Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, Raf...2/3 of the current people in this world haven't concluded Jesus never existed. So, right off, that's off base.
I'm not talking "popularity" making something "true"...I'm talking "the merit of conclusions and determinations made by intellectually sophisticated people, after a full assessment of the available information".
Though it doesn't matter which..."Jesus existed" comes out far and away the choice in both of those.
It looks like you are still talking about popularity, though. You are saying lots of people believe, therefore they are right. I don't think you actually believe that, as you have not changed your belief to conform to theirs, but you certainly do like to try to use that argument on the internet.
The other piece you are I think badly mistaken on is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I'm talking "the merit of conclusions and determinations made by intellectually sophisticated people, after a full assessment of the available information".
(Emphasis mine)
I would submit to you that very very few believers, be they Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Evangelicals, or whoever else have come anywhere near doing what you bolded. In the Evangelical protestant tradition I was raised in, we were specifically conditioned not to do this. I went to camps on how to avoid doing this. Anything that doesn't agree with doctrine is to be discarded, and is assumed to be either the devil playing tricks on you, or a conspiracy by evil stheists trying to deceive you. As an example of this, just look at the responses to the scholarship of Daniel McClelland or Shoppers on these boards. Very few believers even want to talk about it, and those that respond simply say it has to be wrong, because it contradicts what they believe. Religion is about reinforcing preconceived ideas through social and theological pressure in an echo chamber environment.
Even you do the same sort of thing with your flippant dismissal of any science that contradicts your chosen position that homosexuality is learned behavior. No amount of twin studies, brains scans and genetics are goign to change your mind, because you have already decided that you are right and will not entertain any idea that might undermine your predetermined conclusion.
This is not to say that atheists are immune to this kind of cognitive bias, but it points out the absurdity of saying that something must be true becasue a lot of people believe it, and then trying to claim that every one of them has made a thorough study and reached a rational, objective conclusion based on evidence. Human beings simply don't operate that way, we never have.
Wow! Such timely and insightful ideas! I have to repeat them and bold for emphasis! Thx, NoCapo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
√ You are saying lots of people believe, therefore they are right.
√ Anything that doesn't agree with doctrine is to be discarded, and is assumed to be either the devil playing tricks on you, or a conspiracy by evil atheists trying to deceive you.
√ Very few believers even want to talk about it, and those that respond simply say it has to be wrong, because it contradicts what they believe.
√ Religion is about reinforcing preconceived ideas through social and theological pressure in an echo chamber environment.
√ ...you do the same sort of thing with your flippant dismissal of any science that contradicts your chosen position that homosexuality is learned behavior.
√ ...because you have already decided that you are right and will not entertain any idea that might undermine your predetermined conclusion.
√ ...it points out the absurdity of saying that something must be true because a lot of people believe it, and then...
√ trying to claim that every one of them has made a thorough study and reached a rational, objective conclusion based on evidence.
Human beings simply don't operate that way, we never have. -NoCapo
Not to also realize that very few "thorough studies" of the alternatives to devout and absolutist religion have EVER been done. The prevalence of "studies" by completely un-vetted and charlatan "scientists" who first created their own mock-pseudo-universities and then went hog-wild with self-appointed PhDs, is proof of that, plus the immediate and trusting acceptance of such "studies" by the desperately hopeful.
I's clear that (1) theses types have not even the shallowest understanding of what and how true Scientific Processes mean, and are properly conducted, including the strength of self-policing via the Peer Review process. Plus (2) the fact, noted above, that these authors are purely greed- and lust-seeking charlatans, many of them subsequently convicted of felonies for rape, tax evasion and pedophilia as noted. They live, apparently, solely to "Lie for Jesus". Ken Hamm, Ray Comfort, Hovind the Magnificent [Felon], the Jim And Tammy Fay Baker couple, and on and on.
Quite very absolutely Christian of them, wouldn't you all agree? Someone to look up to, to tell your children to believe in, whole-heartedly, instead of their hard-working school science teacher, who is possessed of Satan's soul. Frankly, it seems to suggest that these preacher types are far more evil and unethical than the very worst demonized characterization of us Godless sinning morally bankrupt atheists.
In truth, by comparison, we should all be sainted.
Act now! Join "The Church of Rifleman The Besieged."(PS: no tithing required, no sins punished, no false dogma drummed into you, no education to your children in outright lying!)
So "intellectually sophisticated people" can't be wrong??
They can be. Just look at science...they are wrong a lot.
Hard to say anything has been intellectually critiqued more than what is being discussed though.
Anything and everything is disputable...but, no matter what it is...it has to lend something to know it has been a matter/subject assessed by so many, so thoroughly, for so long...with such an overwhelming consensus of determination.
Nothing can be "100% absolutely for sure"...but it sure helps to know the level of consideration it has received, and for what duration.
They can be. Just look at science...they are wrong a lot.
Not really. For science to be wrong it has to say that it is right and science does not say that it right. What science says is.... 'this appears to be the way things are based on the evidence that we have to hand but if new evidence comes to light we will re-evaluate.'
Quote:
Anything and everything is disputable...but, no matter what it is...it has to lend something to know it has been a matter/subject assessed by so many, so thoroughly, for so long...with such an overwhelming consensus of determination.
I ask again. Do you feel the same about Hinduism which has also been thoroughly assessed by many, and as it happens for a thousand years LONGER than Christianity
Quote:
Nothing can be "100% absolutely for sure"...but it sure helps to know the level of consideration it has received, and for what duration.
Means nothing more than that particular belief is popular not that it's true.
It looks like you are still talking about popularity, though. You are saying lots of people believe, therefore they are right. I don't think you actually believe that, as you have not changed your belief to conform to theirs, but you certainly do like to try to use that argument on the internet.
I believe Jesus existed as a person. The hocus-pocus stuff they credit him with...no. Great philosopher and teacher, that was a superlative example for good human conduct and interaction through how he spoke and acted...yes.
Quote:
The other piece you are I think badly mistaken on is this:
(Emphasis mine)
I would submit to you that very very few believers, be they Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Evangelicals, or whoever else have come anywhere near doing what you bolded. In the Evangelical protestant tradition I was raised in, we were specifically conditioned not to do this. I went to camps on how to avoid doing this. Anything that doesn't agree with doctrine is to be discarded, and is assumed to be either the devil playing tricks on you, or a conspiracy by evil stheists trying to deceive you. As an example of this, just look at the responses to the scholarship of Daniel McClelland or Shoppers on these boards. Very few believers even want to talk about it, and those that respond simply say it has to be wrong, because it contradicts what they believe. Religion is about reinforcing preconceived ideas through social and theological pressure in an echo chamber environment.
I'm not religious. But I do recognize it's vast power and influence...for both good and bad.
I thought it would be understood that I was suggesting an assessment based upon all the available info they have to consider. We all know it isn't all possible info there is.
That's "splitting hairs". We all know that nothing is ever "fully assessed" in the most pedigree use of the term. Also..."all" possible info is never available about anything or anybody.
If that is your rebuttal...you could use that for anything. Anyone could.
On that basis everything is "believed to be true", by how ever many people think it is...since nothing can be 100% sure.
Quote:
Even you do the same sort of thing with your flippant dismissal of any science that contradicts your chosen position that homosexuality is learned behavior. No amount of twin studies, brains scans and genetics are goign to change your mind, because you have already decided that you are right and will not entertain any idea that might undermine your predetermined conclusion.
This is not to say that atheists are immune to this kind of cognitive bias, but it points out the absurdity of saying that something must be true becasue a lot of people believe it, and then trying to claim that every one of them has made a thorough study and reached a rational, objective conclusion based on evidence. Human beings simply don't operate that way, we never have.
-NoCapo
It's true...I don't just agree with every "scientific" study.
Plus...they are known to be persuaded to "spin" things to come to preferred conclusions as well.
My determination about homosexuality being "chosen"...is not based on "bias"...it's based upon my own conclusions, after my own focused and long duration assessment of the matter.
You are correct that, "Human beings simply don't operate that way, we never have".
99.9999999% of all the determinations that have ever been made by anybody and everybody in all of human history was made without formal study/research and made based upon what info was available to the person at the time. No SM needed. THAT is how human beings "operate".
Not really. For science to be wrong it has to say that it is right and science does not say that it right. What science says is.... 'this appears to be the way things are based on the evidence that we have to hand but if new evidence comes to light we will re-evaluate.'
I ask again. Do you feel the same about Hinduism which has also been thoroughly assessed by many, and as it happens for a thousand years LONGER than Christianity
Means nothing more than that particular belief is popular not that it's true.
Why does anybody ever think anything is "true" (or "right") Raf?
It's based upon who (including themselves), or how many, people they find credible have come to determinations/conclusions, through whatever way or method they arrived at their determinations/conclusions...that's how.
"Believing" in scientific conclusions to be "true" is no different. And they might ("right") or might not ("wrong") actually be "true".
Why does anybody ever think anything is "true" (or "right") Raf?
It's based upon who (including themselves), or how many, people they find credible have come to determinations/conclusions, through whatever way or method they arrived at their determinations/conclusions...that's how.
"Believing" in scientific conclusions to be "true" is no different. And they might ("right") or might not ("wrong") actually be "true".
Stop avoiding the question. I repeat...
Do you feel the same about Hinduism which has also been thoroughly assessed by many, and as it happens, for a thousand years LONGER than Christianity
Do you feel the same about Hinduism which has also been thoroughly assessed by many, and as it happens, for a thousand years LONGER than Christianity
Speak ...you sperm of Satan!!
First of all...quit insulting Satan!
He would never want to associated with the likes of me...even he has more class than that!
And I will stomp his butt into the coals if he tries to give me a hard time when I show up at "his place".
What is it you want to know about what I "feel" about Hinduism?
I'm not religious...and I'm not from India...so I have had very little exposure, except reading the basics of the belief.
Some of it sounds interesting...like "karma" and such. And I'd bet many of people that are purported to have taught the philosophy certainly did exist.
On a side note: I know a guy that has a manufacturing facility that would like to hire a bunch of those people with all the arms for doing "piece work". Some guys that have orchards would like them too.
But I don't know what you are wondering that I "feel" about it. Please be more specific.
It's about saying that because people 'worship' things then whatever they worshiped really did exist, which is what you indicated when you said "By 115 AD we have an, unsympathetic, letter from Pliny about Christians". The point that you seem unwilling to accept is that the existence of Christians does not mean that there was a 'Christ' any more than the existence of Zoroastrians means that there was a Ahura Mazda.
What I'm saying is that within 80 years of Jesus death we have people saying they believe in a specific guy who lived in the Roman Empire. Not that they believe in some ancient being whose historicity can't be questioned because it is besides the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Really. It looked to me like your argument was the old 'can you prove that Washington/Lincoln existed?' argument.
Didn't mean it to be. I just see many on the one side go "oh the Romans were so meticulous we should have lots of stuff." But we don't even have all that much on Pontius Pilate and he was the Governor. Religious figures from the laboring class of a land far to the East of Rome might not have been that interesting to official historians.
Now paucity in Jewish sources, like your mention of Josephus, is more meaningful.
The Philip thing might have been confusing because I mentioned the "Prince Philip movement." But what I meant there was a movement arising within decades after an alleged person makes me think the person is likely real or based in some kind of reality. Because there would be people alive who could say "that person didn't exist". Hence most "culture heros", made up people to explain something about their culture, are placed in some bygone era centuries before the writer lived. (Characters like "The Duke of Zhou" in China might not fit, but I think there maybe was some kind of "Duke of Zhou.")
Further "Jesus didn't exist" doesn't seem to have been an issue for early opponents of Christianity. Granted maybe it's because they didn't care whether someone existed it or not, or they did not see it as relevant whether you could prove a religious figure's existence, but as at least some of the Christians were willing to say "your God didn't exist" it would seem to make sense for someone to rebut with "well your guy didn't exist either." Yet I don't recall a pagan or Jewish critic doing that. Early Jewish criticism of Christianity wasn't "You made Jesus up", from what I recall reading, it was more "Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman" or something along those lines.
I believe Jesus existed as a person. The hocus-pocus stuff they credit him with...no. Great philosopher and teacher, that was a superlative example for good human conduct and interaction through how he spoke and acted...yes.
And I also believe Jesus most likely existed, although I think he was more likely a Jewish apocalyptic teacher. That isn't the issue. You seemed to be saying that if a lot of people believed something, then it must be true. A lot of people believe Jesus was divine, and yet you will not change your opinion based on this, why should anyone else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I'm not religious. But I do recognize it's vast power and influence...for both good and bad.
I do as well, but that is not the same thing as believing it to be factual. You often appear to try and conflate the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I thought it would be understood that I was suggesting an assessment based upon all the available info they have to consider. We all know it isn't all possible info there is.
That's "splitting hairs". We all know that nothing is ever "fully assessed" in the most pedigree use of the term. Also..."all" possible info is never available about anything or anybody.
If that is your rebuttal...you could use that for anything. Anyone could.
On that basis everything is "believed to be true", by how ever many people think it is...since nothing can be 100% sure.
Not what I said at all, and I think you know it.
There is available information right now. The best available information indicates that, for example Moses is not the author of the Pentatuch, that the Gospels were not written by the men for whom they are named, and that Genesis is not an accurate literal account of the beginning of the world. This information is discarded, not because it has been honestly and rationally evaluated, but because it conflicts with dogma. The available information has not been looked at honestly and rationally in the vast majority of these religious evaluations. Many people have never even made such an evaluation, relying on their own tradition and culture. Others cannot evaluate them honestly, and have to cling tightly to rationalizations and dodges to maintain their dogma. There are some believers who have honestly confronted the available evidence concerning their faiths, and have been able to retain their faith while dealing rationally with the available information. Usually they are labelled heretics...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
It's true...I don't just agree with every "scientific" study.
Plus...they are known to be persuaded to "spin" things to come to preferred conclusions as well.
My determination about homosexuality being "chosen"...is not based on "bias"...it's based upon my own conclusions, after my own focused and long duration assessment of the matter.
My point exactly. You have conducted your own assesment of the matter, choosing to totally disregard the repeatable, verifiable evidence, the data that you can examine and look at for yourself. Instead you have formed an opinion based on your own personal experience and anecdotal evidence, and refuse to consider anything else, assuming that anything that disagrees with you is a conspiracy. If a million people choose to use the same methods that you have, that doesn't make them any more right than if it is just you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You are correct that, "Human beings simply don't operate that way, we never have".
99.9999999% of all the determinations that have ever been made by anybody and everybody in all of human history was made without formal study/research and made based upon what info was available to the person at the time. No SM needed. THAT is how human beings "operate".
Precisely what I said. And that being the case, we can see that even if the vast majority of people are using poor logic, irrational reasoning, and opinion to come to a conclusion, it still will not turn a falsehood into a truth. The entire reason we have a Scientific Method, the reason we have controls on experiments, and that we repeat and verify findings is because human being are irrational, dogmatic creatures who for the most part will choose a comfortable lie over a hard truth any day. We use these experimental methodologies to keep us honest. When we don't, we wind up burning witches, enslaving people, blowing up buildings, and other atrocities all in the name of defending our preferred delusion.
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
