Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tigers! · 01-28-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

The comment given about 50% for/against Jews was correct. I have not met many Jews in my career and had not asked any of them the question. I should have been clearer with the meaning of those figures as well as noting that I had no pagan or muslim data either.

[My emphasis]

Are you saying that you actually had no data for Jews, or that you asked two of them and one said no?

I had no data for Jews.

Tigers! · 01-28-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hey Tigers!

Although I just voted (OTHER - YES)
I would still run a few hours research
past the Tel Aviv Police Department
to gauge the opinion of Oded Golan
before publication.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Who is Oded Golan?

Tigers! · 01-28-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

So when you want to find out if christains would publish something that goes against their beliefs what do you ask them? Clearly this scnerio is unnaceptable for that question.

If you want to start such a survey I would be happy to take part.

mountainman · 01-28-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

So when you want to find out if christains would publish something that goes against their beliefs what do you ask them?

Hey NZSkep,

The answer to this question is relatively easy.
I could nominate any of the following textual
sources .... the find of a few old fourth
century codices, contemporary more or
less with the Nag Hammadi Codices ...

1) Ammianus Marcellinus: Book Maybe 12.

Containing the obituary of Constantine and
naming him as the inventor of the christian
top-down-emperor cult, and as a malevolent
despot.

2) Emperor Julian's Three Books "Against the Galilaeans"

Which we know starts off with ....

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

But that the work carries on to name the
emperor COnstantine and EUsebius as these
"wicked men" who fabricated the fiction.

3) Constantine's Will

Perhaps the Vatican has preserved the text?
Dear Son,
I have arranged for a few executions, etc

4) An hitherto Unknown historical account of the period 312-337

So far, the only historians who are preserved
and who wrote during the rise and despotic
rule of Constantine, are the Constantinian
"Ecclesiastical Historians". We have not one
non ecclesiatical historians voice of that epoch.

This is like ONE SIDE of the COIN.
Perhaps another independent voice
will emerge from archaeology?

So if you wanted to poll to find out if christains would
publish something that goes against their beliefs you
could provide the above four examples.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 01-28-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

Who is Oded Golan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oded_Golan

Tigers! · 01-28-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

Who is Oded Golan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oded_Golan

Would he be happy to publish something he didn't discover or forge?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-28-2008, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers

I ask this because I have used this scenario for > 20 years now as a straw poll for people's willingness to publish information that might upset their cherished beliefs.

Would you give up your cherished beliefs under certain conditions? If another supposed God came to earth, and claimed to be the one true God, but not the God of the Bible, and created a new planet in order to prove that he was powerful, and proved to your satisfaction that he was benevolent, and asked you to accept him, and told you that he would send you to hell if you did not accept him, what would you do?

If the God of the Bible exists, and had provided much better evidence than he has provided, you would not have needed to start this thread because we would already have enough evidence to make informed decisions.

mountainman · 01-29-2008, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oded_Golan

Would he be happy to publish something he didn't discover or forge?

Unknown, but unless your security is beyond suspicion
and failure, if you are looking down the barrel of an epoch
making archaeological discovery, then you'd want to make
absolutely sure you have not unearthed a fabrication that
has been smuggled in while you were not aware.

In which case the work might be recognised by those in the
business, as an earlier fabrication-in-progress. Perhaps this
appears excessively skeptical - but you did ask the question.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Tigers! · 01-29-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers

I ask this because I have used this scenario for > 20 years now as a straw poll for people's willingness to publish information that might upset their cherished beliefs.

Would you give up your cherished beliefs under certain conditions?

Of course. If my cherished beliefs were shown to be false or incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If another supposed God came to earth, and claimed to be the one true God, but not the God of the Bible, and created a new planet in order to prove that he was powerful, and proved to your satisfaction that he was benevolent, and asked you to accept him, and told you that he would send you to hell if you did not accept him, what would you do?

I would say thank you for the new planet. That doesn't prove he is good or benevolent now does it Johnny?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If the God of the Bible exists, and had provided much better evidence than he has provided, you would not have needed to start this thread because we would already have enough evidence to make informed decisions.

That's why we all are here Johnny.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-29-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If another supposed God came to earth, and claimed to be the one true God, but not the God of the Bible, and created a new planet in order to prove that he was powerful, and proved to your satisfaction that he was benevolent, and asked you to accept him, and told you that he would send you to hell if you did not accept him, what would you do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers

I would say thank you for the new planet. That doesn't prove he is good or benevolent now does it Johnny?

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

Time period: 10 B.C.

Location: Palestine

You are a skeptic. A supposed God comes to earth, claims to be the one true God, but not the God of Judaism, and creates a new planet in order to prove that he is powerful, and proves to your satisfaction that he is benevolent, and asks you to accept him, and tells you that he will send you to hell if you do not accept him, and you accept him. He then leaves the earth and promises to return at a time of his own choosing. Years later Jesus comes along. What would you do?

Consider the following from the GRD Forum:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers

Are you saying that your beliefs provide you with no benefit/help/assurance, comfort whatever?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

No, but this thread is not about whether or not a person's worldview brings them comfort since no one would choose a worldview that they were not comfortable with.

My opening post said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If the New Testament said that the same number of eyewitnesses saw Jesus injure and kill people with supernatural powers, and that Jesus said that God will send everyone to hell, fundamentalist Christians would reject the same quality of evidence that they accept now because of their emotional perceived self-interest. On the other hand, I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone heaven for the same reasons that I do not accept it now, but I would hope that the claim was true. Following are some of the reasons that I do not accept the Bible now:

1 - The Gospel writers were anonymous.

2 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

3 - The Gospel writers almost never claimed that they witnessed miracles.

4 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

5 - Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark.

6 - It impossible to be reasonably certain how many people saw Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

7 - Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that it was any different back then.

8 - I would still question why God injures and kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Unlike you, it is not my position that doing some good things justifies injuring and killing people and innocent animals, or setting up circumstances that cause people and innocent animals to be killed.

9 - I would still question God's desire to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole.

10 - As much as I would like to rubber stamp everything that God does in order to go to heaven, my morals are not up for negotiation, and I am not able to do anything about that. The only possible solution for me would be if God explained to my satisfaction why he does what he does. It is my position that a loving God, a God who I would admire and accept, would provide me with explanations for his behavior before I made up my mind whether to accept him or reject him, especially if spending eternity in heaven and hell were at stake.

So there we have it. While my beliefs would be consistent no matter what the Bible promised, fundamentalist Christians will only accept promises that they believe will ultimately benefit them. Fundamentalist Christians have replaced logic and reason with emotional perceived self-interests, and yet they falsely claim that a person does not have to shelve their intellect in order to become a fundamentalist Christian.

Hypothetical arguments are frequently excellent tools for revealing invalid arguments. Fundamentalist Christians frequently use them when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is a good example.

Clearly, the issue is not about whether or not skeptics derive comfort from their worldview. Rather, the issue is "If the New Testament said that the same number of eyewitnesses saw Jesus injure and kill people with supernatural powers, and that Jesus said that God will send everyone to hell, fundamentalist Christians would reject the same quality of evidence that they accept now.......On the other hand, I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone heaven for the same reasons that I do not accept it now, but I would hope that the claim was true." Since you would reject the same quality of evidence, my topic title is correct that "Fundamentalist Christians are not consistent." Since my beliefs would still be the same, my beliefs are consistent. You demand a happy ending. I do not demand a happy ending. Your beliefs are based upon emotions. My beliefs are based upon logic.

View Poll Results: Would you publish? Yes or No?
Theist for	4	4.76%
Theist against	0	0%
Agnostic for	8	9.52%
Agnostic against	0	0%
Atheist for	69	82.14%
Atheist against	0	0%
Muslim for	1	1.19%
Muslim against	0	0%
Pagan for	1	1.19%
Pagan against	0	0%
Other for	1	1.19%
Other against	0	0%
Voters: 84. You may not vote on this poll

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.