Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sakrilege · 10-09-2002, 04:30 AM

My small data set...

My atheist sister has been (and still is) happily married for over 30 years, my brother-in-law is a deist.

My xtian sister was married in an extremely religious ceremony where the union was claimed to have been made in heaven. They divorced after 17 years.

K · 10-09-2002, 05:51 AM

Breeze:

Since you brought up the fact that you were used to running scientific tests, I hoped that the theistic experiments would be along those lines.

The results of the experiment should be quantitative. There should be measurable quantities as your data list.

Your experiment should have a hypothesis. That hypothesis should allow a prediction of the data that will either lend support to or refute the hyposthesis.

Any skilled experimenter should be able to repeat your test and get similar results.

To be thorough, you should also take pains to ensure that no other variables are introduced into the experiment that could possibly result in a false confirmation of the hypothesis.

This is obviously not the type of evidence that is normally provided in theistic discussions. However, your defense of listing your technical credentials indicated that it would be. It is also the only type of evidence that many of us atheists would find convincing.

DarkBronzePlant · 10-09-2002, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BreezeinaTree:
 I encourage you to read the opening of the Gospel of Luke. Doesn't read like a myth to me...

That I can understand. If I was looking to it to validate my beliefs as well, then it probably wouldn't read like a myth to me either.

Goliath · 10-09-2002, 07:23 AM

DivineOb,

Quote:

Well, obviously you took offense at me asking that so I'm sorry.

Apology accepted.

Quote:

Of course. But your response to him still assumed the existence of Jesus and his followers,

I'm not sure this is the case. Can you point out where I assumed that Jesus existed in any of my responses to BT?

Actually, reading over the thread, I found a remark that I made to BT regarding burden of proof regarding Jesus' alleged existence. I can't find a single place where I assumed that Jesus existed.

Quote:

and I'm only interested in understanding your thought process assuming that Jesus and his followers existed.

I don't recall making such an assumption since I was twelve years old.

Quote:

Can you allege something about the thoughts of someone without also alleging that person's existence?

Certainly, if there is a source (ie the bible) that describes said thoughts.

The Star Wars movies describe the thoughts going on in Luke Skywalker's head. Does that mean that Luke is real?

Quote:

This doesn't answer my question.

Assume that Jesus existed.
Assume Jesus had followers.
Would these followers have had a better or worse chance of witnessing Jesus' execution and resurrection than modern day believers?

My theist alter ego would respond with a "NO!" because he KNOWS that God exists just as much as the apostles knew when they saw Jesus after he was resurrected.

Does my theist response not make sense? Too bad, that's not my problem. Take it up with your fellow xians.

Quote:

This question is not meant to be insulting, but how I interpret it when you compare the alleged beliefs of the apostles to modern day believers is that you are answering that the apostles would have been in no better of a position to witness these events than a modern day believer.

First of all, the question itself is meaningless until you prove that Jesus existed.

However, if Jesus exists, then why is my theist alter-ego's response invalid? Why can he not "know through the Holy Spirit" (whatever that means) about God's existence?

Quote:

Because a modern day believer could not possibly have witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus.

And my theist response is:

"But I HAVE WITNESSED the death and rebirth of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit filling my heart with Love for the Lord!!! HOW DARE YOU DISCOUNT MY RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES! BURN, HERETIC!"

Quote:

I think that would stand to reason.

Allrighty, then. What if Jesus came to earth and was resurrected 3 times? 25 times? n times (where n positive integer that is as large as you please)? Your "unique" claims of witness are hardly unique anymore, are they?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath · 10-09-2002, 07:28 AM

BreezinaTree,

Quote:

First, I'm reading through all of your responses. Thanks for them.

You're quite welcome. I hope you find the time to respond to my posts to you in this thread.

Quote:

I also do not declare that my sample set was large enough to be statistically significant. I simply responded to what I observed.

Then you realize that your observation was absolutely worthless in that it did not apply to every single xian home and every single atheist home? Thank you for realizing your mistake.

Quote:

This does not make my experience invalid, BTW.

Well, your experience is, indeed, invalid since not all xian homes are stable and not all atheist homes are instable.

Quote:

Third, of the four Gospels about Jesus, two were written by eyewitnesses....

Regarding anything supernatural, I couldn't care less about evidence. Eyewitness testimony is irrelevant.

Quote:

Fourth, several of you have mentioned that I have an embedded assumption that the Bible accounts are true. You are correct.

Again, as Yoda would say:

"That is why you failed."

Sincerely,

Goliath

BreezeinaTree · 10-09-2002, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB:
Breeze: enough people have commented on your poor idea of correlation, to say nothing of any deductions you may make from this "correlation". I would just mention that my husband and I are not religious believers, that we have been together for over 30 years and still love one another, and that our children get on with one another and with us and keep in regular touch with us. I know other families of whom all this is true. Being European and well educated, I don't know many xians at all, so I can't comment from my personal experience.

The more I see of this thread, the more I think it is a bit too rich: it provides material for about a dozen single-subject threads. I can see how as a newcomer here you wanted to ask all your questions, but you will never manage to reply on all the issues that have been raised here!

First, looking at the word "correlation", it simply means that a relationship is shown between two things (co-relate). Causality is not proven by correlation, only that the two things are related.

Secondly, I do not mean to imply that just because someone is not a Christian, that they cannot have a decent life or that they are not "good" people. I lived my life for 23 years as this type of person. In fact, I was often "accused" of being a Christian because my conduct was so good!

However, I think most people eventually ask bigger questions about life, and these questions inevitably lead to thoughts about some higher power or God, or lack thereof. The fact that all of you have answered my original questions means that you have at least thought about it also.

I agree that this thread is becoming rich. I will try to address the main issues being discussed, even if I cannot answer every person directly.

BreezeinaTree · 10-09-2002, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkBronzePlant:


That I can understand. If I was looking to it to validate my beliefs as well, then it probably wouldn't read like a myth to me either.

I have looked for the truth. I think many of you are here because you are looking for the truth. When I read the opening of the Gospel of Luke, I thought about the words, what the writer meant and then drew a conclusion with an open mind. My conclusion was that this writer did not write as someone might who is trying to invent something (like worshipping pink unicorns?). Rather, he was like you all--he wanted to be convinced.

In case you've not read it, here is a portion of Luke Chapter 1:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Focus on the words "eyewitnesses", "carefully", "investigated", and "orderly". Here is a guy who wants to carefully determine the truth.

If I simply wanted to validate my beliefs, I might be afraid of carefully invesigating something, because it might turn out that what I believe is wrong.

BreezeinaTree · 10-09-2002, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:


BreezeinaTree,

Lets get down to brass tacks. What is your purpose here? Your first post indicated curiosity with atheism but your last post seems to indicate that you intend to witness and proselytize. Is that why you are here?

If you’re selling Christianity for the lord, be polite enough to say so.

Starboy

I am interested in what atheists believe (or rather, what they don't believe

). I am not interested in becoming an atheist--but, I am open minded and am enjoying our discourse. And, I am not interested in attacking any of you.

Due to the nature of the questions that you all have brought up, I have responded with what I believe. And,I have provided evidence for what I believe. I don't consider that proselytizing. If it is, then you all are just as guilty as I am.

I had thought we were in a friendly debate. Is that not what usually goes on here?

BreezeinaTree · 10-09-2002, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Glory:
Breezeinatree,

Every time someone mentions an atrocity committed by Christians, you claim that they are not acting in a Christian way and that christianity should not be judged by their actions. This is a logical falacy. We are told not to judge Christianity by what Christians do? You deny the actual effects of the Bible and Christianity on its adherents in favour of what you believe the effects should be. It doesn't work that way. It is the actions of individuals that we have to deal with. Their beliefs are their business. Actions are the only things by which people can be judged and the actions of its adherents are the only things by which we can judge Christianity.

I have no problems with Christians. I simply have never met one.

Glory

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]

You have officially met one with me. I'm by no means perfect, but I don't commit the attrocities that several of you have pointed out. And neither do any of the Christians that I know.

My point is that you have to look at the core beliefs, not the believers, if you are to ACCURATELY judge the Christian belief system.

You cannot look at 19 hijackers and accurately judge Islam. And you cannot do that with Christianity either.

MortalWombat · 10-09-2002, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BreezeinaTree:
Third, of the four Gospels about Jesus, two were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John)...

Scholarly biblical consensus places the writings of the gospels of Matthew and John in the late 1st century, and not by the apostles themselves.

See the following articles on earlychristianwritings.com dealing with <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html" target="_blank">Matthew</a> and <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html" target="_blank">John</a>.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]

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

10-09-2002, 04:30 AM	#111
sakrilege Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Cleveland, OH, USA Folding@Home Godless Team Posts: 6,211	My small data set... My atheist sister has been (and still is) happily married for over 30 years, my brother-in-law is a deist. My xtian sister was married in an extremely religious ceremony where the union was claimed to have been made in heaven. They divorced after 17 years.

10-09-2002, 05:51 AM	#112
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Breeze: Since you brought up the fact that you were used to running scientific tests, I hoped that the theistic experiments would be along those lines. The results of the experiment should be quantitative. There should be measurable quantities as your data list. Your experiment should have a hypothesis. That hypothesis should allow a prediction of the data that will either lend support to or refute the hyposthesis. Any skilled experimenter should be able to repeat your test and get similar results. To be thorough, you should also take pains to ensure that no other variables are introduced into the experiment that could possibly result in a false confirmation of the hypothesis. This is obviously not the type of evidence that is normally provided in theistic discussions. However, your defense of listing your technical credentials indicated that it would be. It is also the only type of evidence that many of us atheists would find convincing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.