Irreligion does not prevent pseudoscience and superstition

Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Irreligion does not prevent pseudoscience and superstition

Here's and article and the accompanying findings of a survey that show that irreligious people being superstitious and declines in traditional beliefs among the educated increases pseudoscience, cults and superstition...

http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=52815

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I think it is

Ktulu wrote:

I think it is hardwired in all creatures of a certain level of awareness.  It's how we interact with our environment, we attempt small variations in our behavior towards a given system (such as a video game, or hitting apples out of a tree) and then remember the steps that were successful.  

I wonder how many theists that pray, think that voodoo is not the same thing?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:You don't

cj wrote:


You don't understand superstitions and how they are propagated.  Review some of BF Skinner's experiments with pigeons.  You can train superstitious behaviors in pigeons by rewarding them randomly.

Works like this - pigeon has a bar in its cage and sometimes when it presses the bar, food is dropped in the tray.  But randomly.  Not after a certain number of presses, nor a certain time interval.  Randomly.  And the pigeons will begin to demonstrate superstitious behaviors.  They will spin, or shake their head, and so on before pressing the bar.  Their actions have no effect on whether food will appear or not because they are not being rewarded for superstitious behavior.  But the longer they are in this situation where food appears randomly after they tap the bar, the more set the superstitious behaviors become.

Works the same way in people - it is the randomness of the universe that causes superstitions.  You perform some action and randomly, you get what you ask for.  Random rewards are the strongest training method known to learning theorists. 

Religion works the same way - pagan or Catholic or Jehovah Witness or Muslim or Hindu or .... - people get what they pray for randomly.  And so they continue with their superstitious behaviors more "religiously".  All of us are liable to fall for this built in programming.  It is the way brains are wired.  Researchers have used the same learning techniques on spiders for pete's sake. 

My point is that we need to be aware of and watch out for our tendency to be programmed for superstitious behaviors.  When the behaviors are harmless, fine.  But when they cause us to sell all of our stuff and quit our jobs or attempt to kill ourselves or our families because we are sucked into some old guy's delusions, they are harmful.  And so religion is not always good for the individual or for society.

That religion may consistently always be bad for the individual or society would be the subject of another post.

Training an animal to perform particular behaviors because they are randomly rewarded would vindicate superstition rather than mitigate it. If a god so chose to randomly reward those who pray for specific behaviors, then the god has effectively trained the adherents to behavior a certain way because of this. The problem with superstition is it is largely based on a post-hoc fallacy... the behaviors are not.

But at the same time, I think you're confusing religion with superstition, as I don't think they are the same thing. There may be superstitious behaviors in


 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:They would if

TGBaker wrote:

They would if you added that he was a saviour. The point carries to the fact that people see Elvis and I've gone to his grave but did not dig it up.   Jesus's grave is not accessible, remembered or necessarily real. People in Baha'i faith are dying all the time in Muslim countries for their manifestations of god, the Bab and Bahullah. What makes that religious claim less valid than yours. There history, writings an scripture a far more consistent than the New Testament.  There concept of God is far more consistent than other theisms. People have changed there lives because of Elvis sightings, ghosts experiences, UFO's , Loch Ness Monsters, Big Foot,. Their faith is sufficient that they act upon it as real. Yet none of it is reality though the myths transformation of many of the people is remarkable.  Many do die for false beliefs.  Many die in the name of Islam which I assume is not a valid belief since it is not Christian.  Someday someone may be willing to die over an Elvis sighting.  A whole cult may develop like with Jesus  years after the fact from teh retailing and the exaggerating and raising of the fantastic. It is a typical apologetic to emphasize the disciples facing martyrdom. I can show you a 100 years of such by the Baha'i that believe Bahalluah is the present manifestation of god. This Islamic heresy is sought after by fanatical Islamic believers.  There are no more or less true than the Jesus movement.

My problem with the Bahai faith is the lack of grounding that Christianity has in history. That, The Bahai faith is largely a revisionist view of multiple monotheistic traditions such that it syncretized these views.

I'm not taking sighting in isolation though. I think Habermas' basic fact approach was given because some many people were creating straw men of the case for Jesus -- IOW they were not taking into account all the available facts.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So in other

Vastet wrote:

So in other words you can't explain how you'd explain christianity to someone who doesn't understand language, and you concede the point.

I didn't concede any point. You never made the point or answered my objections to it. You never supplied a reason why language was necessary for religion, suggested a reason why other forms of communication were insuffecient, or showed how religion was so complex such that language was necessary.

Vastet wrote:

So you still haven't explained how you'd explain any religion to someone who cannot comprehend language, and you add to that failure the suggestion that christianity has existed since the beginning of time, despite no artifacts or writings to back it up. It's quite obvious who is making the naked assertions here.

The Christian tradition is the continuation of the tradition of Yaweh from the descendants of Abraham and others (such as Melchezidak) who worshiped the one true god. It's not a naked assertion...rather an abduction from the available data.

Much like your own interpretation, but you never addressed this accusation, so I suppose you conceded the fact that you were doing this, eh, and that your interpretation of fact is not fact it self?

Vastet wrote:

You have shown anything but. Occams Razor works like this. You take something, anything. Lets go with an orange. There are infinite possibilities on the face of the question as to how there is an orange. With Occams Razor you eliminate such things as an alien or santa claus or nothingness. Because none of those things can explain or describe an orange. The same works with reality. You CANNOT use nothingness to describe reality, because nothingness does NOT describe reality.

I wasn't using nothingness to describe reality. I was using nothingness to eliminate possibilities under Occaam's razor. If reality exists, then why do I need the razor? IOW, ocaam's razor is a tool used in uncertainty, not the other way around. The origin of life, for instance: abiogenisis and transpermia are two explanations for life on earth. Ocaam's razor would suggest that abiogenisis is the better explanation because it had fewer assumptions. I don't use ocaam's razor to determine if life exists. I don't need to because I already know that.

Vastet wrote:

Do you see any real distinction between them? Other than that they each have their own texts and rituals of course. I'm just curious.

I do see distinction between them. I've studied many religions, and Sunni Islam and Theravada Buddhism in great lengths.

Vastet wrote:

Whether or not god is unknowable, the universe is knowable. We know it, therefore it is knowable. Whatever happened WILL be explained AND confirmed by science, should the human species not end itself in nuclear fire or swatted aside by an asteroid or some such thing. Therefore god remains an extra equation that means nothing and does nothing for the question of existence. Asking "god?" does nothing. Nothing can be learned about existence by asking god, because as you suggest god is unknowable. It's simple, god is unnecessary.

The "god" question is not something you can answer with science. That's a category mistake. Where did I say that Gid is unkowable, BTW? I don't beleive I did.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Training an

Wowzers1 wrote:

Training an animal to perform particular behaviors because they are randomly rewarded would vindicate superstition rather than mitigate it. If a god so chose to randomly reward those who pray for specific behaviors, then the god has effectively trained the adherents to behavior a certain way because of this. The problem with superstition is it is largely based on a post-hoc fallacy... the behaviors are not.

But at the same time, I think you're confusing religion with superstition, as I don't think they are the same thing. There may be superstitious behaviors in

 

The superstitious pigeon behaviors were not trained.  They happened spontaneously. 

Training involves some sort of reinforcement for specific behaviors.  As the researchers did not respond to the superstitious behavior, the pigeons were not being trained. 

Superstitious behaviors are spontaneous and are not a response to a consistent reinforcement schedule.  The point is the reinforcement for these behaviors are random.  Sometimes the desired outcome follows the behavior and sometimes not.  The randomness reinforces the behavior.

Do you know anyone who has had all of their prayers answered?  Consistently?  Every time?  When you pray for better grades or for a child to have better grades does it always happen?  When you pray for better understanding, does it always happen?  Have you prayed for world peace?  To quote a famous person, how's that workin' for ya?  Every person who has been ill and has ever been prayed for has become miraculously better?  Not one 90 year old died?  Not one death due to cancer or heart trouble or ? 

So what do you say?  God's will?  God's plan?  And do you continue praying over the next ill person? 

Religion is superstition.  They are both a set of behaviors randomly reinforced.  Does god/s/dess respond randomly?  If s/he/it/they have a plan how is that different than random from your perspective?  After all, I'm pretty certain you don't get regular tweets with an update of the plan for the day from your god/s/dess.  So how can it appear other than random from your perspective?

edit: clarity

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:The superstitious

cj wrote:

 

The superstitious pigeon behaviors were not trained.  They happened spontaneously. 

Training involves some sort of reinforcement for specific behaviors.  As the researchers did not respond to the superstitious behavior, the pigeons were not being trained. 

Superstitious behaviors are spontaneous and are not a response to a consistent reinforcement schedule.  The point is the reinforcement for these behaviors are random.  Sometimes the desired outcome follows the behavior and sometimes not.  The randomness reinforces the behavior.

The pattern of association between behavior and a reward even if the reward is random would seem like training to me, even if the behavior was spontaneous. One reinforcing the spontaneous behavior with a random reward. Even that would vindicate the superstition if the intent was to reinforce superstition. The repeated reinforcement of the behavior would vindicate superstition rather than mitigate. Superstition on the other hand would be the result of a post hoc fallacy... There's no necessary causal connection between throwing salt over one's shoulder and horses winning a race as there is with a pigeon receiving a reward and from performing a particular behavior.

Edit: I looked up the study and more current research disuputes Skinner's claims. Saying that the association was within the context of the species anticipating food... the time cycles that he used induced the typical responses found in conditioning animals rather than something random... In short, he trained them to perform the seemingly spontaneous task in a manner that one trains a dog by rewarding it with food.

cj wrote:

Do you know anyone who has had all of their prayers answered?  Consistently?  Every time?  When you pray for better grades or for a child to have better grades does it always happen?  When you pray for better understanding, does it always happen?  Have you prayed for world peace?  To quote a famous person, how's that workin' for ya?  Every person who has been ill and has ever been prayed for has become miraculously better?  Not one 90 year old died?  Not one death due to cancer or heart trouble or ? 

So what do you say?  God's will?  God's plan?  And do you continue praying over the next ill person? 

Religion is superstition.  They are both a set of behaviors randomly reinforced.  Does god/s/dess respond randomly?  If s/he/it/they have a plan how is that different than random from your perspective?  After all, I'm pretty certain you don't get regular tweets with an update of the plan for the day from your god/s/dess.  So how can it appear other than random from your perspective?

First, I think you are making a category mistake by equating prayer with religion.

Second, some have superstitious motives in prayer: if I pray, God will act. Jesus said pray for the trivial things: daily bread. I pray everyday and I get food every day. Does that mean my prayers are answered everyday? The one's who use prayer as a means to dismiss religion I think do not understand the purpose of prayer, rather they want God to be a cosmic genie who grants every wish.

Third, I think the Christian faith as I see it is not a set of religious rituals to gain favor with God. If anything, it is the opposite of that. James says that true religion is to visit orphans and widows in distress and live rightly. That does not sound like superstition to me.... The closest things to rituals are the Lord's supper and baptism, and these two rites are symbolic in nature....

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
The equivocations

The equivocations continue...

Wowzers1 wrote:

Training an animal to perform particular behaviors because they are randomly rewarded would vindicate superstition rather than mitigate it.

False.

It shows there's no correlation, yet the animal hopes there is. Humans do this with astrology, good luck charms or rituals, and religious rituals.

Wowzers1 wrote:
My problem with the Bahai faith is the lack of grounding that Christianity has in history.

The Christian bible is folklore.

Wowzers1 wrote:
IOW they were not taking into account all the available facts.

There's only conjecture decades after the supposed time that a Jesus character was rumoured to have lived.
 

Wowzers1 wrote:
  It's not a naked assertion...rather an abduction from the available data.

No. It's a naked assertion. It's a competing claim.

The Christian bible isn't data. It's folklore.

Unless you can tell us what became of the zombies that went into Jerusalem after the supposed resurrection.

Ya, didn't think so...

Wowzers1 wrote:
The "god" question is not something you can answer with science.

Bullshit.

That's the huge problem that theism keeps smacking into. It keeps trying to make empirical claims, then claim that they cannot be falsified.

You can't suck and blow at the same time.

If we could sense these 'events' with any of our 5 senses, if we were present, then it's a verifiable/empirical claim.

Wowzers1 wrote:
That's a category mistake.

False.

It's the patently dishonest tactics that apologists employ to argue that they're equally as objective as those who require a much higher level of evidence before they'll invest their lives patterning themselves according to the mythology of ancient literature.

When theists get this desperate, it only makes them, and their beliefs look more ridiculous.

This god is supposed to have no limits to his powers, yet chose to materialize as some dude who claims he's the 'way' to heaven, and then gets nailed to a cross.

Ya, that's 'data'...

 

Even if we were to grant all of that, theists would still have to prove that not going to heaven, is undesirable.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:I didn't

Wowzers1 wrote:

I didn't concede any point.

Yes, you did.

Wowzers1 wrote:
You never made the point or answered my objections to it.

Wrong again. You never made any logical or rational objections to it, and you failed to do the only thing you CAN do other than object, which is explain. You haven't explained, so you concede. It's really that simple. The only way to reverse your concession is to explain. But you've had 3 or 4 chances to do so already, so I'm not holding my breath.

Wowzers1 wrote:

The Christian tradition is the continuation of the tradition of Yaweh from the descendants of Abraham and others (such as Melchezidak) who worshiped the one true god. It's not a naked assertion...rather an abduction from the available data.

Of which no evidence exists to suggest it always existed, so you are making a naked assertion that it always existed. Period. EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, it is still a naked assertion without evidence.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Much like your own interpretation, but you never addressed this accusation, so I suppose you conceded the fact that you were doing this, eh, and that your interpretation of fact is not fact it self?

On the contrary, I showed you to be wrong at best, lying at worst. You have yet to do anything but make naked assertions and logical fallacies. I haven't won completely yet, but you've only got one finger keeping you on the cliff. The rest is hanging out over nothingness.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I wasn't using nothingness to describe reality.

Yes, you were.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 I was using nothingness to eliminate possibilities under Occaam's razor.

Impossible. Occams razor eliminates nothingness. NOT the other way around. Occams razor does not get eliminated. It`s not an explanation, it is a process of removing false explanations. Nothingness is a false explanation. End of story.

Wowzers1 wrote:
If reality exists, then why do I need the razor?

To eliminate explanations that do not explain anything. Such as nothingness. Or blue.

Wowzers1 wrote:
IOW, ocaam's razor is a tool used in uncertainty, not the other way around.

You`ve been wrong on every single thing you`ve said this time round.

Wowzers1 wrote:
The origin of life, for instance: abiogenisis and transpermia are two explanations for life on earth. Ocaam's razor would suggest that abiogenisis is the better explanation because it had fewer assumptions. I don't use ocaam's razor to determine if life exists. I don't need to because I already know that.

And you don`t use Occams razor to determine if the universe exists either. You already know it does. But you CAN use Occams razor to figure out WHY and HOW and WHEN and WHERE and WHAT, by using it to eliminate explanations that don`t fit, are unnecessary, and add nothing to the equation.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I do see distinction between them. I've studied many religions, and Sunni Islam and Theravada Buddhism in great lengths.

I`m curious as to whether you look at them as evil or misguided. Or if you look at different religions differently. Such as the jews vs the scientologists. I rarely get a chance to discuss a religion with someone who is a follower of a different religion.

Wowzers1 wrote:
The "god" question is not something you can answer with science. That's a category mistake. Where did I say that Gid is unkowable, BTW? I don't beleive I did.

Well, you hadn't explicitly stated it before, I was inferring it from another statement, but you have stated it now. If something can't be answered with science, then it can`t be known. Which is of course the whole point of faith. If you KNOW there is a god, it doesn't take faith to believe in it.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

They would if you added that he was a saviour. The point carries to the fact that people see Elvis and I've gone to his grave but did not dig it up.   Jesus's grave is not accessible, remembered or necessarily real. People in Baha'i faith are dying all the time in Muslim countries for their manifestations of god, the Bab and Bahullah. What makes that religious claim less valid than yours. There history, writings an scripture a far more consistent than the New Testament.  There concept of God is far more consistent than other theisms. People have changed there lives because of Elvis sightings, ghosts experiences, UFO's , Loch Ness Monsters, Big Foot,. Their faith is sufficient that they act upon it as real. Yet none of it is reality though the myths transformation of many of the people is remarkable.  Many do die for false beliefs.  Many die in the name of Islam which I assume is not a valid belief since it is not Christian.  Someday someone may be willing to die over an Elvis sighting.  A whole cult may develop like with Jesus  years after the fact from teh retailing and the exaggerating and raising of the fantastic. It is a typical apologetic to emphasize the disciples facing martyrdom. I can show you a 100 years of such by the Baha'i that believe Bahalluah is the present manifestation of god. This Islamic heresy is sought after by fanatical Islamic believers.  There are no more or less true than the Jesus movement.

My problem with the Bahai faith is the lack of grounding that Christianity has in history. That, The Bahai faith is largely a revisionist view of multiple monotheistic traditions such that it syncretized these views.

I'm not taking sighting in isolation though. I think Habermas' basic fact approach was given because some many people were creating straw men of the case for Jesus -- IOW they were not taking into account all the available facts.

But none the less they die left and right for their faith is the point.  Why need it be grounded in Christian history when are  discussion was that a sighting of Elvis is like a sighting of Jesus. To which you responded that they would not dies for Elvis like the disciples did for their sighting.  My response is that many people die for a number of beliefs including the Baha'i. So it does not have to do with there non Christianity does it. (00 or so people died for Jim Jones.  The Roman soldiers died for Mithras and they believed that Mithras lived in them after their baptism.

All the available facts to me indicate an appearance not a physical presence

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Vastet

Wowzers1 wrote:

Vastet wrote:

You have shown anything but. Occams Razor works like this. You take something, anything. Lets go with an orange. There are infinite possibilities on the face of the question as to how there is an orange. With Occams Razor you eliminate such things as an alien or santa claus or nothingness. Because none of those things can explain or describe an orange. The same works with reality. You CANNOT use nothingness to describe reality, because nothingness does NOT describe reality.

I wasn't using nothingness to describe reality. I was using nothingness to eliminate possibilities under Occaam's razor. If reality exists, then why do I need the razor? IOW, ocaam's razor is a tool used in uncertainty, not the other way around. The origin of life, for instance: abiogenisis and transpermia are two explanations for life on earth. Ocaam's razor would suggest that abiogenisis is the better explanation because it had fewer assumptions. I don't use ocaam's razor to determine if life exists. I don't need to because I already know that.

This objection is also going to be ignored, but what the hey, I like typing Smiling.

Occam's razor is a valuable tool in an economical sense relative to energy expenditure towards a solution.  Not all assumptions are equal in energy weight.  For example assuming a biblical creator may seem like one assumption, however that assumption is extremely expensive in energy due to the fact that it weighs in all the omni-x attributes that this entity may have, along with a multitude of other implications and ambiguous evidence.  It is not ONE assumption, it is a huge array of assumptions some of which are contradictory.  

It is also only valid when every other condition is equal, and every pathway moving forward towards a solution has to be a naked assertion.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:But none the

TGBaker wrote:

But none the less they die left and right for their faith is the point.  Why need it be grounded in Christian history when are  discussion was that a sighting of Elvis is like a sighting of Jesus. To which you responded that they would not dies for Elvis like the disciples did for their sighting.  My response is that many people die for a number of beliefs including the Baha'i. So it does not have to do with there non Christianity does it. (00 or so people died for Jim Jones.  The Roman soldiers died for Mithras and they believed that Mithras lived in them after their baptism.

All the available facts to me indicate an appearance not a physical presence  

One needs to use an "and" logical operator, rather than an "or" logical operator...

Christianity is groudned in history and had post mortem appearances by numerouse people on numerouse occasions and people radically transformed by the messsage and people willing to die for the message....

You're working to try an use elvis sitings for one of the facts and the one's willing to do for another faith for some of the others facts concerning Jesus.

That's the issue...

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Yes, you

Vastet wrote:

Yes, you did.

Saying "yes you did" does not show how... so far as I can tell, this is another naked assertion about another naked assertion...

Vastet wrote:

Wrong again. You never made any logical or rational objections to it, and you failed to do the only thing you CAN do other than object, which is explain. You haven't explained, so you concede. It's really that simple. The only way to reverse your concession is to explain. But you've had 3 or 4 chances to do so already, so I'm not holding my breath.

You're convinced I made a concession... If you want to think that way, that's fine, but you're just making up as you go then...

Vastet wrote:

Of which no evidence exists to suggest it always existed, so you are making a naked assertion that it always existed. Period. EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, it is still a naked assertion without evidence.

I said it was an interpretation of available evidence... a counter interpretation to what you were asserting... You claimed that your interpretation was fact.... that's at least consistent with making things up as you go...

Vastet wrote:

On the contrary, I showed you to be wrong at best, lying at worst. You have yet to do anything but make naked assertions and logical fallacies. I haven't won completely yet, but you've only got one finger keeping you on the cliff. The rest is hanging out over nothingness.

Logical fallacies and naked assertions, eh? I don't recal you ever labeling something a logical fallacies, and you're convinced of semething I did not do... You're perpetuating your delusions even more...

Vastet wrote:

Yes, you were.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

Vastet wrote:

And you don`t use Occams razor to determine if the universe exists either. You already know it does. But you CAN use Occams razor to figure out WHY and HOW and WHEN and WHERE and WHAT, by using it to eliminate explanations that don`t fit, are unnecessary, and add nothing to the equation.

You obviously don't understand the difference between a proposition and a fact. You assert that your proposition was a fact... I was simply taking a proposition to the extereme... nothingness. But I need not use ocaam's razor when I know something is fact. You don't get that though...

Vastet wrote:

I`m curious as to whether you look at them as evil or misguided. Or if you look at different religions differently. Such as the jews vs the scientologists. I rarely get a chance to discuss a religion with someone who is a follower of a different religion.

I studied them as philsophiacl systems and historical religious movements.

Vastet wrote:

Well, you hadn't explicitly stated it before, I was inferring it from another statement, but you have stated it now. If something can't be answered with science, then it can`t be known. Which is of course the whole point of faith. If you KNOW there is a god, it doesn't take faith to believe in it.

So you're putting words in my mouth again then?

I really don't have any more to add here, because you're really not open for debate... you're more interested in proving that I conceded a point than you are with debate... This is going nowhere.... the only thing that is seminally interesting is the discussion concerning my views of other religions..

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Occam's razor is

Ktulu wrote:

Occam's razor is a valuable tool in an economical sense relative to energy expenditure towards a solution.  Not all assumptions are equal in energy weight.  For example assuming a biblical creator may seem like one assumption, however that assumption is extremely expensive in energy due to the fact that it weighs in all the omni-x attributes that this entity may have, along with a multitude of other implications and ambiguous evidence.  It is not ONE assumption, it is a huge array of assumptions some of which are contradictory.  

Using energy towards expenditure is a use of ocaam's razor within the realm of practical uses. That's a proper use of the razor.

But you're making a category mistake to use it to dismiss the existence a creator god.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Ktulu

Wowzers1 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Occam's razor is a valuable tool in an economical sense relative to energy expenditure towards a solution.  Not all assumptions are equal in energy weight.  For example assuming a biblical creator may seem like one assumption, however that assumption is extremely expensive in energy due to the fact that it weighs in all the omni-x attributes that this entity may have, along with a multitude of other implications and ambiguous evidence.  It is not ONE assumption, it is a huge array of assumptions some of which are contradictory.  

Using energy towards expenditure is a use of ocaam's razor within the realm of practical uses. That's a proper use of the razor.

But you're making a category mistake to use it to dismiss the existence a creator god.

 

I've never said that I was using it to dismiss the existence of anything, I was trying to clarify.  Occam's razor doesn't 'prove' anything, you can make all the naked assertions and come to the correct conclusion.  In fact, genius needs to IGNORE Occam's razor in order to 'think outside the box' so to speak.  You need to reject rationality ( high probability ) in order to come up with original concepts ( low probability ). 

It just gets thrown around a lot and I was just putting my two cents in.  And you're correct, I would only use it if someone implied that God made the least naked assertions.  The only valid use is when debating the cosmological argument. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I've never said

Ktulu wrote:

I've never said that I was using it to dismiss the existence of anything, I was trying to clarify.  Occam's razor doesn't 'prove' anything, you can make all the naked assertions and come to the correct conclusion.  In fact, genius needs to IGNORE Occam's razor in order to 'think outside the box' so to speak.  You need to reject rationality ( high probability ) in order to come up with original concepts ( low probability ).

Sorry if I misundertood, then.

Ktulu wrote:

It just gets thrown around a lot and I was just putting my two cents in.  And you're correct, I would only use it if someone implied that God made the least naked assertions.  The only valid use is when debating the cosmological argument. 

Occaam's razor is used in light of uncertainty... It's a pragamatic device for prefering one explanation as being more likely than another, but it does not prove that the explanation itself is true. I hate it when people abuse to "prove" things... it does not prove anything.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Saying "yes

Wowzers1 wrote:

Saying "yes you did" does not show how... so far as I can tell, this is another naked assertion about another naked assertion...


 

And now you're just repeating your concession. I already told you how you can continue the discussion, but you repeatedly refuse, proving you can't, proving you concede. You won't even get the last word, because I have no problem using theist tactics against theists.

Wowzers1 wrote:
You're convinced I made a concession... If you want to think that way, that's fine, but you're just making up as you go then...

If that's what you have to tell yourself to sleep at night...

Wowzers1 wrote:
I said it was an interpretation of available evidence... a counter interpretation to what you were asserting... You claimed that your interpretation was fact.... that's at least consistent with making things up as you go...

Ridiculous. You can't interpret something that doesn't exist, and nothing exists to suggest your or any religion has always existed. Show me an artifact or scroll or cave painting or something, or accept the fact that you're conceding this point as well.

It's just too easy.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Logical fallacies and naked assertions, eh? I don't recal you ever labeling something a logical fallacies, and you're convinced of semething I did not do... You're perpetuating your delusions even more...

I don't have to label something a fallacy in order for it to be a fallacy. And I have plenty of experience debating with theists that suggests they can understand what a fallacy is without applying it to their own arguments. So I don't generally fling the fallacy term around as much as I used to. It doesn't give much in the way of results.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Now you're putting words in my mouth.

No, I'm not. You clearly attempted to use nothingness to describe reality for all to see, and I proved you can't. The entire internet can look back and see it for as long as this website and humanity exists.

Wowzers1 wrote:
You obviously don't understand the difference between a proposition and a fact. You assert that your proposition was a fact... I was simply taking a proposition to the extereme... nothingness. But I need not use ocaam's razor when I know something is fact. You don't get that though...

What you don't get is that nothingness is an explanation like any other, and Occams razor eliminates it the same way it eliminates anything else that doesn't answer a question. You're trying to suggest that Occams razor will remove any and every explanation, leaving you with nothingness. But it just doesn't work that way, because nothingness is still an attempt at an explanation. You're effectively trying to divide by 0.

Wowzers1 wrote:
So you're putting words in my mouth again then?

Not at all. You said it.

Quote:
The "god" question is not something you can answer with science.

See?

Wowzers1 wrote:
I really don't have any more to add here, because you're really not open for debate... you're more interested in proving that I conceded a point than you are with debate... This is going nowhere.... the only thing that is seminally interesting is the discussion concerning my views of other religions..

No, I'm actually more interested in forcing you to answer my arguments, but you're too busy dodging and making fallacies to do so. Not that I'm surprised, most theists give up before trying, simply because they can't, and they know it. But I was rather hoping this would be different. So I'll give you one more chance to explain how you'd convert to christianity a person who cannot speak or understand any language. If you can`t do that, then you concede the point that language is a requirement for a religion to exist.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

But none the less they die left and right for their faith is the point.  Why need it be grounded in Christian history when are  discussion was that a sighting of Elvis is like a sighting of Jesus. To which you responded that they would not dies for Elvis like the disciples did for their sighting.  My response is that many people die for a number of beliefs including the Baha'i. So it does not have to do with there non Christianity does it. (00 or so people died for Jim Jones.  The Roman soldiers died for Mithras and they believed that Mithras lived in them after their baptism.

All the available facts to me indicate an appearance not a physical presence  

One needs to use an "and" logical operator, rather than an "or" logical operator...

Christianity is groudned in history and had post mortem appearances by numerouse people on numerouse occasions and people radically transformed by the messsage and people willing to die for the message....

You're working to try an use elvis sitings for one of the facts and the one's willing to do for another faith for some of the others facts concerning Jesus.

That's the issue...

 

Well use any of the resurrected god myth where people see them. The point is that Christianity is not grounded in history. It is grounded in narrativesthat purport to be true which many see as fabricated. The same may be said of early Baha'i literature. But as to the original discontinuity that does not change the situation. As aI said there is quite an Elvis following. But he did not make eschatological claims so there is not a transformation in the message you expect. There is in the music (message) they follow.


So Elvis siting do go to an example that could be built on.  As was Jesus sightings.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, I'm

Vastet wrote:
No, I'm actually more interested in forcing you to answer my arguments, but you're too busy dodging and making fallacies to do so. Not that I'm surprised, most theists give up before trying, simply because they can't, and they know it. But I was rather hoping this would be different. So I'll give you one more chance to explain how you'd convert to christianity a person who cannot speak or understand any language. If you can`t do that, then you concede the point that language is a requirement for a religion to exist.

You ignored my objections, then criticize me for being dodgy and making concessions? You still haven't given me a good reason as to why religion is contingent upon language. I told you already: pictures, dances, movement, etc. are means of communication. These can communicate religion. Religion is understood seemingly simple people moreso than other concepts. I have not reason to think that this is not sufficient, and you have continuously ignored this. Until you give me a good reason why, you point is not made.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And oh so quickly it's over.

And oh so quickly it's over. Sad

Wowzers1 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
No, I'm actually more interested in forcing you to answer my arguments, but you're too busy dodging and making fallacies to do so. Not that I'm surprised, most theists give up before trying, simply because they can't, and they know it. But I was rather hoping this would be different. So I'll give you one more chance to explain how you'd convert to christianity a person who cannot speak or understand any language. If you can`t do that, then you concede the point that language is a requirement for a religion to exist.

You ignored my objections

I refuted your objections.

Wowzers1 wrote:
, then criticize me for being dodgy

Deservedly so.

Wowzers1 wrote:
and making concessions?

Admittedly, that was a poke to attempt to get you to answer my statements, but clearly it didn't work. Still, your constant and continual lack of a response is pretty well the same as a concession.

Wowzers1 wrote:
You still haven't given me a good reason as to why religion is contingent upon language.

Not only is that a lie, but YOU still haven't given me ANY reason, good or bad, as to why you wouldn't need language to have religion. Typical theist strategy.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I told you already: pictures, dances, movement, etc. are means of communication. These can communicate religion.

 

I refuted that as insufficient 3 or 4 posts ago. Others have chimed in here and there to do the same. I even challenged you to demonstrate how you would use those, and you failed to do so.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Religion is understood seemingly simple people moreso than other concepts. I have not reason to think that this is not sufficient, and you have continuously ignored this. Until you give me a good reason why, you point is not made.

Your failure to address my arguments is proof my point was in fact made, you just can't respond to it. The very fact that you went straight to the conclusion of my post ignoring everything else is further proof you can't argue or refute my points.

So I win, you lose, the discussion is over, and your god is fictional. Gotcha.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I refuted your

Vastet wrote:
I refuted your objections.
By ignoring them? Some refutation.

Vastet wrote:

Not only is that a lie, but YOU still haven't given me ANY reason, good or bad, as to why you wouldn't need language to have religion. Typical theist strategy.

I've gave you reasons... yet ignored them....  You claim to refuted my objections (you really just ignored them)... it is apparent to me, as I stated earlier, that you're more concerned about trying to prove that I made a concession than you are with trying to establish anything...

Vastet wrote:

Your failure to address my arguments is proof my point was in fact made, you just can't respond to it. The very fact that you went straight to the conclusion of my post ignoring everything else is further proof you can't argue or refute my points.

So I win, you lose, the discussion is over, and your god is fictional. Gotcha.

So if I died and didn't refute your claim, then because I died you refuted me... You obviously are more concerned about trying to "win" a debate than you are with the actual truth of the matter. I see.. It's not about whether or not a god or anything else exist, so long as you "win" debates.


 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:By ignoring

Wowzers1 wrote:

By ignoring them? Some refutation.

No, by refuting them. You're the one ignoring things.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I've gave you reasons... yet ignored them....

I didn't ignore them, I claimed them as insufficient and showed why, and you failed to address my refutation of your claims.

Wowzers1 wrote:
You claim to refuted my objections

I did.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 (you really just ignored them)...

Only in your mind.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 it is apparent to me, as I stated earlier, that you're more concerned about trying to prove that I made a concession than you are with trying to establish anything...

And it's apparent to me that you have no idea how badly you lost.

Wowzers1 wrote:
So if I died and didn't refute your claim, then because I died you refuted me...

I admit I would have believed so, because I doubt your death would have been advertised here, but in reality I refuted them anyway, and you didn't address my responses.

Wowzers1 wrote:
You obviously are more concerned about trying to "win" a debate than you are with the actual truth of the matter. I see.. It's not about whether or not a god or anything else exist, so long as you "win" debates.

It's a two lane highway. In the fast lane it's all about winning. In the slow lane it's all about being right. I'm travelling both lanes, bouncing between them as necessary. You, however, are going the wrong way.


 

 

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It's a two lane

Vastet wrote:

It's a two lane highway. In the fast lane it's all about winning. In the slow lane it's all about being right. I'm travelling both lanes, bouncing between them as necessary. You, however, are going the wrong way.

You probably need to look at this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArgumentumAdNauseam

b/c you're doing this...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Vastet

Wowzers1 wrote:

Vastet wrote:

It's a two lane highway. In the fast lane it's all about winning. In the slow lane it's all about being right. I'm travelling both lanes, bouncing between them as necessary. You, however, are going the wrong way.

You probably need to look at this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArgumentumAdNauseam

b/c you're doing this...

Kettlekettlekettlefromapreviousthread.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Are you looking in the

Quote:
You probably need to look at this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArgumentumAdNauseam

b/c you're doing this...

Are you looking in the mirror as you say this? I hope so...

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quote:You

Vastet wrote:

Quote:
You probably need to look at this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArgumentumAdNauseam

b/c you're doing this...

Are you looking in the mirror as you say this? I hope so...

I was trying to ascertain if this is what you were doing... you basically admitted it. I was not trying to "win" anything.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Well use any

TGBaker wrote:

Well use any of the resurrected god myth where people see them. The point is that Christianity is not grounded in history. It is grounded in narrativesthat purport to be true which many see as fabricated. The same may be said of early Baha'i literature. But as to the original discontinuity that does not change the situation. As aI said there is quite an Elvis following. But he did not make eschatological claims so there is not a transformation in the message you expect. There is in the music (message) they follow.

So Elvis siting do go to an example that could be built on.  As was Jesus sightings.

So are you expanding the Elvis sightings to be more than merely Elvis sightings by multiple people on multiple occasions, people writing down what he said and attempting to construct a God out of him, and willing to lay down there lives for the claims of Elvis, and they are going out of there way to convert others to this? What I'm getting at, is you need more than mere sightings to make a case against Jesus. The same goes for the  Bahai faith too. I do not think you can use one to address some of the facts concerning Jesus and another to address others. The multiplicity of facts is in part why I think the evidence for Christianity is compelling.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Vastet

Wowzers1 wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Quote:
You probably need to look at this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArgumentumAdNauseam

b/c you're doing this...

Are you looking in the mirror as you say this? I hope so...

I was trying to ascertain if this is what you were doing... you basically admitted it. I was not trying to "win" anything.

So you were looking in a mirror. Thought so.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Well use any of the resurrected god myth where people see them. The point is that Christianity is not grounded in history. It is grounded in narrativesthat purport to be true which many see as fabricated. The same may be said of early Baha'i literature. But as to the original discontinuity that does not change the situation. As aI said there is quite an Elvis following. But he did not make eschatological claims so there is not a transformation in the message you expect. There is in the music (message) they follow.

So Elvis siting do go to an example that could be built on.  As was Jesus sightings.

So are you expanding the Elvis sightings to be more than merely Elvis sightings by multiple people on multiple occasions, people writing down what he said and attempting to construct a God out of him, and willing to lay down there lives for the claims of Elvis, and they are going out of there way to convert others to this? What I'm getting at, is you need more than mere sightings to make a case against Jesus. The same goes for the  Bahai faith too. I do not think you can use one to address some of the facts concerning Jesus and another to address others. The multiplicity of facts is in part why I think the evidence for Christianity is compelling.

You know that I am not. And you know that I am saying that elements of an event can occur differently but still obtain to relevance of prior historical events. I was an investigator of crime and child molestation. for example. You can take an action or evidence from many different crimes and show the relevance to the present crime. That is true of wny analysis. So to say that people see Elvis goes to the consideration of people saw Jesus. As to people writing down what was said is not the evidnce it is the thing in question. Since many scholars and myself think that the belief in question derives from the writings rather than a historical account behind them. Appearances are such we could use Mithras as a dying and resurrected god who appeared. There are others as I said but you know that I assume.  I was simply addressing such elements from memory unless you want to go the debate route rather than simply discussing what we know and why we believe.  

Mithras:

In order to understand Mithraism, you really need to look at the history of Mithra and His worship. Mithra started out as an ancient Indo-Iranian god - in other words, He was originally worshipped in India and in ancient Persia. The birth of Mithra (who is sometimes mentioned as the son of Ahura Mazda), is said to have occurred at the winter solstice. The myth tells that Mithra sprang up full-grown man from a rock (or a cave), armed with a knife and carrying a torch. Shepherds watched His miraculous appearance and hurried to greet Him with the first fruits of their flocks and their harvests. Later, Mithra fought with the sun and managed to capture the divine bull and slay it before He ascended to heaven. From the blood of the bull came forth all the plants and animals beneficial to mankind. In the Avesta, Mithra is portrayed as having ten thousand ears and eyes, and riding in a chariot pulled by white horses.

I do not think that we need more than mere sightings to make a case against Jesus since the text are such that they are subject to critical analysis and reveal many conflicts, editing and mythical elements. I think that it certainly would be more unlikely if you had good quality evidence for Jesus as a Christ but that is lacking. The point is that the particular sighting did not have to do with a pop star ( but his sightings certainly increase his popularity) but with an alleged messianic pretender whose popularity was increased by his sightings like Elvis. IThe idea of absolute equivalence as to historical events is not a good one as you make it in that as I said from not just my investigative experience but historical experience you look at similar elements and compare unique events.  You do it yourself in real life when not defending a particualr faith.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:You know that

TGBaker wrote:

You know that I am not. And you know that I am saying that elements of an event can occur differently but still obtain to relevance of prior historical events. I was an investigator of crime and child molestation. for example. You can take an action or evidence from many different crimes and show the relevance to the present crime. That is true of wny analysis. So to say that people see Elvis goes to the consideration of people saw Jesus. As to people writing down what was said is not the evidnce it is the thing in question. Since many scholars and myself think that the belief in question derives from the writings rather than a historical account behind them. Appearances are such we could use Mithras as a dying and resurrected god who appeared. There are others as I said but you know that I assume.  I was simply addressing such elements from memory unless you want to go the debate route rather than simply discussing what we know and why we believe.  

Mithras:

In order to understand Mithraism, you really need to look at the history of Mithra and His worship. Mithra started out as an ancient Indo-Iranian god - in other words, He was originally worshipped in India and in ancient Persia. The birth of Mithra (who is sometimes mentioned as the son of Ahura Mazda), is said to have occurred at the winter solstice. The myth tells that Mithra sprang up full-grown man from a rock (or a cave), armed with a knife and carrying a torch. Shepherds watched His miraculous appearance and hurried to greet Him with the first fruits of their flocks and their harvests. Later, Mithra fought with the sun and managed to capture the divine bull and slay it before He ascended to heaven. From the blood of the bull came forth all the plants and animals beneficial to mankind. In the Avesta, Mithra is portrayed as having ten thousand ears and eyes, and riding in a chariot pulled by white horses.

I do not think that we need more than mere sightings to make a case against Jesus since the text are such that they are subject to critical analysis and reveal many conflicts, editing and mythical elements. I think that it certainly would be more unlikely if you had good quality evidence for Jesus as a Christ but that is lacking. The point is that the particular sighting did not have to do with a pop star ( but his sightings certainly increase his popularity) but with an alleged messianic pretender whose popularity was increased by his sightings like Elvis. IThe idea of absolute equivalence as to historical events is not a good one as you make it in that as I said from not just my investigative experience but historical experience you look at similar elements and compare unique events.  You do it yourself in real life when not defending a particualr faith.

I see, but I do not think the sighting of Jesus fit the bill. I think Habermas' basic facts is one approach that through the accretion of basic facts one can conclude that the best explanation of the facts is that Jesus rose from the daed. On the other hand, the contest of the historicity of these facts is what you seem to be addressing. I think John P. Meier criterion are a good for evaluating this... The criterion of embarrassment and criterion from multiple attestation are two that I find particularly compelling concerning the death and burial narratives. Jesus being executed as a criminal on a cross in the context of Rome, then people calling him the Son of God, a title that flew of the face of the semi-divine emperor, seems to lessen the likelihood that the content was fabricated.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Wowzers1

Vastet wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Quote:
You probably need to look at this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArgumentumAdNauseam

b/c you're doing this...

Are you looking in the mirror as you say this? I hope so...

I was trying to ascertain if this is what you were doing... you basically admitted it. I was not trying to "win" anything.

So you were looking in a mirror. Thought so.

How did this argument turn into 'I know are but what am I' type argument?

It was almost interesting for a little while.... oh well

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sad, I know. But it always

Sad, I know. But it always goes that way with theists. They've thrived on the ability to distill an argument to such in the distant past, but now the shoe's on the other foot. Smiling

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.