FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-25-2002, 07:19 PM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 168
Talking Revisited: Prophecy Fulfillment and Probability

Farrell Till does an excellent job of exposing Bible inerrantists. Towards the bottom of this he cites something which is not known to be recorded anywhere in secular history of the supposed time of the expected birth of Christ, the slaughter of the innocents by Herod. An Atheist friend years ago pointed this out to me and it was among my first studies in the fallacies and atrocities of the Bible.
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/4/4prob93.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/4/4prob93.html</a>

..."Let's assume, however, just for the sake of argument that Dobbs could prove that Jeremiah did mean for the statement to be a prediction of the slaughter of children at some time in the prophet's future. After he has done that, Dobbs must then prove ABSOLUTELY that Herod's massacre of the children at Bethlehem can be established as a historical fact. The complete absence of any reference to such an event by any other New Testament writer or any secular historian contemporary to the times makes this an impossible task for Dobbs or anyone else. However, if an event that is allegedly a prophecy fulfillment cannot be factually established, how can any rational person contend that it was a prophecy fulfillment?"
Plebe is offline  
Old 09-28-2002, 05:21 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Racine, Wi. USA
Posts: 768
Post

Plebe;

". However, if an event that is allegedly a prophecy fulfillment cannot be factually established, how can any rational person contend that it was a prophecy fulfillment?"

Rhetorical question, right? We all know that religous believers aren't rational.

The Admiral
The Admiral is offline  
Old 09-28-2002, 05:51 AM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by The Admiral:
<strong>Plebe;

Rhetorical question, right? We all know that religous believers aren't rational.

The Admiral</strong>
Religious belief is non-rational. Religious believers vary in their level of rationality, much as atheists do.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 09-30-2002, 05:40 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 590
Post

Yes Vorkosigan there is a direct correlation between religiosity and irrationality. Moderately religious = moderately irrational. Rabidly religious = rabidly irrational.
Yes it is true that there are irrational atheists but irrationality is not a necessary result of atheism.
Religiosity is irrationality.
Atheism is a rational position.
Baidarka is offline  
Old 09-30-2002, 06:56 AM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Baidarka:
<strong>
Yes Vorkosigan there is a direct correlation between religiosity and irrationality. Moderately religious = moderately irrational. Rabidly religious = rabidly irrational.
Yes it is true that there are irrational atheists but irrationality is not a necessary result of atheism.
Religiosity is irrationality.
Atheism is a rational position.</strong>
Baidarka,

if atheism is rational, and religion is irrational, what do you make of atheist religions like certain strains of Buddhism?

In any case, The Admiral was not referring to beliefs but people. All True Belief is essentially irrational; it is no more "rational" to root for the Raiders than the Browns (exception: Cincinnati Bengals fans). All True Believers, however, are irrational by definition only in their area of True Belief. I doubt, for example, that Bede or Radorth or Layman are compulsively irrational in all areas of their lives.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 09-30-2002, 07:06 AM   #6
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
<strong>

Baidarka,

if atheism is rational, and religion is irrational, what do you make of atheist religions like certain strains of Buddhism?

In any case, The Admiral was not referring to beliefs but people. All True Belief is essentially irrational; it is no more "rational" to root for the Raiders than the Browns (exception: Cincinnati Bengals fans). All True Believers, however, are irrational by definition only in their area of True Belief. I doubt, for example, that Bede or Radorth or Layman are compulsively irrational in all areas of their lives.

Vorkosigan</strong>

Looks like this is moving into a general discussion. Let's keep it on the original topic or move it elsewhere. What say you?
CX is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:44 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.