Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 05-01-2013, 10:18 AM

If Strobel had any skills as a journalist, it's clear that he isn't using them when it comes to Christianity.

He, for example, uses the idea of "micrographic letters" on coins to explain how Jesus could've been born in 4BCE and 6CE (here he is presenting this evidence ina lecture: Strobel Preaching).

TedM · 05-01-2013, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Even more current brain research shows that people make decisions on many matters, and then form a rationalization, to convince themselves that their decision was right. It's part of the human condition.

While I suspect that is probably true, I think one needs to be careful to not generalize to all people. Some people convert due to personal experiences, even at times despite negative social consequences. We don't know Lee Strobel's reason. For once I actually agree with aa. Hallelujah!

Toto · 05-01-2013, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Even more current brain research shows that people make decisions on many matters, and then form a rationalization, to convince themselves that their decision was right. It's part of the human condition.

While I suspect that is probably true, I think one needs to be careful to not generalize to all people. Some people convert due to personal experiences, even at times despite negative social consequences. We don't know Lee Strobel's reason. For once I actually agree with aa. Hallelujah!

We know what he told us - that he was a heavy drinker, and someone close to him converted. He then produced a rationalization of his decision that has not impressed any neutral observer.

Connect the dots.

TedM · 05-01-2013, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Even more current brain research shows that people make decisions on many matters, and then form a rationalization, to convince themselves that their decision was right. It's part of the human condition.

While I suspect that is probably true, I think one needs to be careful to not generalize to all people. Some people convert due to personal experiences, even at times despite negative social consequences. We don't know Lee Strobel's reason. For once I actually agree with aa. Hallelujah!

We know what he told us - that he was a heavy drinker, and someone close to him converted. He then produced a rationalization of his decision that has not impressed any neutral observer.

Connect the dots.

They can't be connected because we can't get inside of Mr. Stobel's head. aa is right. You may well be right but we can't know and if we claim to know then we are guilty of stereotyping based on preconceived notions.

spin · 05-01-2013, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Even more current brain research shows that people make decisions on many matters, and then form a rationalization, to convince themselves that their decision was right. It's part of the human condition.

While I suspect that is probably true, I think one needs to be careful to not generalize to all people. Some people convert due to personal experiences, even at times despite negative social consequences. We don't know Lee Strobel's reason. For once I actually agree with aa. Hallelujah!

We know what he told us - that he was a heavy drinker, and someone close to him converted. He then produced a rationalization of his decision that has not impressed any neutral observer.

Connect the dots.

They can't be connected because we can't get inside of Mr. Stobel's head. aa is right. You may well be right but we can't know and if we claim to know then we are guilty of stereotyping based on preconceived notions.

I do find this ironic coming from you and your gut.

TedM · 05-01-2013, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Even more current brain research shows that people make decisions on many matters, and then form a rationalization, to convince themselves that their decision was right. It's part of the human condition.

While I suspect that is probably true, I think one needs to be careful to not generalize to all people. Some people convert due to personal experiences, even at times despite negative social consequences. We don't know Lee Strobel's reason. For once I actually agree with aa. Hallelujah!

We know what he told us - that he was a heavy drinker, and someone close to him converted. He then produced a rationalization of his decision that has not impressed any neutral observer.

Connect the dots.

They can't be connected because we can't get inside of Mr. Stobel's head. aa is right. You may well be right but we can't know and if we claim to know then we are guilty of stereotyping based on preconceived notions.

I do find this ironic coming from you and your gut.

For me it is about probability..OF COURSE we don't know the answer, but statistically speaking Toto is more likely right than wrong. The more I learn the more likely it is I'll be right.

But if I understand your philosophy, it almost seems better to try and not obtain ANY knowledge at all because there is ALWAYS more that can be learned and almost NOTHING in history is for certain. Coins with someone's name on it? Does that prove they were real? No. What if we found Nazareth? Does that prove Jesus came from there? No. Until we have ALL the criteria possible --ie until we know everything -- we should remain agnostic on everything. Since we can never know everything, what's the point in even trying to be right?

A dummy agnostic is right just as often as a genius agnostic.

spin · 05-01-2013, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Even more current brain research shows that people make decisions on many matters, and then form a rationalization, to convince themselves that their decision was right. It's part of the human condition.

While I suspect that is probably true, I think one needs to be careful to not generalize to all people. Some people convert due to personal experiences, even at times despite negative social consequences. We don't know Lee Strobel's reason. For once I actually agree with aa. Hallelujah!

We know what he told us - that he was a heavy drinker, and someone close to him converted. He then produced a rationalization of his decision that has not impressed any neutral observer.

Connect the dots.

They can't be connected because we can't get inside of Mr. Stobel's head. aa is right. You may well be right but we can't know and if we claim to know then we are guilty of stereotyping based on preconceived notions.

I do find this ironic coming from you and your gut.

For me it is about probability..

Just what we need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

OF COURSE we don't know the answer, but statistically speaking Toto is more likely right than wrong. The more I learn the more likely it is I'll be right.

Do you know what an asymptote is? Or are you aware of Achilles and the Tortoise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

But if I understand your philosophy, it almost seems better to try and not obtain ANY knowledge at all because there is ALWAYS more that can be learned and almost NOTHING in history is for certain. Coins with someone's name on it? Does that prove they were real? No. What if we found Nazareth? Does that prove Jesus came from there? No. Until we have ALL the criteria possible --ie until we know everything -- we should remain agnostic on everything. Since we can never know everything, what's the point in even trying to be right?

A dummy agnostic is right just as often as a genius agnostic.

The functionally false assumption in your last question should caution you against such errors. You should first learn something about what you are attempting to parody.

TedM · 05-01-2013, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

OF COURSE we don't know the answer, but statistically speaking Toto is more likely right than wrong. The more I learn the more likely it is I'll be right.

Do you know what an asymptote is? Or are you aware of Achilles and the Tortoise?

Yes but it doesn't work on a practical level because you can't slow time down in the way that is required. If you are implying that there just isn't enough of the 'right kind' of information to draw meaningful conclusions, I'm not sure how you or I actually can determine if that is true or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

But if I understand your philosophy, it almost seems better to try and not obtain ANY knowledge at all because there is ALWAYS more that can be learned and almost NOTHING in history is for certain. Coins with someone's name on it? Does that prove they were real? No. What if we found Nazareth? Does that prove Jesus came from there? No. Until we have ALL the criteria possible --ie until we know everything -- we should remain agnostic on everything. Since we can never know everything, what's the point in even trying to be right?

A dummy agnostic is right just as often as a genius agnostic.

The functionally false assumption in your last question should caution you against such errors. You should first learn something about what you are attempting to parody.

'Functionally false assumption'. A matter of subjectivity is it not?

spin · 05-01-2013, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

OF COURSE we don't know the answer, but statistically speaking Toto is more likely right than wrong. The more I learn the more likely it is I'll be right.

Do you know what an asymptote is? Or are you aware of Achilles and the Tortoise?

Yes but it doesn't work on a practical level because you can't slow time down in the way that is required. If you are implying that there just isn't enough of the 'right kind' of information to draw meaningful conclusions, I'm not sure how you or I actually can determine if that is true or not.

It was a comment directed to your claim that "The more I learn the more likely it is I'll be right." There can be a natural limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

But if I understand your philosophy, it almost seems better to try and not obtain ANY knowledge at all because there is ALWAYS more that can be learned and almost NOTHING in history is for certain. Coins with someone's name on it? Does that prove they were real? No. What if we found Nazareth? Does that prove Jesus came from there? No. Until we have ALL the criteria possible --ie until we know everything -- we should remain agnostic on everything. Since we can never know everything, what's the point in even trying to be right?

A dummy agnostic is right just as often as a genius agnostic.

The functionally false assumption in your last question should caution you against such errors. You should first learn something about what you are attempting to parody.

'Functionally false assumption'. A matter of subjectivity is it not?

If it makes you feel better to vainly attempt to inject subjectivity, then so be it.

TedM · 05-02-2013, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

OF COURSE we don't know the answer, but statistically speaking Toto is more likely right than wrong. The more I learn the more likely it is I'll be right.

Do you know what an asymptote is? Or are you aware of Achilles and the Tortoise?

Yes but it doesn't work on a practical level because you can't slow time down in the way that is required. If you are implying that there just isn't enough of the 'right kind' of information to draw meaningful conclusions, I'm not sure how you or I actually can determine if that is true or not.

It was a comment directed to your claim that "The more I learn the more likely it is I'll be right." There can be a natural limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

But if I understand your philosophy, it almost seems better to try and not obtain ANY knowledge at all because there is ALWAYS more that can be learned and almost NOTHING in history is for certain. Coins with someone's name on it? Does that prove they were real? No. What if we found Nazareth? Does that prove Jesus came from there? No. Until we have ALL the criteria possible --ie until we know everything -- we should remain agnostic on everything. Since we can never know everything, what's the point in even trying to be right?

A dummy agnostic is right just as often as a genius agnostic.

The functionally false assumption in your last question should caution you against such errors. You should first learn something about what you are attempting to parody.

'Functionally false assumption'. A matter of subjectivity is it not?

If it makes you feel better to vainly attempt to inject subjectivity, then so be it.

I think we all vainly attempt to inject subjectivity, including in the criteria selection, so no one can avoid it.

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

05-01-2013, 10:18 AM	#21
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	If Strobel had any skills as a journalist, it's clear that he isn't using them when it comes to Christianity. He, for example, uses the idea of "micrographic letters" on coins to explain how Jesus could've been born in 4BCE and 6CE (here he is presenting this evidence ina lecture: Strobel Preaching).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.