Freethought & Rationalism Archive

steve_bnk · 04-10-2012, 10:32 AM

Christianity rests on the ressurectin account.

Why is it true? Becuse rthere were eyewitnesses

Howdo you know the NT is true? Because god says so.

Howdo you know god ia real? Becaue he is in the bible.

steve_bnk · 04-10-2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J842P

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Not true. Agnosticism is non-belief. Now if there is positive claim that resurrection cannot occur, it needs to be supported. Otherwise, agnosticism is the only possible approach to possibility of resurrection, other than acceptance thereof.

Agnosticism is lack of knowledge, not non-belief. I can believe things without having knowledge in them. So, one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. It's not some middle-way between the two positions.

Agnostism has many varients.

I see no objective evidence of god, and I see no possible disproof. See the god forum.

Godfrey · 04-10-2012, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J842P

Agnosticism is lack of knowledge, not non-belief.

One leads to the other.

That's why everyone is agnostic.

Quote:

I can believe things without having knowledge in them. So, one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Or an agnostic agnostic.

One can say, "I'm an atheist," but one cannot prove it. It's not a statement worth a philosopher's time. It's self-centred, and of no interest. One can discuss what is susceptible to reasonable proof. So if I say, "I'm a atheist, because..." I begin to get interesting where I begin to finish the sentence. But atheism cannot finish the sentence rationally, because one cannot disprove the existence of deity, formally or informally, simply because it is beyond the power of humanity to look everywhere. Atheism is no more than blind guesswork, or wishful thinking. Agnosticism makes sense, and people are beginning to realise it.

Theism has at least the possibility of proof— informal proof, that is. The Bible, that is the object of interest in BC&H, forms a basis for theist belief, and that fact needs to be accepted by those who post and read here. The opening statement in the OP is defective because it infers an absolute proof, and is circularity. It would have been better as:

If Jesus (was) resurrected, it was the proof that we could trust him.

Atheism does NOT entail (or claim) knowledge. It's about belief or the lack thereof. Please consult any dictionary you want: nowhere will it say that atheists "know" there isn't a god. We recognize it as an unfalsifiable claim, and we treat it as such.

You are redefining the word "atheism". Why?

sotto voce · 04-10-2012, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J842P

Agnosticism is lack of knowledge, not non-belief.

One leads to the other.

That's why everyone is agnostic.

Quote:

I can believe things without having knowledge in them. So, one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Or an agnostic agnostic.

One can say, "I'm an atheist," but one cannot prove it. It's not a statement worth a philosopher's time. It's self-centred, and of no interest. One can discuss what is susceptible to reasonable proof. So if I say, "I'm a atheist, because..." I begin to get interesting where I begin to finish the sentence. But atheism cannot finish the sentence rationally, because one cannot disprove the existence of deity, formally or informally, simply because it is beyond the power of humanity to look everywhere. Atheism is no more than blind guesswork, or wishful thinking. Agnosticism makes sense, and people are beginning to realise it.

Theism has at least the possibility of proof— informal proof, that is. The Bible, that is the object of interest in BC&H, forms a basis for theist belief, and that fact needs to be accepted by those who post and read here. The opening statement in the OP is defective because it infers an absolute proof, and is circularity. It would have been better as:

If Jesus (was) resurrected, it was the proof that we could trust him.

Atheism does NOT entail (or claim) knowledge. It's about belief or the lack thereof.

One can say, "I'm an atheist," but one cannot prove it. It's not a statement worth a philosopher's time.

KeepTalking · 04-10-2012, 12:38 PM

Whats wrong with this facebook discussion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindsword

btw did u know the old testament forbids eating pork? havent touched it in years. neither should anyone, that stuff is dirty! btw im really tired, imma try to get some sleep, but if that fails ill be back to bother you as long as (if) you feel like it! peace...................

Aimee
Yes, eating pork is bad for you.

^This is what's wrong with the discussion. Pork is delicious meat, and not any worse for you than any other meat these days.

Tom Sawyer · 04-10-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeepTalking

^This is what's wrong with the discussion. Pork is delicious meat, and not any worse for you than any other meat these days.

Except that the burning feeling you get from eating steak is the result of acid reflux and the burning feeling you get from eating pork is the result of being tortured in the fires of Hell for eternity.

Godfrey · 04-10-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Atheism does NOT entail (or claim) knowledge. It's about belief or the lack thereof.

One can say, "I'm an atheist," but one cannot prove it. It's not a statement worth a philosopher's time.

You're dodging the point, which means that you're not worth my time.

DCHindley · 04-10-2012, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindsword

Whats wrong with this facebook discussion?
...

The fact that it is taking place on facebook.

DCH

Jedi Mind Trick · 04-11-2012, 07:11 AM

This...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimee

As for Buddhas quote, I will say "Who can know the heart? It is treacherous" That's in the Bible and it means that your heart will deceive you. To say if it doesn't agree with your heart don't believe it, is totally subjective.

I used to believe this way when I was a Christian, too. I find the idea very convenient now. I see it as one way the religious are made slaves to the dogma. "don't trust yourself because you are evil at heart." Now I call Bullshit!

dog-on · 04-12-2012, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Agnostics do not believe that miracles exist really.

Erm, agnostics are, erm, agnostic about whether miracles exist really. Surely?

Only atheists are certain that miracles never happen. Nowhere. Not anywhere in the universe, in all space and time, even the ones that don't have video-cameras pointing at them.

A small point, but let's keep our language clear.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Not sure I buy this Roger.

I think it might be more correct to say that Atheists will tend to view an explanation of miracle as the least likely possible explanation for any given event.

This would not, however, preclude one from providing the extraordinary evidence required to validate such an extraordinary claim.

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

04-10-2012, 10:32 AM	#21
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	Christianity rests on the ressurectin account. Why is it true? Becuse rthere were eyewitnesses Howdo you know the NT is true? Because god says so. Howdo you know god ia real? Becaue he is in the bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.