Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 02-26-2009, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I agree that we (I as well as you) instinctively feel uncomfortable with elements in the NT which involve miraculous events. But may I suggest that our discomfort is not because of a rational feeling?

You may but you would be wrong.

It is entirely rational to recognize the incompatibility between the magical claims found in the Gospels and actual experience of the real world.

There is no "discomfort" on my part. There is only a recognition that what is being described simply doesn't happen and, based on what we know about the physical universe today, much of it simply cannot happen. The surface tension of liquid water is insufficient to support the weight of a man. Bread and fish do not magically multiply. A human being cannot survive for three days inside a whale. Humans that are brain dead for three days do not recover.

The reliability of science is not a cultural presumption, it is an objectively demonstrable fact and there is no cultural presumption that can make such claims credible.

Those of us who hold hard science degrees from world-leading universities beg to differ, however.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13 · 02-27-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Those of us who hold hard science degrees from world-leading universities beg to differ, however.

Anyone with such a degree who denies that the reliability of science is an objectively demonstrable fact should have their degree revoked.

Roger Pearse · 02-27-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Those of us who hold hard science degrees from world-leading universities beg to differ, however.

Anyone with such a degree who denies that the reliability of science is an objectively demonstrable fact should have their degree revoked.

Non-scientists often have the most curious ideas of how science works.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

thedistillers · 02-27-2009, 11:23 AM

Again, we all apply the basic principle that reports/testimonies of any kind have to match the observable reality. If they don't, we assume in all likeliness that what is being reported is bogus.

People who ignore that principle when they read some historical documents are giving up rationality, and are engaging in special pleading.

Roger Pearse · 02-27-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers

Again, we all apply the basic principle that reports/testimonies of any kind have to match the observable reality.

If we know what the "observable reality" is, in advance, we don't need the reports. If we don't, then this would seem not useful advice.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13 · 02-28-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Non-scientists often have the most curious ideas of how science works.

Nice irrelevant non sequitur, Roger. :thumbs:

The actual point being avoided is that it quite clearly does work reliably and anyone who claims otherwise is either not thinking rationally or painfully uninformed. And this is true regardless of their alleged training and/or profession though especially tragic if either falls under the category of "science".

Roger Pearse · 02-28-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Non-scientists often have the most curious ideas of how science works.

Nice irrelevant non sequitur, Roger. :thumbs:

The actual point being avoided is that it quite clearly does work reliably and anyone who claims otherwise is either not thinking rationally or painfully uninformed. And this is true regardless of their alleged training and/or profession though especially tragic if either falls under the category of "science".

Sorry that you couldn't understand my comment.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 02-28-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TaylorC

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Quote:

No one's saying the bible was written by a bunch of intentional liars

No one, really? Really no one?

No one in this thread is claiming that, to my knowledge.

Well, we could change all that. Eusebius reports Porphyry to have written just "that" - in the very late 3rd or very early 4th century. In the year 2009, it has been made clear that it is not conducive to pursue such claims on the basis that they obviously represent the engagement of a "Hobby Horse" of some form, and such behaviour is now considered "unbecoming without evidence" and since it disturbs (perhaps unnecessarily) the entire herd of HJ Hobby Horses and/or Donkeys

Amaleq13 · 02-28-2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Sorry that you couldn't understand my comment.

I understood you quite well. Your claim was utter crap subsequently covered with bluster and posturing.

spin · 02-28-2009, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Non-scientists often have the most curious ideas of how science works.

Nice irrelevant non sequitur, Roger. :thumbs:

Nice tautology, Amaleq13.

(And I hope you're wearing your thigh-high rubber boots. The torrent coming your way is thick.)

spin

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

02-27-2009, 11:23 AM	#34
thedistillers Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 586	Again, we all apply the basic principle that reports/testimonies of any kind have to match the observable reality. If they don't, we assume in all likeliness that what is being reported is bogus. People who ignore that principle when they read some historical documents are giving up rationality, and are engaging in special pleading.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.