Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 12:09 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 11:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah, see, the problem with that is, it's stupid.

If you aggregate a bunch of failures you just get a failure pile. They don't magically become more valid.

If you use them to attest each other then you are making a presuppositionally circular argument so bad it would make homeopaths blush.

Calling a cumulative case for the reliability of the Bible "stupid" is fine if you talking with someone who already agrees with your views.

But I am not convinced that you have dealt seriously with the lines of evidence I have presented.

Not only that, but you have yet to provide me with a more plausible explanation that can account for the ten lines of evidence listed other than that the Bible is a reliable source of truth from the ancient world.

Taken individually, the lines of evidence are not as persuasive as they would be when taken cumulatively.

So I think in order for you really to show your position to be more reasonable than mine, you would have to come up with some type of plausible explanation that can account for theses ten lines of evidence besides claiming that the bible is a reliable source of truth.

I do not think you can do this but you are free to try.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:14 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 11:57 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Not only that, but I stated very clearly that the main means of my knowing the Bible to be reliable is that I did what it said and got what it promised, i.e. a personal relationship with God Himself.

Oh, how nice for you; unfalsifiable subjective personal experience.

I guess the null results are just not true Scotsmen?

The question was how do I know the Bible to be reliable?

The I refers to me and how I know something to be true.

If I were arguing the existence of God with someone, I would not use my personal experience as the sole line of evidence for my affirmation of His existence. I would use other, more objective forms of evidence in concert with my own personal experience to form a cumulative case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:15 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:04 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 11:57 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Really? The Quran is said to have the most manuscript attestation of any ancient work of literature?

Even if the above is argued, it is demonstrably false. The New Testament boasts far more manuscript attestation than the Quran and the New Testament is roughly six hundred years older.

Not only that, but I stated very clearly that the main means of my knowing the Bible to be reliable is that I did what it said and got what it promised, i.e. a personal relationship with God Himself.

No Muslim will say that for it is considered a blasphemy in Islam to state what I have just stated.



Why?


I disagree with it and not for the reason you supplied.

1. It is only false to you because you a christian. If you were muslim you would agree with the above. You saying the quran is wrong is different when I say it because when I say it that is because the evidence is bad, when you do it you have a double standard saying it works for you but not them. There is also a personal relationship with krishna, and if you chant the mantras loud enough he will appear, and people have said it has happened.

2. Why? Because what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

3.I have meet many religious slaves in which when we debate evidence and they realize that they are wrong then they say that. Saying the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence is the argument of the ignorant used to keep there illogical beliefs. Thats why I can't believe anything that has no evidence, much less accept it.

I do not think you should believe a proposition or truth claim that is not evidenced. I know I would'nt.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:16 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 03:28 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Calling a cumulative case for the reliability of the Bible "stupid" is fine if you talking with someone who already agrees with your views.

But I am not convinced that you have dealt seriously with the lines of evidence I have presented.

Not only that, but you have yet to provide me with a more plausible explanation that can account for the ten lines of evidence listed other than that the Bible is a reliable source of truth from the ancient world.

Bad arguments are bad no matter how many of them you have.

It troubles me that you don't get this.

(23-03-2014 12:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Taken individually, the lines of evidence are not as persuasive as they would be when taken cumulatively.

That doesn't make sense.

So there's that.

(23-03-2014 12:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So I think in order for you really to show your position to be more reasonable than mine, you would have to come up with some type of plausible explanation that can account for theses ten lines of evidence besides claiming that the bible is a reliable source of truth.

I do not think you can do this but you are free to try.

The "claims" are a delightful mix of irrelevant and spurious.

(23-03-2014 12:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The question was how do I know the Bible to be reliable?

The I refers to me and how I know something to be true.

And this, here, demonstrates that even you acknowledge the above.

Since the existence of such poor arguments isn't what convinced you either.

It's a shell game. "Look at the proofs I have!", you can say. And everyone who already tacitly accepts them can say, "why yes, how true". And when someone says to you "those claims are invalid", you get to answer, "that doesn't matter! I don't need them anyway!".

So they're useful if you already believe them. That's a failure pile.

(23-03-2014 12:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If I were arguing the existence of God with someone, I would not use my personal experience as the sole line of evidence for my affirmation of His existence. I would use other, more objective forms of evidence in concert with my own personal experience to form a cumulative case.

Too bad there is no such objective evidence.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Too bad there is no such objective evidence.

We can always debate. I have invited several to do so.

Would you like to?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:26 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:15 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 12:04 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  1. It is only false to you because you a christian. If you were muslim you would agree with the above. You saying the quran is wrong is different when I say it because when I say it that is because the evidence is bad, when you do it you have a double standard saying it works for you but not them. There is also a personal relationship with krishna, and if you chant the mantras loud enough he will appear, and people have said it has happened.

2. Why? Because what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

3.I have meet many religious slaves in which when we debate evidence and they realize that they are wrong then they say that. Saying the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence is the argument of the ignorant used to keep there illogical beliefs. Thats why I can't believe anything that has no evidence, much less accept it.

I do not think you should believe a proposition or truth claim that is not evidenced. I know I would'nt.

Thumbsup

Good to see you know where I am coming from.Tongue

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:26 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 12:15 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I do not think you should believe a proposition or truth claim that is not evidenced. I know I would'nt.

Thumbsup

Good to see you know where I am coming from.Tongue

Of course I do. I am a skeptic. I am not a fan of credulity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  We can always debate. I have invited several to do so.

Would you like to?

Are we not already conversing? I fail to see what difference it would make.

You've admitted your beliefs are grounded in subjective personal experience. That is not a position external evidence can affect. Making up external assertions to substantiate the beliefs that subjective personal experience affirms is wasting everybody's time. We know they're spurious. You know they're spurious. Consider such flights of fancy as throwing out ten bad reasons to grant the Bible special privilege and then admitting that those reasons are irrelevant.

If you are making statements borne of ignorance - historical, biological, geological, cosmological - there are plenty here who might be able to help you out. I, no more than others.

None of which will impact a belief system founded on subjective personal experience.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 12:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  We can always debate. I have invited several to do so.

Would you like to?

Are we not already conversing? I fail to see what difference it would make.

You've admitted your beliefs are grounded in subjective personal experience. That is not a position external evidence can affect. Making up external assertions to substantiate the beliefs that subjective personal experience affirms is wasting everybody's time. We know they're spurious. You know they're spurious. Consider such flights of fancy as throwing out ten bad reasons to grant the Bible special privilege and then admitting that those reasons are irrelevant.

If you are making statements borne of ignorance - historical, biological, geological, cosmological - there are plenty here who might be able to help you out. I, no more than others.

None of which will impact a belief system founded on subjective personal experience.

You know that my beliefs are false/fake?

I know they are false/fake?

You presume to know quite a bit.

I challenge you to debate me 1 on 1 and we will see how spurious my beliefs are when they stand up to anything you can throw at them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
23-03-2014, 12:43 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(23-03-2014 12:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You know that my beliefs are false/fake?

I know they are false/fake?

You presume to know quite a bit.

Bro, did you read what I wrote? Or did you just invent something in your head you'd rather respond to...

The part where you just posted ten shitty reasons to grant the Bible special privilege and then acknowledged that your acceptance of said claim does not proceed from such reasons is not a presumption.

That is a thing you literally just did.

(23-03-2014 12:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I challenge you to debate me 1 on 1 and we will see how spurious my beliefs are when they stand up to anything you can throw at them.

If they're predicated on subjective personal experience then that's literally the point I just made.

"What I can throw at them" is external reality. Do you accept external reality as generally determined by evolving scientific consensus?

If so, there's nothing to discuss.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: