Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-18-2010, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Quote:

My major point in the opening post was that accurate secular history, such as mention of a real person or place, do not automatically verify supernatural claims

it also doesn't disprove it either. One must consider th esource, his bias, unbeliefs or beliefs, his research habits and so much more. My point was, and it does refute yours, that even secular writers, writing on the same event did not produce carbon copy works (wait, isn't that on eo fth ecomplaints against the gospel writers??).

They highlighted different aspects of the civil war which were important to them.

I am tired of your mantra already. You use it as a catch-all escape route. Someone refues you and you go hide behind it saying 'evidence, you don't have any evidence...' Well neither do you for your OP, in fact all you were doing was preaching.

So? Such does not make divorce correct or homosexuality normal (you keep bring up the latter a lot so I should conclude you are a homosexual?)

Its in the Bible a book you reject. One cannot present evidence when the other conveniently rejects what is presented without pause.

Are you aware that you do not have a clue what you are talking about?

I have yet to see and experience what you have desribed takes place on tis forum.

All I see are a bunch of closed-minded, abusive, irrational people who discuss with pre-drawn conclusions and who will not consider any rebuttal because it is not what they want to hear.

You all act very insecure and wait to have your unbelief ratified by someone just like you so you can feel good about your bad decisions and continue to reject Jesus.

You are given evidence--you reject them; you are given texts, you reject them,; you are given common sense and good points, you reject them. After a while there is no reason to give you aything more--you have made your pre-decision very clear-no matter what you will not consider an alternative to your position.

..

Ask Joseph Smith--He did it.

:eating_popcorn:

(Is there another performance?)

spin

arnoldo · 03-19-2010, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Surely the criteria for evaluating supernatural history require more evidence than the criteria for evaluating secular history.

I disagree that there is a different logic of truth between materialistic claims and immaterialistic claims. Mortimer Adler writes;

Quote:

The logic of truth is the same for all exclusionary claims to truth-- claims that something is judged to be true and that all judgments to the contrary are therefore, incorrect. The proposition may be a theorem in mathematics, a scientific generalization, a conclusion of historical research, a philosophical principle, or an article of religious faith.

Truth in Religion (or via: amazon.co.uk)

For example studies are currently being pursed by different disciplines to determine if the mind is immaterial or material.

Now, if a person was making supernatural claims in the 1930’s in Moscow that she was a savior of humankind that person probably would’ve ended up in an institution or killed. If fortunate, she may’ve had a trial/evaluation of some kind and asked to give a sign of her miraculous powers, judged to harmless and released. However, if she “disappeared” to Siberia or some other fate it may be extremely difficult to determine whether she was a historical person or not. See below;

Quote:

The Stalin-era Soviet Union also provided real-world examples of unpersons in its treatment of Leon Trotsky and other members of the Communist party who became politically inconvenient.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unperson

Nevertheless this charismatic woman allegedly had disciples that began to write her sayings including such audacious claims that another world war would break out eventually leading to the establishment of the State of Israel in the 1940's with Jerusalem eventually being captured temporarily in the late 60's . Now, Georgy Maximilianovich Malenkov, who more tolerant than Stalin, allowed this cult to spread judging it to be an opiate for the masses. However, by the 70’s the KGB began to see this cult as a threat. To discredit this cult they claimed that there was no charismatic woman leader in the 30’s who claimed to have prophetic powers. In fact , the KGB claimed all of these religious writing were written post 1967.

Fast forward to 2010, how would a university graduate student determine what actually happened?

arnoldo · 03-19-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

it also doesn't disprove it either. One must consider th esource, his bias, unbeliefs or beliefs, his research habits and so much more. My point was, and it does refute yours, that even secular writers, writing on the same event did not produce carbon copy works (wait, isn't that on eo fth ecomplaints against the gospel writers??).

They highlighted different aspects of the civil war which were important to them.

I am tired of your mantra already. You use it as a catch-all escape route. Someone refues you and you go hide behind it saying 'evidence, you don't have any evidence...' Well neither do you for your OP, in fact all you were doing was preaching.

So? Such does not make divorce correct or homosexuality normal (you keep bring up the latter a lot so I should conclude you are a homosexual?)

Its in the Bible a book you reject. One cannot present evidence when the other conveniently rejects what is presented without pause.

Are you aware that you do not have a clue what you are talking about?

I have yet to see and experience what you have desribed takes place on tis forum.

All I see are a bunch of closed-minded, abusive, irrational people who discuss with pre-drawn conclusions and who will not consider any rebuttal because it is not what they want to hear.

You all act very insecure and wait to have your unbelief ratified by someone just like you so you can feel good about your bad decisions and continue to reject Jesus.

You are given evidence--you reject them; you are given texts, you reject them,; you are given common sense and good points, you reject them. After a while there is no reason to give you aything more--you have made your pre-decision very clear-no matter what you will not consider an alternative to your position.

..

Ask Joseph Smith--He did it.

:eating_popcorn:

(Is there another performance?)

spin

Yeah, Santa Claus lives in the North Pole (a real place) but it doesn't mean he has the power to know if one is naughty or nice:eating_popcorn:

Johnny Skeptic · 03-19-2010, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Yeah, Santa Claus lives in the North Pole (a real place) but it doesn't mean he has the power to know if one is naughty or nice.

Do you have any comments to make that are on topic? If so, that would help these discussions move forward.

Toto · 03-19-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...
Fast forward to 2010, how would a university graduate student determine what actually happened?

This is not analogous. The Soviets kept fairly good records which were released after the fall of that regime. There would have been newspaper reports and other evidence from the time. So it should be fairly evident if this woman actually existed or was a legend. (Trotsky was written out of official Soviet history, but left enough other evidence.) Legends have their own pattern of development, which your graduate student would try to find in the evidence.

And you haven't actually claimed that this hypothetical Russian woman did anything supernatural. A prediction of a second world war at that time would have been normal extrapolation of current events, which included the Zionist movement.

Sai · 03-19-2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Quote:

My major point in the opening post was that accurate secular history, such as mention of a real person or place, do not automatically verify supernatural claims

it also doesn't disprove it either. One must consider th esource, his bias, unbeliefs or beliefs, his research habits and so much more. My point was, and it does refute yours, that even secular writers, writing on the same event did not produce carbon copy works (wait, isn't that on eo fth ecomplaints against the gospel writers??).

They highlighted different aspects of the civil war which were important to them.

I am tired of your mantra already. You use it as a catch-all escape route. Someone refues you and you go hide behind it saying 'evidence, you don't have any evidence...' Well neither do you for your OP, in fact all you were doing was preaching.

So? Such does not make divorce correct or homosexuality normal (you keep bring up the latter a lot so I should conclude you are a homosexual?)

Its in the Bible a book you reject. One cannot present evidence when the other conveniently rejects what is presented without pause.

Are you aware that you do not have a clue what you are talking about?

I have yet to see and experience what you have desribed takes place on tis forum.

All I see are a bunch of closed-minded, abusive, irrational people who discuss with pre-drawn conclusions and who will not consider any rebuttal because it is not what they want to hear.

You all act very insecure and wait to have your unbelief ratified by someone just like you so you can feel good about your bad decisions and continue to reject Jesus.

You are given evidence--you reject them; you are given texts, you reject them,; you are given common sense and good points, you reject them. After a while there is no reason to give you aything more--you have made your pre-decision very clear-no matter what you will not consider an alternative to your position.

Quote:

Now why in the world would someone who makes up a religion make up non-existent cities, thereby immediately discrediting their writings?

Ask Joseph Smith--He did it.

arnoldo · 03-19-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...
Fast forward to 2010, how would a university graduate student determine what actually happened?

And you haven't actually claimed that this hypothetical Russian woman did anything supernatural. A prediction of a second world war at that time would have been normal extrapolation of current events, which included the Zionist movement.

The supernatural claim would be the prophetic utterance of the capture of Jerusalem in the 60’s. A researcher could then determine that this was either an anachronism (dating the text post 1967) and/ or an interpolation of an earlier text. Once establishing this fact the researcher could use various methodologies to attempt to determine if there was a historical core for this character or if she was entirely legendary. Researches use the same methodologies when determining if legendary persons (with alleged supernatural attributes) , such as King Arthur, Santa Claus, etc, have historical roots as when they examine uncontested historical persons such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-19-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And you haven't actually claimed that this hypothetical Russian woman did anything supernatural. A prediction of a second world war at that time would have been normal extrapolation of current events, which included the Zionist movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The supernatural claim would be the prophetic utterance of the capture of Jerusalem in the 60’s.

Which capture of Jerusalem are you referring to that had something to do with a prophetic utterance?

bacht · 03-19-2010, 02:05 PM

Well, the gospel story was taught as truth and believed by millions for almost two thousand years. What's wrong with asking questions about how it all started?

Defining words like "truth", "evidence" or "rationality" seems impossible when trying to include both scientific skepticism and religious faith. If you insist on strict Biblical literalism you'll get lots of challenges in a forum like this.

I personally think that God wants us to explore the universe He made with all our faculties. This doesn't automatically mean abandoning morality or ethics, as some believers seem to think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

All I see are a bunch of closed-minded, abusive, irrational people who discuss with pre-drawn conclusions and who will not consider any rebuttal because it is not what they want to hear.

You all act very insecure and wait to have your unbelief ratified by someone just like you so you can feel good about your bad decisions and continue to reject Jesus.

You are given evidence--you reject them; you are given texts, you reject them,; you are given common sense and good points, you reject them. After a while there is no reason to give you aything more--you have made your pre-decision very clear-no matter what you will not consider an alternative to your position.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-19-2010, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archaeologist

After a while there is no reason to give you anything more. You have made your pre-decision very clear, no matter what you will not consider an alternative to your position.

But are you willing to consider an alternative to your position that a global flood occured. Have you actually carefully studied scientific evidence for and against the global flood?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.