Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HelenM · 03-27-2002, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
Oh my God!

You're allowed to say this?

Critical scholars say that? Well, that changes everything.

I think you might regret employing sarcasm here against critical scholars...it might come back to bite you in the butt. Yeah, I'm allowed to say that

Frankly, refering to "critical scholars" for support makes less sense then me referring to the bible. These critical scholars start with the proposition that no supernatural event described in the bible could have occurred. That is hardly an objective starting point.

And yours is?

See, the interesting thing is, a lot of them are not atheists at all. Have you read what they say or are you dismissing it based on second-hand information?

I think you'd have a better case if on your way to work you had stopped by the hospital and emptied it out - after all, you're a Christian and you believe in miracles, right?

Excuse me for being extreme...I'm just asking; I want you to think seriously about whether your comments really hold up. I'm a Christian too <AHEM>

love
Helen

HelenM · 03-27-2002, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:
Stories have a way of being exaggerated after time.

Oh, definitely. I know that's true; all I'm saying is that just because that often happens, we can't assume it has always happened with every story.

But I wonder... By what criteria or reasons do you choose what to have faith in?
Why do you believe in Jesus resurection and not my trip to Jupiter?
Would that not be "faith" also?

Yes, it would. By what criteria? Well, people always have reasons. The question is whether they are valid ones or not.

Many people here already assume my reasons for belief are irrational so...I'll decline the opportunity to elaborate on them even at the risk of confirming their assumptions.

Did I say I didn't believe in your trip to Jupiter? I thought you were kidding.

If you really went, could you post some photos - you did take some, didn't you?

love
Helen

Jayhawker Soule · 03-27-2002, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman:
Is it really applicable? The vedas consist of nothing but a bunch of prayers to various gods and reference to some events which are historical and in some cases allegorical. You cannot contradict prayers.

I think hindu mythology would have been a better term.

OK. On the other hand, see <a href="http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/religions/vedas.htm" target="_blank">VEDA-THE REVEALED WISDOM</a> where we find ...

Quote:

The Srutis are called the Vedas, or the Amnaya. The Hindus have received their religion through revelation, the Vedas. These are direct intuitional revelations and are held to be Apaurusheya or entirely superhuman, without any author in particular. The Veda is the glorious pride of the Hindus, nay, of the whole world!

The term Veda comes from the root 'Vid', to know. The word Veda means knowledge. When it is applied to scripture, it signifies a book of knowledge. The Vedas are the foundational scriptures of the Hindus. The Veda is the source of the other five sets of scriptures, why, even of the secular and the materialistic. The Veda is the storehouse of Indian wisdom and is a memorable glory which man can never forget till eternity.

The Vedas are the eternal truths revealed by God to the great ancient Rishis of India. The word Rishi means a Seer, from dris, to see. He is the Mantra-Drashta, seer of Mantra or thought. The thought was not his own. The Rishis saw the truths or heard them. Therefore, the Vedas are what are heard (Sruti). The Rishi did not write. He did not create it out of his mind. He was the seer of thought which existed already. He was only the spiritual discoverer of the thought. He is not the inventor of the Veda.

Ted Hoffman · 03-27-2002, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Malaclypse: To be viewed as "fact", a datum must indeed be uncontradicted and beyond a reasonable doubt."
Atticus: ... I saw a friend of mine at lunch today. That is a fact. If tomorrow he denies it, and therefore contradicts it, it is no less a fact

This is a strawman argument. Because you are juxtaposing a fact and a lie. There is a difference between contradicting a fact and denying a fact. Denying is a passive act and does not amount to a fact being contradicted. Unless you too, simply claimed to have seen him at lunch.

Quote:

Christianity grew at a time when it had no state or military power. It did not conquer its foes it won them over.

I dont know about other regions of the world, but here in Africa, European imperialists (especially British ones) worked hand in hand with the so-called christian missionaries to hammer into the "primitive" coloured-people their white God who was willing to save the black people in spite of all their animal-like dark nature.
Public hangings, exportation to become slaves in European farms etc were some of the punishments meted upon people who did not worship the white God.
Read "A brief History of East Africa" - it might shape up this rosy picture of christianity that you hold so dear.

Quote:

I believe we were discussing the early growth of Christianity. It had no state power for its first 300 years.

If this is what you meant, then specify what exactly you mean by growth. And how you isolate growth from spread. If you are talking about the garish and glamorous televangelists, you just need to see them manipulating the wilfuly ignorant crowds. The orchestrated miracle acts cant be dismissed. Plenty of people buy them.
If thay is what you call winning, well..

Quote:

Obviously, if I believe Christianity to be true, I must believe that all other faith systems are false

And that is the basis of your faith.
Thank you for sharing with us.
Other faith systems think christianity is false.
Now since they contradict on many issues, they can all be wrong, but they cannot all be right.
You tell us, why should xstianity be considered to be the right one? Numbers? Age? What did you use? Emotional disposition?

Quote:

Theli: And isn't natural laws naturalism?
Tercel: No. If they were, then I’d be a naturalist: That would be very stupid.

Here is the logic:
1. To be a naturalist is stupid.
2. Belief in natural laws is part of naturalism
3. Natural laws are responsible for the order on earth, but I do not agree because of (1).
4. Therefore God is responsible for the order on earth.

This is Christian wisdom at its best. Is it in proverbs?
It reminds me of RW.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]

madmax2976 · 03-27-2002, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Tercel: It depends, I suppose how you define naturalism. I have seen some pretty wacky definitions of naturalism, the most amusing being �A belief that the natural world is all that exists�. Upon asking what the �natural world� was I was told that it was �everything that exists�: So apparently naturalism is the belief that all there is is all there is. Nice.
For some reason, in my experience, naturalists tend to like these tricks of definition which make naturalism trivially true or impossible to disprove. -If you have a look at the recent debate on Naturalism vs Theism on the Formal Debates board the defender of Naturalism gives one of these type of definitions (as one of the judges notes).

Not quite Tercel. I did give some criteria that would falsify naturalism - prove that supernatural entities or forces exist.

As for naturalism being an inclusive worldview - too bad. I don't recognize your authority to define naturalism for me or anyone else. I certainly wouldn't attempt to define your theism for you, so why would you make silly attempts to define my naturalism for me?

In any case, please tell me how any theism you would propose can be "disproven" and then you'll actually have a point.

Jayhawker Soule · 03-27-2002, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
Obviously, if I believe Christianity to be true, I must believe that all other faith systems are false. I must believe this because Christ said, "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but through me." However, there are too many for me to be personally acquainted with all of them.

Obviously, knowing little or nothing about them, you "must believe that all other faith systems are false" because the one you believe is true insists that all the others are false. And it is this proposition that you call an objective starting point which "[does] not rely on a priori conclusions.

Unfortunately, your objective starting point, which rejects all a priori conclusions, is fully compatible with any absurdity so long as it comes wrapped in "[m]ultiple attestation [as] support for accuracy". Yours is an objectivity totally devoid of rational selection criteria, an objectivity equally capable of embracing Noah and ufology, Jonah and astrology. You pick Jesus over Kali only because of a Western cultural bias and the fact that Jesus-promoters got there first.

Atticus_Finch · 03-27-2002, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kassiana:

No, they don't. Matthew and Luke crib from the author of the gospel attributed to Mark, who wasn't an eyewitness (if he was, how'd he get Galilean geography entirely wrong? and if he allegedly got info from an eyewitness, same question applies). The author of the gospel of John, as I recall, makes no claim to actually have seen the events he records. There is no evidence internal to the gospels that Peter had anything to do with being the source of any of those materials.

Let's try giving evidence for your claims next time, okay?

Before you criticize you need to pay closer attention. I didn't mention Luke. He clearly stated that he was not an eyewitness but rather carefully recorded the historical events from the witnesses. With respect to Matthew, earliest church history attests to its authorship by the apostle. Further, the fact that Luke makes clear that he was not an eyewitness suggests that he was distinguishing himself from the other gospels.

What difference does it make if portions of Luke and Matthew were copied from an earlier source? If I sat down to write a history of my family would it be uncommon for me to pull out the scrap book my wife has kept and copy portions of her narrative into my story? Would you believe then that I had no independent recollection of the events. That would be unreasonable.

I did not limit my statement to the gospels. Peter was an eyewitness to Christ's resurrection. I Peter 1:1-4. John 21:24 indicates that it was the discipline John who bore witness to the things in that gospel.

Regards,

Finch

Atticus_Finch · 03-27-2002, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
And none of them claim to have seen him actually rise from the dead. He allegedly did that in a tomb when no one was around but one or two angels and a couple of sleepy guards. All they claim is that he was crucified (and not all of them witnessed that, didn't they mostly run away in fear?) and saw him again three days later fit as a fiddle.

That's like claiming you're an eyewitness to a murder when you see a dead body but weren't actually there when the shot was fired.

John, at least, was present when he died.

Separately, someone mentioned the old "sleeping potion" explanation for Christ not actually dying on the cross. How then do you explain him surviving three days in a tomb with no water, medical attention and a a gaping, bleeding spear wound in his side.

Regards,

Finch

Clarice · 03-27-2002, 06:12 AM

Atticus, imagine I represent the Plaintiff and you represent the Defendant. I propose to introduce into evidence a letter written by a friend of the Plaintiff, which refers to a statement of fact made by yet another friend of the Plaintiff, which statement supports the Plaintiff's case. Neither friend is available to testify. Oh, and the letter is actually a copy of a copy of the original letter, each copy having been made by a scrivener (as opposed to a Xerox machine or carbon paper). Would you object to the admission of this evidence?

Similarly, if I stood up for my opening statement and simply said, "The Defendant cannot disprove that he injured my client. I rest my case," would that be sufficient to win the case, even if you didn't offer any evidence either?

Finally, I have a comment on the success of Christianity, even before it had the power to convert by the sword. This is a religion that says the poorer you are on Earth, the richer you'll be in heaven. The more miserable you are, the happier you'll be. The more powerless you are, the more powerful you'll be. And the reversal of fortune will last for an eternity, compared to your relatively short stint as the downtrodden in the corporeal plain. This religion became quite popular among populations subjugated by Rome. It's not hard to see why.

GunnerJ · 03-27-2002, 06:12 AM

Hey, guys, why are we arguing over how soon after the supposed life of Jesus the Gospels were written? It really doesn't matter. It's not like we have to wait a long while to see myths and legends sprouting up aroud a person's life...

Quote:

In any case, if McDowell, Montgomery, Buell and Hyder, et al. are right, biographical records of similar religious figures written within a comparable time span should also be free of lengendary embellishment. What do we find? Gershom Scholem's study of the seventeenth century messianic pretender Sabbatai Sevi provides a productive parallel here. Sevi was able to arouse apocalyptic fervor among Jews all over the Mediterranean during the 1660s. The movement suffered a serious setback when the messiah apostasized to Islam! But still it did not die away. The history of Sabbatai Sevi is more readily accessible to the modern historian than are the gospel events. Sabbatai Sevi lived much closer to our own era and much documentary evidence of various kinds survives him. Here, too, according to the apologists, legends should have waited at least a couple of generations till they reared their heads. But Gershom Scholem speaks of "the sudden and almost explosive surge of miracle stories" concerning Sabbatai Sevi within weeks or even days of his public appearances! Listen to his description:

"The... realm of imaginative legend... soon dominated the mental climate in Palestine [during Sevi's residence there]. The sway of imagination was strongly in evidence in the letters sent to Egypt and elsewhere and which, by the autumn of 1665 [the same year] had assumed the character of regular messianic propaganda in which fiction far outweighed the facts: [e.g.] the prophet was 'encompassed with a Fiery Cloud' and the 'voice of an angel was heard from the cloud.'"

Letters from December of the same year related that Sabbatai "command a Fire to be made in a publick place, in the presence of many beholders... and entered into the fire twice or thrice, without any hurt to his garments or to a hair on his head." Other letters tell of his raising the dead. He is said to have left his prison through locked and barred doors which opened by themselves after his chains miraculously broke. He kills a group of highwaymen merely with the word of his mouth. Interestingly, the miracle stories often conformed to the patterns of contemporary saints' legends. The spread of such tales recalls the statements by the synoptic evangelists that many of their miracle stories came from popular reportage (cf. Luke 1:65-66; 2:18, 38, 47; 4:14, 37; 5:15, 26; 6:17-18; 7:17, 22; 8:34-39, 47; 9:6-7, 9; 9:43; 12:1; 13:17; 18:43; 19:7, 37, 48).

A similar phenomenon occured with Jehudah the Said (died 1217). In his own lifetime, legends made him a great purveyor of religious magic, though actually Jehudah was a staunch opponent of such things! More recently, African prophet and martyr Simon Kimbangu became another "living legend" despite his own wishes. One group of his followers, the "Ngunzists," spread his fame as the "God of the blacks," even while Kimbangu himself disavowed the role. Legends of Kimbangu's childhood, miracles and prophetic visions began within his own generation. Faith-healer William Marrion Branham was held in exaggerated esteem by legions of his followers, many of whom believed him to be Jesus Christ returned or even a new incarnation of God. He, however, did not teach such notions. In fact, once on a visit to such a group of devotees in Latin America he explicitly denied any such wild claims made for him, but his followers reasoned that he was just testing their faith! Many believed in Branham's virgin birth despite his published recollections of his alcoholic mother. A final example is more recent still. Researcher Ed Sanders encountered a number of legends about Charlie Manson during the writing of his book The Family. On one particular bus trip in Death Valley, "several miracles were alleged to have been performed by Charles Manson." One story relates that "Charlie levitated the bus over a creek crag."

From Beyond Born Again by Robert Price, <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap5.html" target="_blank">Chapter Five- Evidence That Demands a Mistrial</a>

So we can see that there really isn't any "grace period" wherein an account of an event can be considered accurate and non-mythical, and after which accounts are not to be trusted. Miracle claims and myths can develop around people in their own lifetimes, and sometimes, even while the subject of the claims denies them!

Tercel or Atticus may try to wiggle out of this with convenient handwaving that such events are "exceptions" to the "rule," (and I've even seen Tercel do this,) but this raises the question: if the "rule" has to many striking "exceptions," ought we not abandon the rule and not the exceptions?

Failing to do so just proves what I've said, time and time again: when evidence contradicts a cherished belief, freethinkers throw out the belief, while cult members throw out the evidence.

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

03-27-2002, 06:12 AM	#99
Clarice Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: North Carolina Posts: 862	Atticus, imagine I represent the Plaintiff and you represent the Defendant. I propose to introduce into evidence a letter written by a friend of the Plaintiff, which refers to a statement of fact made by yet another friend of the Plaintiff, which statement supports the Plaintiff's case. Neither friend is available to testify. Oh, and the letter is actually a copy of a copy of the original letter, each copy having been made by a scrivener (as opposed to a Xerox machine or carbon paper). Would you object to the admission of this evidence? Similarly, if I stood up for my opening statement and simply said, "The Defendant cannot disprove that he injured my client. I rest my case," would that be sufficient to win the case, even if you didn't offer any evidence either? Finally, I have a comment on the success of Christianity, even before it had the power to convert by the sword. This is a religion that says the poorer you are on Earth, the richer you'll be in heaven. The more miserable you are, the happier you'll be. The more powerless you are, the more powerful you'll be. And the reversal of fortune will last for an eternity, compared to your relatively short stint as the downtrodden in the corporeal plain. This religion became quite popular among populations subjugated by Rome. It's not hard to see why.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.