Union do the gnomes have?

6) Santa is logically inconsistent, and a bit of a pedophile, and therefore does not exist.

How are we doing? Eye-wink

 

Quote:
And also because I've never seen any arguements from evil for why Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny don't exist. I'm not entirely sure that I understand what "reason" is, nor am I entirely sure that religiouse beliefs are unreasonable; this is a huge epistemological question and I'm not sure I've found an answer to it yet; nor do I think a lot of so called rationalists, even though they are quite sure that they have. So, i'm not sure i understand your question.

Well now you have one.

Let me remind you though, that you've also likely never seen logical arguments against Vishnu, Thor or Shiva, yet you don't believe in any of these gods - why is that?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


iluvc2h5oh
iluvc2h5oh's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
enzoconti wrote:At some

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

 

I think people believe in God longer than Santa or the Easter bunny, because while adults say they are real, their complete life isnt staged around them year round.

If you are from a strong Christian family I am willing to bet, you say grace, go to church on sundays, have religious paraphinalia around the house the same cant be said about these other 2 characters.

So I think constant exposure to the idea would make it more real somehow.

"When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible, They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bible." - Jomo Kenyatta


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
People who believe in god

People who believe in god generally do so because of how they feel not how they think.

Problem with trying to argue with them is I put ZERO value on how they feel, it simply doesnt give you any value in understanding the universe

 

Put quite simply 'If you feel that god/Jesus/FSM loves you' is not evidence of his/her/noodly existance never mind whether you are loved

Or to put it another way it would be like a Christian saying 'I believe in god because my favourite colour is red'

 


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
hey look outside of science and maybe use history like

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

you see richard dawkins has said you believe because mainly it was how you are raised. so lets examine this phrase is it science that came up with which the answer is no. but rather history tends to show if a lie is told long enough people will start to believe it.in example the brief knowledge of nazi germany and you don't have to take my word for it. we know the nazi party did not just pop-up and start their evil without using fear like the richagstagg capital building which hitler blamed on the communists and we now it was his party that did it. they did it to enact and make it more easy to have a dicator. the nazi used litruague to convince people that german citizans were the elite and also showed the people it didn't like mainly jewish as subhuman. the nazis used history taken from how the U.S used writings to convinvce people of race and turned it how the nazi party made it look like their enemies did not want what was best for germany. so you see my friend history is just as in important in explaining things and without history my friend you would now nothing on science or its theories. but then again people think history is unimportant  so they don't like it because its boring.

now here a website that a class instructor sent me to and to answer the questions. http://www.markroques.com/bigfive.htm and its 5 worldview questions and they help but science my friend can not explain everything nor is it science burden to do that.

sceince is nuetral in the realm of proving or disproving god don't make the mistake some people have claiming it proves no god. because sceince was never intended to prove or disprove that. but my friend do not act like you are better then me because you like science and i like history more then science. they are both important. and i know you think you smarter then someone that believes the bible is true but that does not mean you are. although i don't believe in it they are people that do and wont see anything but what supports it.

well later all i am off to class have a good day.

 

 

General


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
drummermonkey wrote:No it

drummermonkey wrote:

No it doesn't. I could believe in a fact without sufficient evidence, and just be right by luck. So something being a fact is not sufficient for reason. Most rationalists seem to think that sufficient evidence leads to facts, but they never actually reveal how much evidence is "sufficient", nor do they actually tell us what "evidence" is. Nor is it entirely clear that rationality is purely a matter of having the right amount of evidence. These are major buzz words they use to support their position, but never actually do any philosophical work in defining what these are. Further it seems to me that one could be sufficiently justified in believing something, and they could just be wrong. For example, I can be sufficiently justified in having hands and indeed i am sufficiently justified in believing that I have hands. But if I'm a brain in a vat, being decieved, I could just be wrong.

While we might simply be a simulation of intelligence in a computer, there is little reason to believe so. At some point, you have to decide if experience and sensation represents reality. If you decide it does not represent reality, you are pretty much on your own to figure out what does represent reality.

In science, "facts" are not merely observations of reality. They are data from reality. There is actually a fairly rigorous requirement for what constitutes a "fact." An observation is not sufficient. That observation must be measured in some fashion. The methodology, accuracy, and precision of the measurement are all important. The single hardest thing in science is figuring out what to measure, and how to measure it.

After the facts (data) are gathered, scientists then try to creatively explain the data. They come up with all kinds of crazy ideas at this point -- anything goes. Well, almost anything. There is only one requirement for an explanation: that it predict something that isn't yet known, but that can be tested by further gathering of data. If the explanation has a prediction that can be measured, it is an "hypothesis." It the data is gathered and it matches the predictions of the hypothesis, the hypothesis may be promoted to a "theory." Further predictions that turn out to be true add support to the theory. If an hypothesis or theory make a prediction that turns out wrong, they are partially or totally invalidated.

Forgive me if I'm covering stuff you already know. I'm doing it as a set-up, not to be condescending.

Most importantly, science assumes a couple of things: first, that objects and processes in the universe are observable. Second, that the objects and processes behave in a consistent manner (though not necessarily predictable; they just behave in a consistently unpredictable manner, such as quantum mechanics).

Basically, science is the process of measuring the observable, and figuring out how these observations fit together.

The important thing is, the terms "facts" and "evidence" are well-defined in science. The epistemology of science is rigorous, and has proven its efficacy over the last couple of hundred years. It's also constantly adapting and getting better. A little under a hundred years ago, there were two major shake-ups in science: relativity, and quantum mechanics. A few years later, Thomas Kuhn described these revolutions in science, and presented the natural life cycle of scientific ideas. All this has driven home that every scientific idea is contingent strictly upon its ability to accurately predict behavior of objects and processes. The only thing known absolutely are the "facts," the measurements, the data.

We can assign probabilities of correctness to hypothesis or theories, based on their predictive power, but that probability will never reach 100%.

Quote:

I actually think that defining rationality as "not including supernatural", is ad hoc. Nor am i entirely convinced that science cancel's out religiouse belief. And as I stated before, i'm not entirely sure about the epistemic status of religiouse belief, these are huge questions in philosophy of religion. In my opinion supernatural is a word that carries with it certain metaphysical baggage, that includes other Gods, other than a personal one that can be worshipped. Certainly the question as to what type of supernatural dieties exist, and the nature of those dieties are important theological questions, and it is still something that every theist should explore and be ready to follow the arguments wherever they lead. But it seems to me that these questions are rather unimportant to atheists, since they don't believe in any diety, or dieties, so why on earth do they ask them? Further, if it is not entirely clear what the answers to these theological questions are, it doesn't mean theism is false. I think first you should probably have a genuine interest in these questions, probably by being convinced that there is a God, then you should inquire as to what the nature of the said God is. My personal opinion is that every religion has overlapping truth claims, some of them contradict others, in which case you should probably make an inference as to what the best explanation is, and continue to carry on an open theological and philosophical dialogue with these other religions. On the other hand these other religions do a lot of things right, and it's important to recognize these things as well. Throughout the process I aim to be intellectually modest and continue to inquire; I believe that this is the best process, if you believe in a diety, to get at what the nature of the diety is.

"Rationalism" is the concept that we can derive the nature of reality by the observation of reality. Excluding the "supernatural" is simply part of the definition. If we define the "supernatural" to be anything that can affect the universe contrary to the coherent nature of the universe (that is, something outside of our known reality that can perform miracles, essentially), then we have a working definition by which you can prove God. All you have to do is find a fact (a measured observation) that is inconsistent with reality.

There's a catch, though. Since we don't really know the nature of reality, there's no way to figure out if something is inconsistent with that nature. So, no, science cannot disprove God, at least at this point. Further, there are areas in which God could "hide," such as in chaos, or below the Planck constant, or in the bits that make up intelligence and consciousness.

Science concerns itself with the nature of observable reality. If God is real, He is somehow part of reality, even if it is only the effects of His actions. It seems that He would've left a mark somewhere, somehow. Some people believe the universe itself is that mark, and I have no way to prove them wrong.  All I know is, I see no need for His hand in any of this.

Atheists (well, me, anyway) are interested in theological questions because it helps us understand other humans who do hold a belief in some form of God. It's interesting from a social perspective, and especially interesting from a psychological perspective.

Anyway, these are just some random thoughts in response to your post.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
welcome back enzoconti

you see great and wise one i am sorry i didnt go by you wise postition of science to explain christian thestists i am so sorry i am stupid and knowledgable. because i forgot science can prove everything and has done it since like forever. i should of realized that if i answered the question as if science was my basis. so i will do so now. hope you can handle it with your great and wise and never failed knowledge.

ok science should instead of explain ideas of experiments like ie i say people like the innate nature of being superior and others that don't agree with them as inferior. then my examples would include areas where this is possible and one would be like christianity vs atheisism. i am suppose to going to do experiments as neutral and let evidence speak. my hypothis is if i tell a christian i am atheistist and do not believe in the concept of a god. then if most of the christians then tell me you have to believe in god and jesus or you will go to hell then i would consider this as example of christians believing they are superior because they have a holy book they have claimed. now if the christian says hey thats intresting why do you believe in such a way that is not in the bible. and we discuss and he never says i am going to hell because of my disbelief but he believes his postition and he could be wrong then this would not be evidence that christian had a superior attiude towards me or athiesm. now if the christian finds out without me telling the person i am atheist and then says you cant be an atheist you can't prove their is no god so theferor you are agnostic would also fit in the catgeory of evidience to support my hypthosis. but i am sure that this would be a bias postion and some would agree and others would disagree.

and just as my evidence for a christian is what i consider to being acting like they have superior postition then i have to do the same when evidence of to atheism towards christianity. the same way or then i just created a double standard. so if i met an atheis asked me what i believed and i said christianity and and he said why do you believe that. and i say because of the bible which i see as a book to give meaning to life and to get to heaven. an the atheist then says that book is worthless and just bunch of stories that are fiction and told me i should study science and evidence because as a christian your god does not exist and you have no proof or where is your proof with science to back it up. then this is evidence just like christian postition of saying atheism is a belief that god can be disproven. and i would have to accredit this evidence as proof the atheist was acting Superior. now if i was christian and met another atheist and he said thats interesting you believe in christianity but said he did not but could understand my belief then that is not proof for the atheist not acting superior.

and if i did this study which i am not because it is bias and up to the one that creates it and would actually if accountablity was asked all i would do is select who i would think proved me right on both sides more then likely. so i wouldn't do it because i am not a trained person to conduct this kind of scientific survey.

and those against would either if done fairly or not quickly say i only used the worst people that are examples to their belief in christianity or atheism. and would demand another survey and this one not used and they would adminstor the survey. so it would be mute because the ones against will find something new until they get tired of oppising or just be nestrologic to the study.

but they would of something right because here in the united states if a study like this put a bad repution on both christianity and athiesm they would justifibly so come out and discredit saying the study was flawed until it became and actual fact which we see i presume.

 

 

this is so you can understand read this.

I Don't know what i believe or Don't believe!!!! I am Attention defiecit Hyperactive Disorder and i might not be like you but what makes you better then me or to have the right to act it????????

 

PS. Enzoconti i am by far no dumbass and like people in real life have realized you will sooner or later. so later old wise one of knowledge i could use in showing oneself superior just because they don't believe what i believe. so could you teach me o great and wise one how to act like i know it all and you cant tell me a damn thing pretty please.

 

Have A Good Day

 

General


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Not so welcome

Take it easy there big fella, I had no intention of offending you or anyone else, I have not made any comment or insinuations about intellect or superiority. I don't think your a dumbass, and I appreciate your input, I apologise if you were offended. I've got to go right now, I'll try and get back to this post soon.

 

 

Cheers!!


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
ok i thought you did so i was wrong on that

ok i am sorry i mistook what you were saying and i went on defnsive to offensive so thats why i did what i did. i only did what i saw would get respect since i thought you was attacking what i was trying to help and thought when you said end phrase you were meaning that i should go back and not speak because i didnt show science so i am sorry thats why i used.

so are we cool i mistook or read to much into what you wrote and thats my fault.

 

 

 

General


Jerud1711
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
 Because Jesus existed in

 

Because Jesus existed in the real time space manifold we call history. His life even dated the world calendar. We are currently in the year of our Lord [Anno Domini] 2008.

Jesus death by crucifiction is the first of the several minimal facts regarding Him that are accepted universally by scholars [conservative AND liberal] everywhere. His death is considered a historical fact. See "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Habermas and Licona.

And "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography," by Crossan.

 

Jesus is also responsible for founding the Orthodox  and Catholic Churchs. We can trace our succession of bishops all the way back to the apostles.  Many ancient sources attest to this.

Santa Claus is just a fairy tale. Jesus is a real historical person. Look in any encyclopedia under "Jesus."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Read the Jesus Mythicism

Read the Jesus Mythicism thread. That we use the year like that no more proves Jesus than the fact we use the names we use for the days of the week proves Roman/Nordic Gods - or the months prove Roman Gods:

Wednesday = Woden's Day (Norse god)

Thursday = Thor's Day (ditto)

Saturday = Saturn's Day (Roman God)

 

January - named for Roman god Janus

May, June, July, August all named for Roman emperors who were considered gods after death.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Look in the encyclopedia?

I can find Yogi Bear in the encyclopedia! So what!!!

I'm not disputing that Jesus existed, my question is, why do people believe the UNBELIEVABLE on the sole basis that it says so in the bible. The bible is a manufactured history full of un-reliable accounts of miracles and magic. I can't accept any of it as fact. How can you?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
enzoconti wrote:At some

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

I apply the same weight to all literary tracts, which is, that they're all founded in something knowable, without exception. It's only a matter of listening to the author without to much prejudice before you'll find it.  I'm a believer in comparative theology and I identify as theist because for me this adds to indicate a real spiritual presence in our lives, that of God/All is/Buddha nature. This is my logical conclusion which I am wiling to put to any reasonable test. The many concepts of Gods are allegory and metaphor for an original and pervading multifaceted entity from which life springs eternal etc... etc.. and other such platitudes... equally Santa and the Easter Bunny are metaphors for good conscience and revitalisation, respectively, so they are also as real as God in terms of their presence in our lives.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:enzoconti

Eloise wrote:

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

I apply the same weight to all literary tracts, which is, that they're all founded in something knowable, without exception. It's only a matter of listening to the author without to much prejudice before you'll find it.  I'm a believer in comparative theology and I identify as theist because for me this adds to indicate a real spiritual presence in our lives, that of God/All is/Buddha nature. This is my logical conclusion which I am wiling to put to any reasonable test. The many concepts of Gods are allegory and metaphor for an original and pervading multifaceted entity from which life springs eternal etc... etc.. and other such platitudes... equally Santa and the Easter Bunny are metaphors for good conscience and revitalisation, respectively, so they are also as real as God in terms of their presence in our lives.

I think your making a lot of sense, in terms of personal spiritual needs, however outside of your mind and in the physical and practical world, I don't see how that works.


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
yes can you give me the links and proof that this book is true

"Jesus death by Crucifixion is the first of the several minimal facts regarding Him that are accepted universally by scholars [conservative AND liberal] everywhere."

yes accepted by who other Christian Apologetics posing as Scholars Everywhere? Can you prove to many anyone Non-Religious Scholars and Non-Christian Scholars saying this. Now please go research this topic. I think you blowing smoke as last ditch effort.

"We are currently in the year of our Lord [Anno Domini] 2008."

Wrong we are in 2008 Common Era. We in scholar world and non-Judea Christian world view use this dating and Before Common Era for Ancient times.

Habermas, Gary all I need to know for him  is the fact that Christian Apologetics normally quote him and that he is a Professor at the Liberty University (Jerry Falwell Founded Christian University in Lynch-berg,Va) Nice Try but don't start using Christians to Prove Christianity my Friend. Now don't come telling me that he is an actual Historian sorry I don't like to listen to people trying to rewrite History because of their Religion or that it looks good for them to do.

"Jesus is also responsible for founding the Orthodox  and Catholic Church's. We can trace our succession of bishops all the way back to the apostles.  Many ancient sources attest to this."

I thought that founder of the Early Churches were Paul aka Saul of Tarsus and Peter (First Pope of Catholic Church)

so would you like to prove Jesus existed or can you find any non-bias and non- Religious sources?

"Santa Claus is just a fairy tale. Jesus is a real historical person. Look in any encyclopedia under "Jesus."

Let me check Santa Claus fairy Tale. Jesus Christ Myth which means only a Legend and still no proof so until Proof comes he Existed he will still Be a myth and bible does not count. encyclopedia does not count because i bet it has Allah also and you don't believe he is True God.

 

LegendKIller_Justin on stickam.com

"Who was the Fool, who the wise man, beggar or King? Whether poor or rich, all's the same in death." Papa Roach Getting Away With Murder album

 

General-Forrest

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
enzoconti wrote:Eloise

enzoconti wrote:

Eloise wrote:

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

I apply the same weight to all literary tracts, which is, that they're all founded in something knowable, without exception. It's only a matter of listening to the author without to much prejudice before you'll find it.  I'm a believer in comparative theology and I identify as theist because for me this adds to indicate a real spiritual presence in our lives, that of God/All is/Buddha nature. This is my logical conclusion which I am wiling to put to any reasonable test. The many concepts of Gods are allegory and metaphor for an original and pervading multifaceted entity from which life springs eternal etc... etc.. and other such platitudes... equally Santa and the Easter Bunny are metaphors for good conscience and revitalisation, respectively, so they are also as real as God in terms of their presence in our lives.

I think your making a lot of sense, in terms of personal spiritual needs, however outside of your mind and in the physical and practical world, I don't see how that works.

It works rather easily actually. In the practical world they all are linguistic symbols conveying a complex experiential meaning. Human kind has evolved a to a level of sophistication in such methods, our arts are more sublime, so to speak, but not necessarily more poignant. Santa Claus and Salvador Dali, for example, are evidence that we still use evocation as a communicational tool and although the latter is quite the example that evocative expression is philosophically useful to us, it isn't all that different to Santa Claus in it's method of conveying meaning- "show, don't tell."

Santa is an exemplar of our own subconscious design, notice how in Santa's world there is no third world or racial politics, there's only good kids and naughty kids, and their worth is measured in a single miraculous event, not a day to day living standard. So Santa is simply an exemplar figure, it's what he represents that is real, a desire for the effortless sudden onset of global justice and conscience which the humanity that projects a Santa intends itself to inherit from then ultimately dissolve the symbol in favour of the reality.  But then Santa is a really simple symbol to us because he stands for things we have, now, in our western society especially, begun to define very explicitly and clearly. God remains in terrible obscurity in comparison. So we can easily dissolve Santa for a reality which we quite well grasp, whereas God.... well...... needs some work, to say the least... Smiling

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
enzoconti wrote:At some

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

drummermonkey wrote:
But, for the record, I don't think Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are in the same epistemic boat. Mainly because I've never seen any cosmological, or teleological arguments for Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

1) He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake (Santa is omniscient)

2) He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sakes (Santa is omniscient, and he wants you to be good, he is omnibenevolent)

3) You will be punished for not being good. Being good, according to the gospel of the Claus can be interpreted as leaving out milk and cookies, hanging stockings and sitting on an old man's lap.

4) Santa can deliver billions of gifts in a few hours and defy the laws of physics (Santa is omnipotent)

5) If Santa is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, where do bad little boys and girls come from and what sort of Union do the gnomes have?

6) Santa is logically inconsistent, and a bit of a pedophile, and therefore does not exist.

Yes, Yellow.

Your words were my first thoughts upon reading the opening post.

Thanks

I will go further now and say two things:

1.) Just because a person has never seen a particular "argument", doesn't mean one cannot be constructed or that one doesn't already exist.

and 2.) In the case of Santa Tim and the Egg Hopper..."Cosmological", possibly not.... Teleological (As I understand the definition)= YES!


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:enzoconti

Eloise wrote:

enzoconti wrote:

Eloise wrote:

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

I apply the same weight to all literary tracts, which is, that they're all founded in something knowable, without exception. It's only a matter of listening to the author without to much prejudice before you'll find it.  I'm a believer in comparative theology and I identify as theist because for me this adds to indicate a real spiritual presence in our lives, that of God/All is/Buddha nature. This is my logical conclusion which I am wiling to put to any reasonable test. The many concepts of Gods are allegory and metaphor for an original and pervading multifaceted entity from which life springs eternal etc... etc.. and other such platitudes... equally Santa and the Easter Bunny are metaphors for good conscience and revitalisation, respectively, so they are also as real as God in terms of their presence in our lives.

I think your making a lot of sense, in terms of personal spiritual needs, however outside of your mind and in the physical and practical world, I don't see how that works.

It works rather easily actually. In the practical world they all are linguistic symbols conveying a complex experiential meaning. Human kind has evolved a to a level of sophistication in such methods, our arts are more sublime, so to speak, but not necessarily more poignant. Santa Claus and Salvador Dali, for example, are evidence that we still use evocation as a communicational tool and although the latter is quite the example that evocative expression is philosophically useful to us, it isn't all that different to Santa Claus in it's method of conveying meaning- "show, don't tell."

Santa is an exemplar of our own subconscious design, notice how in Santa's world there is no third world or racial politics, there's only good kids and naughty kids, and their worth is measured in a single miraculous event, not a day to day living standard. So Santa is simply an exemplar figure, it's what he represents that is real, a desire for the effortless sudden onset of global justice and conscience which the humanity that projects a Santa intends itself to inherit from then ultimately dissolve the symbol in favour of the reality.  But then Santa is a really simple symbol to us because he stands for things we have, now, in our western society especially, begun to define very explicitly and clearly. God remains in terrible obscurity in comparison. So we can easily dissolve Santa for a reality which we quite well grasp, whereas God.... well...... needs some work, to say the least... Smiling

It only "needs some work" if you want God to exist!

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but this is getting far more complicated than it needs to be. I don't need a science degree to know that I can't walk through walls, I just know that I can't. I also know that I can't walk on water, or be raised from the dead. I didn't always know this, I used to pretend that I could do anything, but when I was about 9 or 10 the power of reason began to kick in, and I simply deducted it. The only way I could continue to beleive in god as an adult, would be to construct a world where reason and science can be denied, and thats where the complexity starts. In my original post I was just curious as to how most people, when growing into adulthood leave behind all their imaginary freinds except one. Is it possible, that of all our childhood imaginary freinds, only one threatned us with eternal damnation, and that just pure un-adulterated FEAR is what makes room for God in an adult world?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
enzoconti wrote:It only

enzoconti wrote:

It only "needs some work" if you want God to exist!

I disagree. It needs work if you want to dissolve the symbol and have humanity as a whole grasp what reality lies behind the God stories in any case. Although I do not agree with it, you could say that the only reality behind God concepts is the projection of human fear, it would still take work to establish this.

enzoconti wrote:

 Is it possible, that of all our childhood imaginary freinds, only one threatned us with eternal damnation, and that just pure un-adulterated FEAR is what makes room for God in an adult world?

Yes, of course it's possible.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:enzoconti

Eloise wrote:

enzoconti wrote:

It only "needs some work" if you want God to exist!

I disagree. It needs work if you want to dissolve the symbol and have humanity as a whole grasp what reality lies behind the God stories in any case. Although I do not agree with it, you could say that the only reality behind God concepts is the projection of human fear, it would still take work to establish this.

enzoconti wrote:

"Projection of human fear" there - the work is done!

 Is it possible, that of all our childhood imaginary freinds, only one threatned us with eternal damnation, and that just pure un-adulterated FEAR is what makes room for God in an adult world?

Yes, of course it's possible.

Thanks Eloise, I do enjoy reading your posts!!

,  Thanks Eloise,


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
General-Forrest wrote:"Jesus

General-Forrest wrote:

"Jesus death by Crucifixion is the first of the several minimal facts regarding Him that are accepted universally by scholars [conservative AND liberal] everywhere."

yes accepted by who other Christian Apologetics posing as Scholars Everywhere? Can you prove to many anyone Non-Religious Scholars and Non-Christian Scholars saying this. Now please go research this topic. I think you blowing smoke as last ditch effort.

"We are currently in the year of our Lord [Anno Domini] 2008."

Wrong we are in 2008 Common Era. We in scholar world and non-Judea Christian world view use this dating and Before Common Era for Ancient times.

Habermas, Gary all I need to know for him  is the fact that Christian Apologetics normally quote him and that he is a Professor at the Liberty University (Jerry Falwell Founded Christian University in Lynch-berg,Va) Nice Try but don't start using Christians to Prove Christianity my Friend. Now don't come telling me that he is an actual Historian sorry I don't like to listen to people trying to rewrite History because of their Religion or that it looks good for them to do.

"Jesus is also responsible for founding the Orthodox  and Catholic Church's. We can trace our succession of bishops all the way back to the apostles.  Many ancient sources attest to this."

I thought that founder of the Early Churches were Paul aka Saul of Tarsus and Peter (First Pope of Catholic Church)

so would you like to prove Jesus existed or can you find any non-bias and non- Religious sources?

"Santa Claus is just a fairy tale. Jesus is a real historical person. Look in any encyclopedia under "Jesus."

Let me check Santa Claus fairy Tale. Jesus Christ Myth which means only a Legend and still no proof so until Proof comes he Existed he will still Be a myth and bible does not count. encyclopedia does not count because i bet it has Allah also and you don't believe he is True God.

 

LegendKIller_Justin on stickam.com

"Who was the Fool, who the wise man, beggar or King? Whether poor or rich, all's the same in death." Papa Roach Getting Away With Murder album

 

General-Forrest

 

I really don't care wether Jesus existed or not! It's wether his miracles existed that matter, the former can be proven, the latter cannot!

 


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
enzoconti wrote:At some

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

What a silly man, judging that Jesus is an actual person of history, why would the same logic as Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny apply? 

 

I'm guessing you don't have fucking clue about the historical method, because you come off sounding just as dumb as the most dimwitted of creationist. 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
There is no evidence Jesus

There is no evidence Jesus ever actually lived - check out the Jesus Mythicist forum.


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Listen my fellow, dimwit,

Listen my fellow, dimwit,  i can tell you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're talking about, especially when you claim "there is no evidence of jesus ever actually lived."

Here, I'll give you one piece of evidence

A greco-roman biography of an individual, is evidence for his existense. If you had half a brain you could figure this out. 

Now tell me why this isn't evidence? Since you're of the persuasion that there is no evidence---a claim that most historians would laugh at, as most scientist would laugh hearing creationist blab that there is no evidence for evolution. 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What Greco-Roman biography?

What Greco-Roman biography? If it was written long after his supposed death it can't be considered. It is possible to write a biography of a fictional character.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I'm taking on your daddy,

I'm taking on your daddy, Rooky H., over there in this mythiscist section, but you can be my little in between appetizer 

None of this changes the fact that it's "evidence". Do you understand what evidence is shizzle my nizzle? Can you define it for me. Are you saying that all greco-biographies written after one's death (which the majority of them are) are not evidence for the historical existence of a person? Notice I'm not claiming that the evidence is proof positive that the individual existed, but that it's "evidence nonetheless. 

It's possible to write a greco-roman biography of a fictional character, but quite unlikely. History, like science can never rule out a possibility, even the possibility of the world being 6000 years old, it can just claim that it's highly unlikely. 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:I'm taking on

theidiot wrote:

I'm taking on your daddy, Rooky H., over there in this mythiscist section,

Apparently you have no interested in being taken as a serious opponent.  I'll be sure to treat you as you've been treating others on this board.  Don't cry about it later.

Quote:
None of this changes the fact that it's "evidence". Do you understand what evidence is shizzle my nizzle? Can you define it for me. Are you saying that all greco-biographies written after one's death (which the majority of them are) are not evidence for the historical existence of a person? Notice I'm not claiming that the evidence is proof positive that the individual existed, but that it's "evidence nonetheless.

You've provided no evidence.  You've just complained about people "not understanding" that it is...but you haven't given us what "it" is.  You say alot but prove nothing.  All you've done is whined like a little bitch for six posts now - and it is the same completely ignorant drivel each time. 

Quote:
It's possible to write a greco-roman biography of a fictional character, but quite unlikely.

Why do you make the assumption that (what Gospel you are refering to) it is Greco-Roman biography?  This is a notion that has been put to rest by modern literary-critical methods.

Quote:
History, like science can never rule out a possibility, even the possibility of the world being 6000 years old, it can just claim that it's highly unlikely. 

Science has already ruled out that claim.  It's called geology.  "theidiot" is a good name for you - fitting.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I've read it so far and, to

I've read it so far and, to put it mildly, I'm less than impressed. So far it's been an epic fail.


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:enzoconti

theidiot wrote:

enzoconti wrote:

At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!

What a silly man, judging that Jesus is an actual person of history, why would the same logic as Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny apply? 

 

I'm guessing you don't have fucking clue about the historical method, because you come off sounding just as dumb as the most dimwitted of creationist. 

Once again DIPSHIT! It doesn't matter if he existed or not, it is his attributed "miracles" that I'm bringing into question!


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Well, I just read the OP and

Well, I just read the OP and responded, the OP didn't say anything about attributed miracles, but it implied that Jesus wasn't a real person, like the Easter Bunny is not real. 

But yum, you got a little kick in you baby. I like that. 

with much luv,

dipshit 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
The Easter bunny is NOT

The Easter bunny is NOT real, Santa is NOT real, and Jesus' miracles are NOT real!!! He was just a man (if that!)

 

What happened to your challenge on Rook? Seems he had too much KICK for you.


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:What happened to

 

Quote:
What happened to your challenge on Rook? Seems he had too much KICK for you.

 

  Yea, that's it Rook, some kid who has a HS diploma but runs around calling himself an "expert' of ancient texts and history. Talk about over compensation. Rook doesn't even know how to make an arguments, but he sure knows how to throw around names. And it's an embarrassment that you all suck his dick so much. I bet most of you don't know what the fucks he's talking about, because most of the time he's talking out of his ass. Too much of a kick for me? lol. I'm waiting on his response. You watch and see, who really has the kick. I'm going to enjoy ripping in to him.   

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote: Quote:What

theidiot wrote:

 

Quote:
What happened to your challenge on Rook? Seems he had too much KICK for you.

 

  Yea, that's it Rook, some kid who has a HS diploma but runs around calling himself an "expert' of ancient texts and history. Talk about over compensation. Rook doesn't even know how to make an arguments, but he sure knows how to throw around names. And it's an embarrassment that you all suck his dick so much. I bet most of you don't know what the fucks he's talking about, because most of the time he's talking out of his ass. Too much of a kick for me? lol. I'm waiting on his response. You watch and see, who really has the kick. I'm going to enjoy ripping in to him. 

Note that this person has openly plagiarized wikipedia and dictionary.com in a response to me after having the idiocy to pwn himself in that thread he challenged me in.  Like I said, his name fits.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
How close is idiot to

How close is idiot to getting a "special" avatar by the way?


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote: Quote:What

theidiot wrote:

 

Quote:
What happened to your challenge on Rook? Seems he had too much KICK for you.

 

  Yea, that's it Rook, some kid who has a HS diploma but runs around calling himself an "expert' of ancient texts and history. Talk about over compensation. Rook doesn't even know how to make an arguments, but he sure knows how to throw around names. And it's an embarrassment that you all suck his dick so much. I bet most of you don't know what the fucks he's talking about, because most of the time he's talking out of his ass. Too much of a kick for me? lol. I'm waiting on his response. You watch and see, who really has the kick. I'm going to enjoy ripping in to him.   

 

I don't think you'll get another opportunity, but if you do, play the ball, not the man. And try pulling your angry head out of your angry arse first, what's with all the ad hominem? sheesh!


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot is just one big

theidiot is just one big case of projection.  He's nobody important. 


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
He is important to the

He is important to the idiots. By the way, I don't think Alexander the Great was a man either! I'm pretty certain he was a fish! LOL.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
enzoconti wrote:He is

enzoconti wrote:

He is important to the idiots.

That doesn't make him important either.

Quote:
By the way, I don't think Alexander the Great was a man either! I'm pretty certain he was a fish! LOL.

Ha!  By his logic, it's possible that Alexander the Great was a Alien!  Maybe they will do a Stargate episode on that.  Hey, it's possible.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Note that

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Note that this person has openly plagiarized wikipedia and dictionary.com in a response to me after having the idiocy to pwn himself in that thread he challenged me in.  Like I said, his name fits.

Smiling, ah my little rooky, is this going to be your means of weaseling out of a debate with me? Here, if you're so hurt that I didn't cite wikipedia for the paragraph in question or put quotation marks around it, I'll do it for you baby. I'll even be more careful next time? Will you be happy then? 

And what did i plagirize from dictionary.com? I think I missed this?

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Ha!  By his logic,

 

Quote:
Ha!  By his logic, it's possible that Alexander the Great was a Alien!  Maybe they will do a Stargate episode on that.  Hey, it'spossible.

Here dumbass, since you claim to know distinction between the probable and possible, and yet seem to think there's something silly about saying it's possible that Alexander the great was an Alien, though not probable. 

There's an infinite number of things that are possible:

Quote:
"here’s a long list of things that that are possible—there’s nothing contrary to logic that renders them false like “there are no married bachelors,” but most people do not think they are true or probable. 

It is possible that there was no Civil War
It is possible that the Holocaust didn’t happen.
It is possible that the Apostles made it all up.
It is possible that Mohammed made it all up. 
It is possible that someone slipped something into Jesus’ drink before he was entombed to make him look dead. 
It is possible that Jesus was walking on a sandbar at low tide. 
It is possible that wearing a raw steak hat wards off disease.
It is possible that eating three year old rotten duck eggs is good for your health. 
It is possible that your positive pregnancy test is a false positive. 
It is possible that your negative pregnancy test is a false negative.
It is possible that even though you are taking birth control pills exactly as prescribed everyday you are pregnant.
It is possible that the government is watching everything you do and hiding it very well. 
It is possible that there was no Jesus. 
It is possible that Christopher Marlowe wrote all of Shakespeare’s plays. 
It is possible that having sex with a virgin cures HIV.
It is possible that eating the flesh of your enemies gives you power. 
It is possible that birth defects are caused by wickedness from a past life. 
It is possible that the Detroit Lions could win the Super bowl. 
It is possible that fever is caused by demon possession.
It is possible that the earth rests on the back of a (invisible) turtle.
It is possible that lightening is thrown by an angry Zeus.
It is possible that natural disasters are God's anger with sinners 
It is possible that the moon is made of green cheese.
It is possible that the stars are light shining through tiny wholes in a 
heavenly orb that surrounds us.
It is possible that the moon landing in 1969 was faked on a secret Hollywood set by NASA.
It is possible that aliens conspired with Oswald to kill JFK.
It is possible that the CIA is responsible for 9-11. 
It is possible that there is a secret Christian society -the Knights Templar--that run the world governments. 
It is possible that Jesus married Mary and had kids.
It is possible that exorcisms cast out the devil. 
It is possible that the juice and crackers actually turn into the body and blood of Jesus in your mouth 
It is possible that Poseidon rules an underwater kingdom.
It is possible that wishful thinking can help you win the lottery 
It is possible that wearing your lucky underwear will help you win the basketball game
It is possible that Santa exists."

http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/confusing-possible-with-probably-and.html

I even cited it for you sexy, happy? 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


drummermonkey
Theist
Posts: 54
Joined: 2006-12-17
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

drummermonkey wrote:

First I'm not sure that I learned, or reasoned without the assistance of adults (who taught me how to reason) that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny aren't real. I personally was told that they weren't real and then accepted that they weren't real, and moved on. But, for the record, I don't think Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are in the same epistemic boat. Mainly because I've never seen any cosmological, or teleological arguments for Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny.

1) He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake (Santa is omnicient)

2) He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sakes (Santa is omnicient, and he wants you to be good, he is omnibenevolent)

3) You will be punished for not being good. Being good, according to the gospel of the Claus can be interpreted as leaving out milk and cookies, hanging stockings and sitting on an old man's lap.

4) Santa can deliver billions of gifts in a few hours and defy the laws of physics (Santa is omnipotent)

5) If Santa is omnicient, omnipotent and benevolent, where do bad little boys and girls come from and what sort of Union do the gnomes have?

6) Santa is logically inconsistent, and a bit of a pedophile, and therefore does not exist.

How are we doing? Eye-wink

I think pretty bad, (1) is false. If Santa sees you when you're sleeping and knows when you're awake that doesn't make him omnicient. This seems pretty plain if you think about it.

(2) is false, if person S knows if person P is good that doesn't make him omniscient. And also wanting someone to be good does not make a person omnibenevolent. Doing only the good makes one omni benevolent.

(4) is false for similar reasons that (1) is, suppose I manage to defy some sort of natural "law" this might make me powerful but supremely powerful? I'm not entirely convinced.

For (6) I think Santa is not necessarily logically inconsistent, but there is some slight evidence that he doesn't exist because we can actually go to where Santa is said to exist and attempt to verify whether he is there or not. The same can not be said for God. Again I think the two are in two very different epistemic and metaphysical boats and should be treated as such. But, I think you actually are proving my point your argument for the non existence of Santa Clause cannot be used to argue for the non-existence of a christian God. We might attempt to but the analogy fails on many levels. Suppose we tried though, does punishing someone who is "bad" mean that they are not supremely good? Further it's not entirely clear that God is the agent who does the punishing. Logical inconsistency is extremely difficult to prove, mainly because of the rise in interest in modal logic. But the argument is fairly bad. Further this is not an argument from evil, it seems to be an argument from punishment and pedophilia.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

drummermonkey wrote:

And also because I've never seen any arguments from evil for why Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny don't exist. I'm not entirely sure that I understand what "reason" is, nor am I entirely sure that religious beliefs are unreasonable; this is a huge epistemological question and I'm not sure I've found an answer to it yet; nor do I think a lot of so called rationalists, even though they are quite sure that they have. So, i'm not sure i understand your question.

Well now you have one.

Let me remind you though, that you've also likely never seen logical arguments against Vishnu, Thor or Shiva, yet you don't believe in any of these gods - why is that?

My point here is that we ought to treat these beings as separate metaphysically and epistemically. Your right we don't see arguments against Vishnu, Thor or Shiva, but I think that if you believe in a Christian god or even a monotheistic God and think that a monotheistic God exists one logically can conclude that Vishnu, Thor or Shiva are absent (although this might not be sufficiently justified since the belief that a monotheistic God exists might not be sufficiently justified and you're deriving the conclusion from that belief, but it is logical to draw that conclusion). Before I get accused of circularity here, I would like to point out that Teleological arguments and Cosmological arguments are rarely used to establish the existence of these Gods. If I am a theist and perhaps have that gentle intimation that Teleological arguments can lead one to belief in God or beliefs about God; then I think it's best to be monotheistic and it's actually more probable to believe in a monotheistic God if one has any sort of theological reason to believe in some version of Teleological arguments, after all how could Gods at war with each other create a finely tuned universe? Indeed if one pays attention to the mythology of these Gods the creation stories reveal something opposite of a finely tuned universe, the universe according to some, are created through destruction or violent acts. We can debate the theological differences in believing these Gods all day, but my point remains that these Gods are in different epistemic and metaphysical boats and should be treated as such. You may not think teleological arguments are sound, but my point is not that they are sound. My point is even if one has a false belief, then one shouldn't cast these beliefs into the same epistemic and metaphysical boat. Different reasons and intimations are given for different deities or entities, thus it seems very natural to treat them separately even if the reasons given for beliefs are not sufficient.