Theists and skeptics...forever apart?

[KingMerv00]

I've been skeptical for my entire adult life (that's not very long mind you I'm only 24) but my urge to seek out bunk has only been active for about a year now thanks to people like Shermer, Randi, Penn, Teller, and Dawkins.

In that year something has finally struck me. Can you REALLY switch sides on the skeptic/theist debate?

If you've been reading "My adventures in the Holy Land" thread, you have seen that on a christian message board, I have hit brick walls all over the place. I think I have hit my last wall.

Simple logic fails some theists. I asked "Why did Jesus have to die for our sins to be forgiven?" on the Christian message boards. The only answer I received contradicted the omnipotence of God.

I feel there is an logic-proof barrier between me and theists. Are they doomed for the rest of their lives to believe in God?

Also, to be fair, am I doomed for the rest of my life to be agnostic?

[Stitch]

I think it is fair to say people cross the chasm in both directions, just not in large numbers.

What follows is purely IMO.

I think many Theists loose their faith if they stop accepting and defending and start questioning. If a Theist can make that step it seems to be a fairly rapid transition to agnostic at least. The logical fallicies in religion run so deep that they really don't stand up to much in the way of cross examination.

I suspect the flow the otherway is more desperation, a person at the end of their tether grasping at anything that may help. I have no doubt in some cases that clinging to a belief may be beneficial and give hope by sheilding the person from reality.

As I say, that is it generalised from what I have seen, there are no doubt countless stories all subtely different.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

I feel there is an logic-proof barrier between me and theists. Are they doomed for the rest of their lives to believe in God?

Also, to be fair, am I doomed for the rest of my life to be agnostic? Just as there are two sides to the human brain, there's no reason why good (Religion) can't live in context with truth (Science). In fact, that's really the only way it can work.

[KingMerv00]

Here's an interesting thought.

If the Pope could live forever (in a material sense), could he ever become a skeptic or is there something in his personality that would keep him faithful forever?

[Stitch]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Here's an interesting thought.

If the Pope could live forever (in a material sense), could he ever become a skeptic or is there something in his personality that would keep him faithful forever?

Don't see why he couldn't loose his faith, it has happened to lesser mortals. I suspect it would take an awful lot. To be honest if it wasn't for the celebacy I could be tempted to go for the position of Pope myself and just claim to be a devout Catholic, it's one heck of an opulent lifestyle :D

[Flo]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Here's an interesting thought.

If the Pope could live forever (in a material sense), could he ever become a skeptic or is there something in his personality that would keep him faithful forever?


There has been at least one pope who showed clear signs of, at least, doubts. I don't remember whether it was Clement V or VI *, but he got in trouble for stating that the doctrine about hell and purgatory didn't make much sense, among other issues. That was during the 14th century, when popes stayed in Avignon.

http://www.isle-sur-sorgue-antiques.com/provence/Avignon/papes.htm

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just as there are two sides to the human brain, there's no reason why good (Religion) can't live in context with truth (Science). In fact, that's really the only way it can work.

What "good" are you speaking of? I'm sure some exists, but I believe the case can be made that far more evil, death, and destruction has come of religion than "good".

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Stitch
Don't see why he couldn't loose his faith, it has happened to lesser mortals. I suspect it would take an awful lot. To be honest if it wasn't for the celebacy I could be tempted to go for the position of Pope myself and just claim to be a devout Catholic, it's one heck of an opulent lifestyle :D But just think of all those endless boring meetings, droning on;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Cosmo

What "good" are you speaking of? I'm sure some exists, but I believe the case can be made that far more evil, death, and destruction has come of religion than "good". Am merely suggesting that good can only be good so long as it exists in context with the truth. Which, has no reflection on the many evils done in the name of religion.

[Elind]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

I feel there is an logic-proof barrier between me and theists. Are they doomed for the rest of their lives to believe in God?

Also, to be fair, am I doomed for the rest of my life to be agnostic?

Many of the ones on the boards probably are because they have so much invested in it, but many others have not reached that point.

Also, to be fair, you may one day call yourself an atheist.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Elind
Many of the ones on the boards probably are because they have so much invested in it, but many others have not reached that point.

Also, to be fair, you may one day call yourself an atheist.

I don't see me become an atheist. Not because there is any evidence in favor of God, but because nothing is absolutely certain.

Either way agnostic to atheist isn't a big jump. It's not like Falwell becoming Penn Gillette.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Here's an interesting thought.

If the Pope could live forever (in a material sense), could he ever become a skeptic or is there something in his personality that would keep him faithful forever?

Do you think most theologians really believe all the stuff they dish out?

I really don't believe they do..

[Nex]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
...In that year something has finally struck me. Can you REALLY switch sides on the skeptic/theist debate?
Sure can. I was a very religious woo. Lookit me now!

*Nex dances the atheist's dance of skepticism and EVILâ„¢*

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I feel there is an logic-proof barrier between me and theists. Are they doomed for the rest of their lives to believe in God?

Also, to be fair, am I doomed for the rest of my life to be agnostic?
Nope. It's just a change in mindset. It's not easy, but it can be done. I think you have to make a serious conscious effort at it, though, something which I can assure you most people are loathe to do.

Changing from religion/wooism requires critical thinking and the open mind to admit you might be wrong.

Changing from atheism/agnosticism/skepticism requires putting aside critical thought, and the open mind to admit you might be wrong. Also, Stitch made a good point about desperation and fear.

The mental states are, IMO, naturally anathema to one another. Not an easy switch, but it can be done.

:D

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I don't see me become an atheist. Not because there is any evidence in favor of God, but because nothing is absolutely certain.
I'm an atheist. I'm not absolutely certain there are no deities-- I don't believe there are any, but I know I could be wrong.

In all fairness though, the divide between agnosticism and weak atheism is very narrow, if there's really one at all. My opinion, based solely on conversations with various atheists and agnostics (because I've got little else to go on here), is that it just depends on what label you feel like accepting. It looks to me like the dictionary definitions of the words are a bit off, going on the philosophies (as presented to me) themselves.

My husband and I both feel the same about god/s, but he says he's agnostic, and I call myself an atheist.



*edited to add one frickin' comma*

[Elind]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I don't see me become an atheist. Not because there is any evidence in favor of God, but because nothing is absolutely certain.


Get back with us in a few years and let us know how you are doing. ;)


Either way agnostic to atheist isn't a big jump. It's not like Falwell becoming Penn Gillette.

If you can't make it, then it probably is a fairly big jump for you.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Elind

Get back with us in a few years and let us know how you are doing.


If you can't make it, then it probably is a fairly big jump for you.

Get back to ME when I care what the hell you are you think. ;)

[Elind]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Get back to ME when I care what the hell you are you think. ;) :confused:

lost me. You are saying you don't want opinions, and you don't give a damn what they are anyway?

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Elind
:confused:

lost me. You are saying you don't want opinions, and you don't give a damn what they are anyway?

Eh just a joke.

But if you are an atheist I do think you are wrong.

[kittynh]

hmmm, I know a lot of theist skeptics.

LOTS....

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by kittynh
hmmm, I know a lot of theist skeptics.

LOTS....

That really SHOULD be an oxymoron. Sigh.

[CFLarsen]

I think it is simple.

You believe in God/Allah/Jahve/Whatever?

Have a nice life.

You believe in God/Allah/Jahve/Whatever, because you think you have evidence?

Let's look at it.

If it holds up to scrutiny = Biggest Discovery Of All.

If it does not hold up to scrutiny = Your Problem.

[c4ts]

I try not think of it as an "us versus the believers" situation, but when someone tries to convert or attack me, I get defensive. The other side probably does the same, and thinks you're trying to convert or attack them by not sharing their point of view. Opinions are fragile. People shouldn't place so much stock in them.

[Zep]

You need to distinguish between theism purely as ritual (including as a substitute for critical examination), and theism as a genuine belief system.

For example, some people are Christian simply because their parents were, and their parents before them, and so on and they could never change that - i.e. purely ritual, no thought involved.

[evildave]

Everyone has their little faults and blind spots. You can't hold theism or even atheism against an otherwise good agnostic scientist or skeptic. Belief in gods and fairies and UFOs is a small matter as long as it's seperate from the professional competency.

The magic word is 'compartmentalization'. If you can keep your favorite cultural and/or religious nonsense out of your sensible pursuits, that's still better than the vast majority of the world's population who have no sense whatsoever.

For instance, your doctor could be a devout theist, and still set a bone, stitch a wound, treat an illness, etc. As long as he does the right things, having him talk to his hands like they're a hyperspace god-communicator after he's done doesn't really matter, so long as he's compartmentalized it from the science of his practice.

Everyone has their peculiar personal insanities. Me included. You can live in denial of this, or live with it.

[kittynh]

Yeah, the whole "convert" thing is just beyond me.

I believe for totally stupid reasons that have nothing to do with science. One child is an atheist, the other an agnostic. Hey, great with me. I'd rather anyday have an atheist child than a fundie. To be honest, the atheist stands a way better chance of getting into heaven if you think of it in Xian terms. I don't buy a traditional heaven, but all the atheists I've met are far more moral than the fundies I've met.

If any teacher at any time tried to impose that whole "intelligent desing" crap in a science class my kids attended I would be down there with picket signs in a minute. Science is science, not culture or religion or anything else. You can have 200 or more different types of religion. You can't have 200 or more different types of science.

My neighbors are Jewish, but also atheists. However, they are cool in that they think they need their kids to learn the Jewish culture...but the kids are still atheists.

Don't get them startted on Madonna though!!!!

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by evildave
Everyone has their little faults and blind spots. You can't hold theism or even atheism against an otherwise good agnostic scientist or skeptic... Everyone has their peculiar personal insanities. Me included. You can live in denial of this, or live with it. I agree with you, but some on this forum do not; they consider REASON to be all-conquering and take offence at the notion that their stance might be as open to question as any other.
Originally posted by KingMerv00
Simple logic fails some theists. I asked "Why did Jesus have to die for our sins to be forgiven?" on the Christian message boards. The only answer I received contradicted the omnipotence of God. This is, though, a very good question to ask, and depending on what brand of Xtian you ask you will receive greatly differing answers. For me, to only consider the death of Christ is to ignore the importance of the incarnation itself, that God was reconciling creation and Himself through becoming a material part of creation.

[UserGoogol]

I think the Chick tract explanation of the "Why Did Jesus Have To Die?" question is that "sin = death" is just as obvious as "1 + 1 = 2."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I agree with you, but some on this forum do not; they consider REASON to be all-conquering and take offence at the notion that their stance might be as open to question as any other.

All you need to do is to reason with them. Show them - rationally - that they are wrong. Just don't expect them to surrender, merely because you use a non-rational argument.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
This is, though, a very good question to ask, and depending on what brand of Xtian you ask you will receive greatly differing answers. For me, to only consider the death of Christ is to ignore the importance of the incarnation itself, that God was reconciling creation and Himself through becoming a material part of creation.

This basically eradicates the need for any kind of science. All we need to do, whenever we encounter something we don't understand, is to say "God did it."

If God can, at any time, interfere with the physical universe, then we cannot trust our observations. Not only is science wrong, it is also obsolete.

It is an excuse to go back to the caves, and live short, dirty, and brutal lives.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
All you need to do is to reason with them. Show them - rationally - that they are wrong. Just don't expect them to surrender, merely because you use a non-rational argument.Are you willing to admit, then, that your position is based on 'blind spots' or assumptions
This basically eradicates the need for any kind of science. All we need to do, whenever we encounter something we don't understand, is to say "God did it."

If God can, at any time, interfere with the physical universe, then we cannot trust our observations. Not only is science wrong, it is also obsolete.

It is an excuse to go back to the caves, and live short, dirty, and brutal lives. Remmember when you use this kind of polemic that Newton (who is partly responsible for us not living in caves) was partly motivated by his Xtian faith. You are also making the assumption that because the miraculous occured once then it is not possible to 'do' science; many scientists who are Xtians do not appear to share your position

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
All you need to do is to reason with them. Show them - rationally - that they are wrong. Just don't expect them to surrender, merely because you use a non-rational argument. Thanks for the tip, but I do not expect people to surrender at the merest hint of a non-rational argumentOriginally posted by CFLarsen
This basically eradicates the need for any kind of science. All we need to do, whenever we encounter something we don't understand, is to say "God did it."

If God can, at any time, interfere with the physical universe, then we cannot trust our observations. Not only is science wrong, it is also obsolete. But I was only referring to the incarnation which, I think, is held in the Christian tradition to be a one-off event; God, therefore, is not going to interfere at any time.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Are you willing to admit, then, that your position is based on 'blind spots' or assumptions

Only if you can, rationally, explain that they are assumptions.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Remmember when you use this kind of polemic

Excuse me, but let's call it "rationality".

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
that Newton (who is partly responsible for us not living in caves) was partly motivated by his Xtian faith.

So? That does not invalidate his scientific achievements one whit.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
You are also making the assumption that because the miraculous occured once then it is not possible to 'do' science;

That is certainly not an assumption: If the natural laws were at any time violated to produce a miracle, the whole idea of natural laws go out the window. You cannot have part-time natural laws.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
many scientists who are Xtians do not appear to share your position

They are free to argue their case, if they so please. Have them come here, and let's hear their arguments.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
But I was only referring to the incarnation which, I think, is held in the Christian tradition to be a one-off event; God, therefore, is not going to interfere at any time.

I assume you are talking about the moment of creation, the moment when the big bang occurred? Because if you are talking about "Word made Flesh", that is, the creation of Adam and Eve, then you are already behind on points...

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I assume you are talking about the moment of creation, the moment when the big bang occurred? Because if you are talking about "Word made Flesh", that is, the creation of Adam and Eve, then you are already behind on points... No, I'm talking about 'God becoming man' as Jesus, which is what incarnation means.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
No, I'm talking about 'God becoming man' as Jesus, which is what incarnation means.

What natural laws were violated because of Jesus?

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
This is, though, a very good question to ask, and depending on what brand of Xtian you ask you will receive greatly differing answers. For me, to only consider the death of Christ is to ignore the importance of the incarnation itself, that God was reconciling creation and Himself through becoming a material part of creation.

As I said, the one answer I receive contradicted the omnipotence of God. The other responses were not answers. They did just as you did: they completely avoided answering the question.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What natural laws were violated because of Jesus? Sorry, should have been more clear. God becoming man and 'rising from the dead'.

Would you outline your philosophical approach to the world?

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
I think the Chick tract explanation of the "Why Did Jesus Have To Die?" question is that "sin = death" is just as obvious as "1 + 1 = 2."

If sin is a debt to God, then he could have absolved us of that debt instead of torturing his innocent son.

God can make 1 + 1 = 9 if he chose.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
As I said, the one answer I receive contradicted the omnipotence of God. The other responses were not answers. They did just as you did: they completely avoided answering the question. Yeah, but you didn't ask me directly!

Give me a moment to compose a reply

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Sorry, should have been more clear. God becoming man and 'rising from the dead'.

The same question applies: How does this violate natural laws?

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Would you outline your philosophical approach to the world?

We are not discussing my philosophical approach. We are discussing how natural laws can be violated. Please stick to the subject.

[Mr Clingford]

First off, I don't know why God as Jesus had to die. I don't have answers, only conjectures that aren't too well-thought out; the whole act of God becoming 'flesh' is some sort of reconciliation between God and creation.

You have probably come across notions of Jesus paying the price for us etc to appease an angry God, or to buy off the devil, but they don't work for me.

Sin may be viewed as being too wound up with oneself, self-regard, not thinking of others enough, gross selfishness. These attitudes can separate people, cause gulfs in relationships, hurt others. Someone who is estrangement from others is also in estrangement from God.

Instead notions of self-sacrifice by God seem better to me.

Sorry, the above is a start, but I will have to do more reading and thinking.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The same question applies: How does this violate natural laws? Because normally people don't rise from the dead.Originally posted by CFLarsen



We are not discussing my philosophical approach. We are discussing how natural laws can be violated. Please stick to the subject. [/B] But you wroteOnly if you can, rationally, explain that they are assumptions.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Because normally people don't rise from the dead.

How do you know for a fact that Jesus really was dead? Is it not possible that he passed out from his ordeal (being crucified isn't exactly a trip to the beach)?

Before you answer, consider the extreme ignorance of the times, of how the human body worked. They didn't even know that the blood circulated.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
But you wrote

Yes, I did. Which is why you already know what my stance is. Now, please explain how my position is based on 'blind spots' or assumptions.

You claimed it was, now explain why.

[synaesthesia]

I think that the distinction between theists and skeptics is vastly inflated on bulletin boards such as this one.

At least where I live, the vast majority of theists are essentially atheistic in their lifestyles, and some atheists like me are more faithful to the tennants of orthodox religion than the supposedly religious.

To answer the question as stated: no, because we're already both human beings. Our commun humanity unites us more than our mythologies divide us.

[edited for spelling and grammar errors]

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
I think that the distinction between theists and skeptics is vastly inflated on bulletin boards such as this one.

At least where I live, the vast majority of theists are essentially atheistic in their lifestyles, and some atheists like me are more faithful to the tennants of orthodox religion than the supposedly religious.

To answer the question as stated: no, because we're already both human beings. Our commun humanity unites us more than our mythologies divide us.

[edited for spelling and grammar errors]

If I remember correctly, there was a gallup poll that suggested 43% of people believed that humans were created by a supreme being in our current form in the last 10,000 years. I hope I'm wrong but it suggests America is more religious than you think.

[Nex]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
If I remember correctly, there was a gallup poll that suggested 43% of people believed that humans were created by a supreme being in our current form in the last 10,000 years. I hope I'm wrong but it suggests America is more religious than you think.
Isn't the Gallup poll conservatively-based? That might be the reason...

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Nex
Isn't the Gallup poll conservatively-based? That might be the reason...

Anywhere near 43% is horrifying. I doubt they are off by enough to make me feel better.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I agree with you, but some on this forum do not; they consider REASON to be all-conquering
Could you please tell me when I should abandon reason and give in to unreason?

Should I do it when thinking about:

Alien abductions?
Homeopathy?
The Loch Ness Monster?
Crystal Healing?
Young Earth Creationism?
Whether I should cover myself in bacon rind and pretend to be Joan of Arc?
Whether Allah wants me to be a suicide bomber?

Or... should I just be unreasonable when it comes to the particular thing you believe in?

Please advise.
and take offence at the notion that their stance might be as open to question as any other.
Ah, the stupid psych-101 gibble. There's a lot of it about. Why do crackpots and religious folk go in for this so much?

No, I do not "take offence at the notion that [my] stance might be as open to question as any other". Au contraire. I rejoice in the notion that my stance is the only one which is "open to question": which can offer reasons rather than advocating unreason.

Edited to add the letter "s". What am I like?

[American]

I believe many bible stories may be explained by extraterrestrial activity, just a hypothesis. If Jebus returns aboard a UFO, then we'll all crap our pants.

[Mr Clingford]

I wrote I agree with you, but some on this forum do not; they consider REASON to be all-conquering


Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Could you please tell me when I should abandon reason and give in to unreason?

Should I do it when thinking about:

Alien abductions?
Homeopathy?
The Loch Ness Monster?
Crystal Healing?
Young Earth Creationism?
Whether I should cover myself in bacon rind and pretend to be Joan of Arc?
Whether Allah wants me to be a suicide bomber?

Or... should I just be unreasonable when it comes to the particular thing you believe in?

Please advise.I reply no to any of the above. Notice I did not advocate abandoning reason, it is a very powerful tool; reasonong though is limited - we are but one creature with limited powers; furthermore, reason is limited by the truth or not of its premises and people disagree about what are valid premises.

I wrote and take offence at the notion that their stance might be as open to question as any other.
Originally posted by Dr Adequate Ah, the stupid psych-101 gibble. There's a lot of it about. Why do crackpots and religious folk go in for this so much?

No, I do not "take offence at the notion that [my] stance might be as open to question as any other". Au contraire. I rejoice in the notion that my stance is the only one which is "open to question": which can offer reasons rather than advocating unreason.

Edited to add the letter "s". What am I like? I am more on about philosophy and the assumptions that underlie people's worldviews. I also consider my position to be "open to question"

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I wrote


I reply no to any of the above. Notice I did not advocate abandoning reason, it is a very powerful tool; reasonong though is limited - we are but one creature with limited powers; furthermore, reason is limited by the truth or not of its premises and people disagree about what are valid premises.



We then use reason to determine which premises are valid.

Many people claim they can validate their premises by saying that they "just know" they are right. They try to bypass reason but can think of no real reason to do so.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do you know for a fact that Jesus really was dead? Is it not possible that he passed out from his ordeal (being crucified isn't exactly a trip to the beach)?

Before you answer, consider the extreme ignorance of the times, of how the human body worked. They didn't even know that the blood circulated. On this matter I would be surprised if anything I wrote would change your mind; surfice it to say that I am satisfied that he did die and it appears that you think he did not

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes, I did. Which is why you already know what my stance is. Now, please explain how my position is based on 'blind spots' or assumptions.

You claimed it was, now explain why. I am quoting EvilDave, who is not a theist, I think, from another thread. We as humans are limited by time and space, knowledge, perception etc, as optical illusions show us. I think that every worldview is based on assumptions. Are you an empiricist?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
On this matter I would be surprised if anything I wrote would change your mind; surfice it to say that I am satisfied that he did die and it appears that you think he did not

Let me make it crystal clear, then: I was asking what evidence you have that Jesus was really dead.

Do you have any? Or is it a belief of yours?

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I am quoting EvilDave, who is not a theist, I think, from another thread. We as humans are limited by time and space, knowledge, perception etc, as optical illusions show us. I think that every worldview is based on assumptions. Are you an empiricist?

You claimed to know my stance, I don't need to explain further (unless you admit that your claim was unfounded).

Where are the blind spots? That my eyes can fool me? It is only a blind spot if I did not accept that my eyes could fool me.

Try again.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Let me make it crystal clear, then: I was asking what evidence you have that Jesus was really dead.

Do you have any? Or is it a belief of yours? I have no evidence. I am going on the only accounts of the death of Jesus, the gospels.
Originally posted by CFLarsen You claimed to know my stance, I don't need to explain further (unless you admit that your claim was unfounded).

Where are the blind spots? That my eyes can fool me? It is only a blind spot if I did not accept that my eyes could fool me.

Try again. I do not think that I have claimed to know your stance. I did writeAre you willing to admit, then, that your position is based on 'blind spots' or assumptions I did miss off the question mark, but it was worded as a question and asked as a question.

Why are you so coy?!

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
We then use reason to determine which premises are valid.

Many people claim they can validate their premises by saying that they "just know" they are right. They try to bypass reason but can think of no real reason to do so. I think that it is an assumption, though, to think that reason can always determine what is valid.

I like reason. I am not knocking it, yet I consider worldviews to be based on assumptions and I like discussing them.

I know that I can't validate an argument by saying I just know I am right so I try not to!

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I think that it is an assumption, though, to think that reason can always determine what is valid.

I like reason. I am not knocking it, yet I consider worldviews to be based on assumptions and I like discussing them.
But I don't think "that reason can always determine what is valid" is anyone's world-view --- certainly not mine. That's why we have unanswered questions.

The question is whether unreason can ever determine what is valid. Can you give me an example of where unreason has done that?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I have no evidence. I am going on the only accounts of the death of Jesus, the gospels.

..............you do realize that this relegates your argument to the dumpster? All you have is belief, completely without evidence?

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I do not think that I have claimed to know your stance.

Ehhh...yes, you did. You claimed to know that my stance was, and claimed it was based on blind spots and assumptions.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I did write I did miss off the question mark, but it was worded as a question and asked as a question.

Why are you so coy?!

I'm not coy, I am asking you to back up your claims with evidence. That's the way it works here. Claims are challenged. It may be tough, but it sure gets results!

Now, please explain why my stance has blind spots and is based on assumptions.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I have no evidence. I am going on the only accounts of the death of Jesus, the gospels.
Originally posted by Mr Clingford but ammended by me for the benefit of Odinists
I have no evidence. I am going on the only accounts of the death of Baldur, the Edda.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I have no evidence. I am going on the only accounts of the death of Jesus, the gospels.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford but ammended by me for the benefit of Odinists
I have no evidence. I am going on the only accounts of the death of Baldur, the Edda. You appear to be claiming something; would you provide the evidence for this, as CFLarsen asks.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
But I don't think "that reason can always determine what is valid" is anyone's world-view --- certainly not mine. That's why we have unanswered questions.

The question is whether unreason can ever determine what is valid. Can you give me an example of where unreason has done that? If you don't think that reason can always determine what is valid then you think that unreason can sometimes determine what is valid and can therefore answer your own question.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
..............you do realize that this relegates your argument to the dumpster? All you have is belief, completely without evidence? Would you provide some evidence for this assertionOriginally posted by CFLarsen

Ehhh...yes, you did. You claimed to know that my stance was, and claimed it was based on blind spots and assumptions.

I'm not coy, I am asking you to back up your claims with evidence. That's the way it works here. Claims are challenged. It may be tough, but it sure gets results!

Now, please explain why my stance has blind spots and is based on assumptions. OK, I withdraw my claim and instead assert that all worldviews are based on assumptions, that we view the world through interpretive frameworks. We are influenced by the environment in which we grew up. Language, for instance, is a human construct and different languages describe the world in different ways which can make translation somewhat difficult at times!

Furthermore, humans have emotions which colour the way we interact with the world. 2 statisticians may have the same evidence but one will be satisfied that the probability of an event is 1 in 10, whereas another will only be satisfied if it is 1 in 5.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Would you provide some evidence for this assertion

What are you talking about?? You just admitted that you had no evidence, so why do you even question that your claim is worthless?

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
OK, I withdraw my claim and instead assert that all worldviews are based on assumptions, that we view the world through interpretive frameworks. We are influenced by the environment in which we grew up. Language, for instance, is a human construct and different languages describe the world in different ways which can make translation somewhat difficult at times!

Furthermore, humans have emotions which colour the way we interact with the world. 2 statisticians may have the same evidence but one will be satisfied that the probability of an event is 1 in 10, whereas another will only be satisfied if it is 1 in 5.

Thank you. Now, please explain how we determine what is real and what is not.

[Mr Clingford]

OK, my evidence that Jesus died is that the gospels say he did and biblical scholars, both theist and atheist, consider them to be reliable on this matter.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
OK, my evidence that Jesus died is that the gospels say he did and biblical scholars, both theist and atheist, consider them to be reliable on this matter.

Eh?

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html

Then again, I guess anyone that bothers to be called a biblical scholar would have enough invested in the bible to call themselves that, otherwise, they would call themselves a religious scholar or some such.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
OK, my evidence that Jesus died is that the gospels say he did and biblical scholars, both theist and atheist, consider them to be reliable on this matter.

So, you consider the word of the gospels as evidence?

Surely, you realize that it doesn't mean anything here? That skeptics don't accept the word of some unverifiable sources from long ago?

Please tell me that you recognize the weakness of your argumentation.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you consider the word of the gospels as evidence?

Surely, you realize that it doesn't mean anything here? That skeptics don't accept the word of some unverifiable sources from long ago?

Please tell me that you recognize the weakness of your argumentation. Well an atheist academic in the field of ancient history, Robin Lane Fox, considers the gospels to mean something, to be evidence.

Do you consider there to be any verifiable sources from long ago?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Well an atheist academic in the field of ancient history, Robin Lane Fox, considers the gospels to mean something, to be evidence.

I didn't ask if Robin Lane Fox considers the gospels to be evidence. I asked if you consider the gospels as evidence.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Do you consider there to be any verifiable sources from long ago?

Yes, absolutely. E.g., we have buildings, tombs, scripts, artifacts, etc, that verifies that the Ancient Egyptians existed.

Please explain how we determine what is real and what is not.

(Note how I answer your questions directly and immediately? Think you can do the same?)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
If you don't think that reason can always determine what is valid then you think that unreason can sometimes determine what is valid and can therefore answer your own question.
I Can't Believe It's Not Logic!

How on earth did you get from the premise to the conclusion?

Now, answer my question instead of ducking it. When has unreason ever determined something to be valid? Thank you.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford :
"If you don't think that reason can always determine what is valid then you think that unreason can sometimes determine what is valid and can therefore answer your own question. "

When reason is not enough to reach a conclusion (for example, when there is not enough evidence to figure something out) you suspend your decision. The answer then becomes "I don't know" until better information comes along.

Unreason should NEVER, EVER be used to reach a conclusion.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I Can't Believe It's Not Logic!

How on earth did you get from the premise to the conclusion?

Now, answer my question instead of ducking it. When has unreason ever determined something to be valid? Thank you. Yeah, sorry! I was a bit bonkers there. I agree that there are unanswered questions, others whether fundamentalist Xtians or atheists will disagree, I think.

I'm not totally sure as to what unreason might mean but I would agree that I don't think that unreason has ever determined something to be valid.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I'm not totally sure as to what unreason might mean but I would agree that I don't think that unreason has ever determined something to be valid.

"Unreason" is the same as "faith". At least to me.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I didn't ask if Robin Lane Fox considers the gospels to be evidence. I asked if you consider the gospels as evidence. I was trying to be helpful by providing some explanation as to why I believe the gospels to be evidence
Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yes, absolutely. E.g., we have buildings, tombs, scripts, artifacts, etc, that verifies that the Ancient Egyptians existed.

Please explain how we determine what is real and what is not. You have a reasonable list there, and the same criteria verify that Jews existed too. People decide what is real through the lens of their worldview. How do you think people decide?Originally posted by CFLarsen
(Note how I answer your questions directly and immediately? Think you can do the same?) Although you haven't answered my question concerning what your worldview is!

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
"Unreason" is the same as "faith". At least to me. Thanks, that helps explain things a bit. I am quite willing to admit that I may be wrong; I am but one short-sighted fallible being. I think, though, that I use reason to decide matters, but I may have different premises to some.

I want to post here to show that not all Christians are literalist fundamentalists, that the Christian tradition contains more nuanced positions than may be evident from vocal extremists, so I will try!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
People decide what is real through the lens of their worldview. How do you think people decide?



You do understand, that even if everyone believed something, it would not make it real?


Many ( most? ) people's worldview lens is colored and distorted...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I was trying to be helpful by providing some explanation as to why I believe the gospels to be evidence

So, you believe the gospels to be evidence because some other guy thinks they are?

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
You have a reasonable list there, and the same criteria verify that Jews existed too. People decide what is real through the lens of their worldview. How do you think people decide?

"It is real, if it is real for you"? Is that your stance?

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Although you haven't answered my question concerning what your worldview is!

But I don't need to, do I? You've already asserted that.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Diogenes
You do understand, that even if [i]everyone[/] believed something, it would not make it real?


Many ( most? ) people's worldview lens is colored and distorted... I agree with both points (the latter, all, perhaps?)

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you believe the gospels to be evidence because some other guy thinks they are? Some other guy who forms part of the concensus among the experts in the field. In the same I believe evolution to be the best explanation for life because the experts consider it to be the theory that best fits the available evidence.



Originally posted by CFLarsen
"It is real, if it is real for you"? Is that your stance? No.



Originally posted by CFLarsen
But I don't need to, do I? You've already asserted that. Would you be helpful and point out where for me?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Some other guy who forms part of the concensus among the experts in the field. In the same I believe evolution to be the best explanation for life because the experts consider it to be the theory that best fits the available evidence.

But with evolution, we can see concrete evidence. With the gospels...well, what do we have?

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
No.

So what is your stance? Please clarify.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Would you be helpful and point out where for me?

First page of this thread.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But with evolution, we can see concrete evidence. With the gospels...well, what do we have?
Well, you do include scripts in your list above and the gospels are scripts.


Originally posted by CFLarsen
So what is your stance? Please clarify. In approach I don't think it is dissimilar to yours; I have scrutinised evidence and reached my conclusions (although the conclusion is I don't know because of lack of evidence on some matters).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Well, you do include scripts in your list above and the gospels are scripts.

Yes, I do, for a very good reason: The scripts we find in Egypt talk about e.g. a certain pharao, which identity has been proved by actual archaeological findings.

What archaeological evidence do you have that anything in the gospels is true?

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
In approach I don't think it is dissimilar to yours; I have scrutinised evidence and reached my conclusions (although the conclusion is I don't know because of lack of evidence on some matters).

But you have reached them based on beliefs. I have reached mine based on evidence.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes, I do, for a very good reason: The scripts we find in Egypt talk about e.g. a certain pharao, which identity has been proved by actual archaeological findings.

What archaeological evidence do you have that anything in the gospels is true? At a very basic level the city of Jerusalem exists, which is mentioned in the gospels, Acts and NT letters.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But you have reached them based on beliefs. I have reached mine based on evidence. Where is the evidence for this assertion?

What criteria are used to decide what is evidence?

Who does this deciding?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
At a very basic level the city of Jerusalem exists, which is mentioned in the gospels, Acts and NT letters.


So does kansas, that isn't making the wizard of oz a true story anytime soon. Please though, for an indepth analysis to what people are talking about, read this:

http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by RussDill
So does kansas, that isn't making the wizard of oz a true story anytime soon. Please though, for an indepth analysis to what people are talking about, read this:

http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html Thanks. I had a look which prompted me to google with this result:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml
It is written by an atheist and made very interesting reading.
Earl Doherty's work makes an interesting theory and I must begin to develop some knowledge of New Testament Greek.