2 questions to ask a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2012, 03:00 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
You clearly missed the sarcasm in my post. Go put on a clean pair of pants before that huge dump you just unloaded ends up giving you a rash.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 03:00 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
BB-

Well I'm glad that you didn't push on Isis.

Sadly you pushed on mithra.

Quote:Non-Christian Mithra link : http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Jesus_and_Mithra
BTW, the important thing about Mitraism, is not any particular single similarity, but the similarity to the "personal purification by sacrifice", (NOT "atonement by sacrifice"), theme, (which of course NONE of the gospels say anything about). It came from Zoroastrianism, to Christianity via Mithra, to Paul, to Christianity. http://www.avesta.org/ka/niyayesh.htm

Here's my NON Christian link about Mithra

http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/travilocity1.htm (non-Christian btw)

MUCH of your link is debunked as false...Just like Isis/Horus was.

Here's a review of the book Caesars Messiah is based on.

http://www.tektonics.org/books/csmessrvw.html

Don't think I'd get too excited about it...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 03:12 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(02-10-2012 03:00 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  BB-

Well I'm glad that you didn't push on Isis.

Sadly you pushed on mithra.

Quote:Non-Christian Mithra link : http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Jesus_and_Mithra
BTW, the important thing about Mitraism, is not any particular single similarity, but the similarity to the "personal purification by sacrifice", (NOT "atonement by sacrifice"), theme, (which of course NONE of the gospels say anything about). It came from Zoroastrianism, to Christianity via Mithra, to Paul, to Christianity. http://www.avesta.org/ka/niyayesh.htm

Here's my NON Christian link about Mithra

http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/travilocity1.htm (non-Christian btw)

MUCH of your link is debunked as false...Just like Isis/Horus was.

Here's a review of the book Caesars Messiah is based on.

http://www.tektonics.org/books/csmessrvw.html

Don't think I'd get too excited about it...

Umm, while this may not be important to a discussion but just because he is a non Christian doesn't mean we take him to a higher standard then other people. The only reason we post Non Christian sources is to remove bias, but that one quality is not the only thing we look for.

If you think a non Christian source is all you need, you are sorely mistaken.

Now, While I haven't participated in this argument, I feel the need to retreat because this is definitely not in my area of knowledge.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 03:28 PM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Here's something for you to read, IfC:
http://academics.holycross.edu/files/cre...script.pdf

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 03:40 PM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 04:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
I don't get too excited about IfC, as he's a "heretic", (in their books), at best. Many of the things he's said stand clearly outside the Christian tradition, ("sin is the 'opposite' of god" etc etc.)

Funny you should post the link to the Criag debate. I wrote a couple things about that this morning, in the "On Guard". Thread. Here it is, pasted in :

Ask them "is your god sentient". Sentient is "processing information" THAT requires time. Is their god "reasonable ?". Reason is a process, requires time. Is their god "just" ? Justice requires "weighing of evidence".
What you call "two-faced" is right on ! It's more formally, expressed as "linguistic integrity" and "good-faith".
(BTW Dawkins called Cardinal Pell out on this point last year, in their debate in Australia).
The argument, (usually Kalam), THEY offer, and start/initiate, as a Logical Syllogism, and say, (or imply) that that is a way to arrive at truth.
Then, at the end of THEIR syllogism, exempt their god from the syllogism, with NO REASON for doing so, (and that is "Special Pleading),....

but it's actually more.

It's an attempt to, disingenuously, redefine the meanings of words. Words either mean what we agree, a prioi, they mean, or they don't. If they want to redefine (words), they have to get the request for redefinition, and agreement out on the table BEFORE the argument, and provide the reason for doing so. They don't.
Next, the exemption from the process of the syllogism, at the end, is evidence of entering into it in "bad faith". They KNEW they were going to exempt their god from THEIR syllogism before they started down the steps. So why then enter the syllogism, at all, in the first place ?
It's an attempt to "appear" to use Logic, even though, in the end, they really don't.
It's attempted "sleight of hand", or Sophistry. It's trickery. It's an attempt to pull a fast one.
It's called "intellectual dishonesty".
(ie "everything that is, has a cause" .... "except my god is exempt")
Every word they use in describing their god, in their meaning, in the English language, requires the existence, concurrently of a temporal dimension. They also exempt their god from this, by declaration, or fiat, with no reason offered to justify the exemption, EXCEPT that they have (for themselves, also for no reason), defined the god to not require what is logical, and necessary, for everyone else.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2012 12:07 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(02-10-2012 03:00 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  BB-

Well I'm glad that you didn't push on Isis.

Sadly you pushed on mithra.

Quote:Non-Christian Mithra link : http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Jesus_and_Mithra
BTW, the important thing about Mitraism, is not any particular single similarity, but the similarity to the "personal purification by sacrifice", (NOT "atonement by sacrifice"), theme, (which of course NONE of the gospels say anything about). It came from Zoroastrianism, to Christianity via Mithra, to Paul, to Christianity. http://www.avesta.org/ka/niyayesh.htm

Here's my NON Christian link about Mithra

http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/travilocity1.htm (non-Christian btw)

MUCH of your link is debunked as false...Just like Isis/Horus was.

Here's a review of the book Caesars Messiah is based on.

http://www.tektonics.org/books/csmessrvw.html

Don't think I'd get too excited about it...

As I have written else where, the point is not the details of exact similarity to Mithra, (they are debated), it's the concept of "purification" which Paul took from it, and added to the "salvation" paradigm, which he grafted onto the "Way" sect in Judaism, (Christianity). Christianity did not pull away from Judaism until well after the first Century. We know that for sure. Also there was a serious split between the original Jews, and the others. Foe example the business of the integration of the "Lord's Supper", into the sect in various locations was a huge bone of contentions, as no Jew could stomach the idea of drinking blood. It was an "abomination". It's one of the things that tells us the gospels are not the real history of a real Jew. Jesus also did not preach "salvation". It's absent in Mark. It got added later, and to the later gospels. When he added it, he changed the traditional concept of Jewish "atonement", to the Zoroastrian concept of "purification", (of the penitent), by way of Mithraism. Cultural historians do not dispute the origins of "spiritual purification". The idea, (that turns around the very impetus for sacrifice to gods, towards the "sacrificor" or "purified one", (ie from the "one who is adored"), is, or would be, a 180 degree turn, in Hebrew history. That concept never entered the mind of a Jew, at that time. There was "ritual" bodily purification, but never "spiritual" purification. Jews were not looking for a spiritual messiah. Those that were, (at it was not even a majority position in Judaism), were looking for a political leader, including the apostles, who said to him, even at the VERY end, (in Acts), "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 04:00 PM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2012 07:53 AM by Idiot for Christ.)
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Quote:“However, regardless of what I would have believed or where I have lived says NOTHING to my current belief being correct or not. Sure I might have grown up muslim, but the fact that I didn't says nothing about if my belief is TRUE only explains a possible reason WHY I believe it.”

Quote:Precisely. What you actually believe and want to believe has no bearing on the truth or reality.

Correct, it says nothing either way. Just as if I was born into a completely athesitic society...

Quote: Which is more likely, that you just happened to be born in the right period to the right people in the right area to have the right system, or that none of them are correct because they are all man-made?

Quote: I would argue the latter. That of course does not mean it is so.

Correct.

Quote: It could be that only one of them is correct. If that is the case, then god is not all-powerful because his message appears to be very easy to ignore. Or god is indifferent to humans and cares not one way or the other, as such, he is not worthy of my worship.

Two unsupported assertions followed by opinion.

Quote:“Speculative at best about your outcome - and of course neither provable or disprovable. Again, says nothing about the validity of the belief though. As for the disagreement with historians - I suspect we can argue as to what "doing well" and "not doing" well means. Sure, I'll side with the historians and clarify what I meant - Christianity was around, while small, it was strong and (as I said) Rome certainly helped, but it wasn't needed.”

Quote:It isn’t speculative, we see many examples of small death-cults (worship of the crucifixion of Jesus counts as a death-cult, I mean the cross is a torture-device worn around the neck) that are but mere blips in human history because they remained obscure and in the fringes of belief. Name one of the major religions that wasn’t spread by the adoption of a country or government? Buddhist? Check. Hindu? Check. Islam? Check. Judaism? Check. Astrology? Check.

Ah, misrepresenting my "speculative" - you don't know how the remainder of history would have happened - Rome fell, who's to say Christianity wouldn't have risen again? You can't say that.

THAT is speculative.

As for the rest of the paragraph - I agree it was helped. Never said otherwise.

However, you can't say for sure that ONLY ROME could've spread Christianity the way it did, and without it Christianity WOULD NOT HAVE spread.

You simply can't and you know this.

Quote:Now think of the systems that were in place but were composed of scattered sects that were later invaded by those with an organized religion. Paganism of the native American? Now a fringe religion. Druids? Making a fringe recurrence in the modern as paganism. Wiccan? The same. The only reason voodoo persists is because it combined with Christian elements.

Irrelevant to anything we were discussing. Also this is a fallacious argument as what OTHER religons are like or how they got their start don't REFLECT directly to Christianity.

If you wish to make the same claim about Christianity, you have to show it. Above argument is faulty.

Quote:“Again, debateable there as there are several schools of though re: Constatine problem is? Neither of us can prove either.

But let's go with he DID do it to expand power - does this negate the validity of Christianity?

Nope.”

Quote:Constantine adopted it and it expanded thanks to the vast Roman network. Is it simply coincidental that this adoption coincided with its expansion?

Again, I stated it did help (why do you ignore this?) however, HIS REASONS for adopting Christianity speaks NOTHING to the validity of it.

Quote: Seems like special pleading to not draw the correlation. Does the adoption of the religion by a Roman emperor looking to expand his power make it untrue? No. But it certainly doesn’t lend it any validity.

Never said it did.

Quote:“But what about PRIOR to Constatine?
Certainly other were "similar" to Jesus - but where are they now? Where are their followers? what happened to their faithful? How did this small band of Christians (or goat herders as some folks incorrectly call them) spread THEIR message over the others? They didn't use ROMAN tactics - no, they used small bands of folks and preached the Gospel - unless you can point to some other ACTUAL reason beyond speculation one is reasonable to assume the growth PRIOR to Rome WAS because of the message, Jesus.
And this message spread, also, without the help of printing press or large empires FORCING people into it.
Again, we could speculate where it would be now had Rome NOT chosen Christianity - but we would be doing just that: SPECULATING.
But as I stated, PRIOR to Constatine it was spreading (and despite heavy persecution it was still around) and why did it spread? The message; Jesus.
If you believe otherwise, I'm interested to hear it.”

Quote:Even the Roman polythesistic religion traces its heritage back to the Greeks. The only reason it faded into the realm of being an obvious myth is because the leader of the country that used it as its fundamental religion switched religions.

Quote: It would be like the pope converting to Islam, the subsequent blow to the Catholic Church would be catastrophic if he were to maintain the authority to convert the whole of Vatican City to Islam.

Still says nothing to the validity of Christianity...

Quote:The other travelling preachers similar to Jesus never shared in the luck of having their cult being adopted by a powerful and well-connected country.

More speculation...

Quote: It also can’t be ruled out that their stories didn’t get incorporated into the myths related to Jesus. The gospels of Jesus’ life weren’t written until at least a full generation after his death (at least 70 CE). A lot can spread by word of mouth at that time and rumors spread like wildfire, aided by the network of roads built and maintained by…Rome.

And Bucky can help you understand how the oral traditions of that time work and that they were VERY GOOD at passing information along with little "mistakes".

However, again, speculation - though Bucky TRIED to show "similarities".


Quote:Sure the Christian message was spreading, but so is the Scientology message today, and the Mormon.

Irrelevant to what the other religions are doing now and AFTER Christianity. We are speaking of Christianity and IT'S SPREAD.

Quote:Just because it captivates people and they spread it, doesn’t mean it’s true.

Never said it did.

Quote: Heck the myth of Santa has roots in the Norse mythology. It has spread worldwide because it captivates people. It did not need printing presses to do so either.

Again, irrelevant...but a very well used fallacious argument you have been using in this subsequent post.


Quote:This brings up another question now that I think about it.
11) Why are there so many Pagan symbols within Christianity and why do they occur at the same times as the Pagan holidays and festivals that all predate Christianity? (such as the timing of Christmas and the winter celebration of the Norse, trees, wreaths, mistletoe, a guy giving presents, a feast. What about Easter? Still names after Eostre no less, a fertility goddess for the Spring fertility festival. I mean what could be better symbols of fertility than eggs and rabbits?)

Have you don't any looking up yourself to find these answers? If so, what have you found....

If not, why not?

Please answer first, then I will continue along this question.

Quote:"There's evidence Caesar crossed the Rubicon - however, there is NO PROOF of this - do you believe it though?

There is evidence of God existence - however does it PROVE God? Nope.

Quote:Evidence provides the ability to assert whether or not something likely exists or occurred. Evidence must be testable, verifiable, and falsifiable.

However, we cannot do this for history.

So again, I ask - do you believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon?

Quote: What evidence is there that links itself to a god? For instance, let’s say Jesus did come back to life 3 days after his crucifixion, how does that prove a god? Where is the connection?

really? you have to ask this question? Serious?

I mean we can go into how it proves God, but you really needed to ask?

C'mon...

Quote:My point is this, if something happens and we lack an explanation that does not mean the answer is a supernatural one. We need to be able to evaluate that claim and that means we must be able to test it. That necessitates that it must also be falsifiable. If the claim is that resurrection is only possible through a god, then we can potentially test that by bringing someone back from the dead. We do that with defibrillators on a daily basis. If the claim is that only someone dead 3 days can be brought back by a god, then we would need to test that too. Has that ever been done? Is our inability to bring them back related to our technological limits? As far as we understand it, brain cell death would have already occurred, meaning that nothing of that person’s individuality is left. If we can resurrect the cells, we would still be unable to revive the person. That is because there is no such thing we know of as a soul. What proof of this exists?

Long answer to avoid answering the question.

So I'll ask again - do you beleive Caesar crossed the Rubicon?

Quote:“Correct, however as I stated there is evidence for God - we can discuss WHY it's evidence. But it's far from "I don't know."”
Going to have to show me this evidence it seems.
“Glad you're not into question begging.

Anyhow, you are in the same position. You can hardly say with more certainty that God doesn't exist than I can that he does. You and both have the same sample sets of a universe. You can't compare it either, etc.”quote]

Quote:I try not to question beg. I do not assert that god does not exist, you are trying to shift the burden of proof here.

No, I never stated as such and I left the quote above to show that I didn't. What I said that we were BOTH in the same situation. Or do you disagree and you are in a different one than I?

All I stated is that you CAN'T assert - meaning: you have no more ABILITY than me. I never stated you HAD to or that you WERE.

You inferred this.

Quote: My position is that there is no evidence to support the claim that a god(s) exist, and as such, I reject the claim that one or more exist. My assertion is the same as a “not guilty” verdict handed down by a jury. “Not Guilty” does not mean innocent, but we do not determine innocence in a courtroom because that is not what is being proven or disproven. We are interested in guilt. A “guilty” verdict would mean god exists, “innocent” would mean nonexistence and my ruling is “not guilty” based on a lack of evidence. I can’t evaluate the certainty of the claim as to its nonexistence as I can never prove the nonexistence of anything, and no one can.

That's cool.

Quote:“Please point them out.”

Quote:You have actually already realized the logical fallacy of wanting something to be true in an above post. Basically, your desire to believe has no bearing on truth. What is true is true, even if no one believes it.

Correct.

Please quote where I said that my WANTING my belief to be true makes it true?

Can't find it. Never said it. So, no, I didn't make this fallacy (unlike the many you have made above)

Quote: What is false is false, even if everyone believes it. Could Christianity be correct? I do not know. Could it be false? Yes, absolutely.

Agree. Could be true, could be false. Still no fallacy on my part.

Quote: The reason for the difference in my assertion is because no evidence has been presented to suggest the validity of the first claim, but the mere existence of other religious ideas suggests the latter.

Ah, but HERE IS a fallacy - because "B" is false, "A" most likely is false.

and i pointed out why this is a fallacy above...

Quote:“First, none of what you present PROVES my wife loves me. It's evidence that she does, however deep inside she may hate me. hate, we know, is a bond as well.

Remember I said that there is no SURE FIRE way to convince EVERYONE that God exists - no matter what, there will be people that won't/don't - even if we could give them better evidence than for their own existence.”

Quote:It depends on what you define as love I suppose. Perhaps the line between hate and love is very fine indeed. It is evidence for it, and while it may not be positive proof, we could evaluate the response in her brain towards you and towards other people and see the differences and similarities.

Glad to see you do agree with me, you can't prove it.

Quote: My point remains this, your wife is a known quantity (at least if I knew her she would be) and I can see her, speak to her, and test aspects of her emotions. I can’t do anything of the sort with a god. I have nothing to test and I have no claims that are falsifiable.

Okay.

So, given that - do YOU get to be the arbiter of what is/isn't evidence for God and get to say for other's as well?

Much of what you believe in life cannot be falsified - yet you believe them don't you? why?

Quote:As for the next lines, there would certainly be proof that would necessitate belief. Any one of the times god spoke to people through a burning bush or through the heavens or sent angels to talk to people would certainly be pretty dadgum good evidence.

Sure, but would it convince EVERYONE?

Quote:I mean, why not just send down angels to every city and say “God is real. He is right there” then they point upwards and god parts the clouds and says “Hi.” That would convince me. And it isn’t like he isn’t supposed to have already done this.

So this would convince EVERYONE? This would convince YOU?

Quote:"Well, there is a challenge of supernatural from natural. By it's very nature NATRUAL is "less than" SUPERNATURAL - I'm sure you would agree. Thus, being that WE are within the confines of the natural world - it is quite hard to for us bring IN (so to speak) the supernatural. We don't have that power. Like a fish in a fish bowl can't show that there are snakes out in the grass - beyond it's possible scope.

But again, we assert our belief based on evidence: philsophical, logical, scientific, historical, personal experiences, etc."

Quote:We can’t evaluate any supernatural claim until we can determine whether or not supernature exists. We haven’t, so any claim deemed supernatural is on par with saying it is fantasy and myth.

Ah, but you can't rule it out either. "Don't know" is the default not "doesn't exist."

And while we can't determine it NOW, doesn't mean we can't tomorrow - science is BEHIND reality.

Quote:The first step towards using supernatural explanations must therefore be to demonstrate evidence of supernature.

wrong, it can be used as a explanation.

Remember the "miracle" I presented.

Was it a miracle?

Well, I'm not going to say (as I wasn't there) so it would be wrong of me to claim it was.

However, since there are NO natural explanations to his recovery, do we then say, "Well, it CAN'T BE supernatural. There's no evidence for it!"

No, that's called circular reasoning.

Quote:Do you think you have a choice in your beliefs? You say we assert them. I want to believe in alien life and Santa, but my current knowledge and experience negate my desire to believe.

Of course I have a choice in my beliefs.

And your negations above speaks nothing to mine.

I believe my faith to be true. MY current knowledge and experiences reinforce my belief.

As I said, my desire is the TRUTH - not my belief.

Quote: I can no more assert my beliefs in those realms than I can assert that there is a penny on the surface of Pluto. I don’t assert my disbelief in god, I question it daily. I remain skeptical and uncertain.

I'm glad to hear this.

It's nice to see an atheist that admits they "question" their disbelief.

However, do you stand by your atheism?

you seem to on here, thus giving at least a perception of assertion.

Quote: That allows me to evaluate the validity of any claim put forth in front of me either way.

As I do as well.

Quote: I do not have a dogmatic belief system that necessitates that I look for evidence to support my claim only, that would be confirmation bias.

I agree.

Quote:I’m not going to repost you comments on Santa. What evidence exists against Santa? Santa is supposed to be magic, so any claim you make about it being unlikely, impossible, or that we have never seen him, these can all be negated using the tactic “Well Santa is magic, so…” The same thing people say with god. “God exists outside of our universe so of course you can’t prove him. You just have to believe.”

Well, I'm not going to get into this as it has NO BEARING on whether or not my faith is true or not. the post served it's purpose.

Quote:“Lack of evidence is ONLY good evidence against something if we can establish that we should see MORE evidence of it. So I agree with you, lack of evidence is NOT sufficient to demonstrate nonexistence - HOWEVER this is the basis of many atheists on here.

The most common answer for Why don't you believe in God is: no evidence.

Not: "because of the overwhelming evidence AGAINST God"

But: "no evidence."

However, as you yourself pointed out - that SOLEY is INSUFFICIENT to reject such a claim for existence.


It's only when we ALSO mount evidence AGAINST said being's existence is when we become more secure and rational in our belief of it's non-existence.”

Quote:Any evidence for would be good, but here again, we lack any.

Ah, but this isn't true. YOU think there isn't any.

Just like the "miracle" I posted.

Did you toss it away outright?

Why?

Because you believe miracles don't exist, because there isn't any evidence miracles exist.

But that's circular and allows you to ignore ANY possible evidence of miracles.

Same with God. You dont' believe in God, thus any evidence CAN'T be evidence for God....circular.

So I'll ask you this: what evidence are you looking for?

Quote: Shifting of the burden of proof again. You can’t assert evidence against something for not existing. No evidence is the same reason I lack a belief in BigFoot, the Loch Ness monster, Alien abductions, etc. Is it more rational to hold those beliefs with a lack of evidence than not?

Again, irrelevant to Christianity's validity.

Also, doesn't mean that Alien abductions don't occur.

Quote: Doing so results in confirmation bias, where I assert that I have the answer and then I begin looking for “evidence” to confirm it while ignoring anything to the contrary. The first is confirmation bias, the second is special pleading.

Ignoring anything to the contrary?

Nothing has been presented to me to the contrary of my belief - which was my point!

however, I challenge you to answer the questions I posed above and show that you don't reject outright possible evidence FOR God.

No, not shifting the burden...just making a point. Go back and read what I wrote. Quote the shift, it's not there.

Quote:[i]“Ah, yes, but you have to admit - science is behind reality, that is, there still could be life, we just don't have a way to find it yet.

Good deal.

I'll finish later

That got quite lengthy.
[/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2012, 07:29 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
Your reply is embedded within the quote again and I am unable to make heads nor tails of what you are replying to in each case.

I will say I have not seen any "miracle" posted on here, so if you want to assert that I must have outright ignored it, you are incorrect in that assertion. I will go back and look for it, but I shall guess as to what happened.

Someone got really sick for no known reason, then they got better and the doctors can't explain it. Therefore god. If that is what it was, that is the argument from ignorance.

Irregardless of what the story was (I will go back and read it but I have other matters to attend at the moment) you yourself have already stated (in not so many words) that just because we lack a scientific explanation or scientific evidence for something does not mean it does not have one.

Also, no one ever seems to think that contracting a disease or life-threatening illness is a miracle by god, only the recovery...curious. Confirmation bias much?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2012, 07:44 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
BD - (I'll get to fixin' the other post, but here's part ii)


Quote:And I would argue much the same with God. Neither theism or atheism is a default position. As atheism as a default makes the mistake of NOT taking into consideration the reality that all is NOT KNOWN.[/i]

Quote:Sure on your first point, but saying it may be possible isn’t the same as asserting it exists. Even if the only limiting factor is our technology, we still don’t assert through science that other life exists elsewhere.

Correct.

Quote:Science doesn’t stand on either the pro or con side. It stands on the neutral side of “we don’t know but the only way to find out for sure is to look for evidence for it.” It is the same case here as I have discussed above. We lack evidence at the moment and we therefore do not assert it exists. We also can’t prove it doesn’t through a lack of evidence, so we remain netural.

Yep.

Quote:What is the default position then? Would any person born need to learn of a god through other people in order to maintain that position, or if they were never introduced to the idea would they remain in the position of god-neutrality and therefore lack a belief in one (aka atheist)?

Interesting question. But here you say "introduced" to the idea, certainly they could come up with it on their own, - at least to ASK the question if there is a God/not a God.

Quote: The fact that people born in Muslim areas are more likely to become muslim, people born in christian areas are more likely to be Christian, etc. suggests people are certainly not born theist, meaning it must be a learned trait.

Ah, but in a Christian area such as America - children are born to atheist parents all the time. I know a few. So, then is atheism the learned trait?

In addition, there are many children who's parents go to church, yet they don't because they don't beleive.

It isn't as black/white as you are trying to make it seem to make your case.

You ignore many variables, such as I included: a child born into an atheist family. Learned trait or default?

[quote/] What then would be the default? Atheism.[/quote]

No. "Do not know." Just like in science. One can ONLY say "lack of belief" once one starts to think and work it out with their current knowledge and experience.

Prior TO that - "Don't know" IS the default.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2012, 07:55 AM
RE: 2 questions to ask a theist.
(02-10-2012 03:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-10-2012 03:00 PM)Idiot for Christ Wrote:  BB-

Well I'm glad that you didn't push on Isis.

Sadly you pushed on mithra.


Here's my NON Christian link about Mithra

http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/travilocity1.htm (non-Christian btw)

MUCH of your link is debunked as false...Just like Isis/Horus was.

Here's a review of the book Caesars Messiah is based on.

http://www.tektonics.org/books/csmessrvw.html

Don't think I'd get too excited about it...

As I have written else where, the point is not the details of exact similarity to Mithra, (they are debated), it's the concept of "purification" which Paul took from it, and added to the "salvation" paradigm, which he grafted onto the "Way" sect in Judaism, (Christianity). Christianity did not pull away from Judaism until well after the first Century. We know that for sure. Also there was a serious split between the original Jews, and the others. Foe example the business of the integration of the "Lord's Supper", into the sect in various locations was a huge bone of contentions, as no Jew could stomach the idea of drinking blood. It was an "abomination". It's one of the things that tells us the gospels are not the real history of a real Jew. Jesus also did not preach "salvation". It's absent in Mark. It got added later, and to the later gospels. When he added it, he changed the traditional concept of Jewish "atonement", to the Zoroastrian concept of "purification", (of the penitent), by way of Mithraism. Cultural historians do not dispute the origins of "spiritual purification". The idea, (that turns around the very impetus for sacrifice to gods, towards the "sacrificor" or "purified one", (ie from the "one who is adored"), is, or would be, a 180 degree turn, in Hebrew history. That concept never entered the mind of a Jew, at that time. There was "ritual" bodily purification, but never "spiritual" purification. Jews were not looking for a spiritual messiah. Those that were, (at it was not even a majority position in Judaism), were looking for a political leader, including the apostles, who said to him, even at the VERY end, (in Acts), "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel".

Some citation would help make this case - the links you provided didn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: