"I was a christian", theist argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-10-2015, 06:29 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 06:23 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Compares circumstantial evidence for a person's existence (hearsay) with evidence for evolution (scientific evidence that can be tested and it's link to the conclusion of evolution falsified) and then compares atheists to creationists.

Do you think it's some sort of mega insult to try and compare us with creationists? Is that why you're so desperate to find a way to contort what you're being told into some half-assed comparison? Consider

I just compare the pathologies. The blaring cognitive dissonance, than inability to draw competing inferences of their own. A creationists would borrow your entire bag of tricks here to deny large scale evolution. Your underly psychology mirrors theirs, all the way down. Your clouded by your resentments.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 06:30 AM
"I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 06:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-10-2015 06:23 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Compares circumstantial evidence for a person's existence (hearsay) with evidence for evolution (scientific evidence that can be tested and it's link to the conclusion of evolution falsified) and then compares atheists to creationists.

Do you think it's some sort of mega insult to try and compare us with creationists? Is that why you're so desperate to find a way to contort what you're being told into some half-assed comparison? Consider

I just compare the pathologies. The blaring cognitive dissonance, than inability to draw competing inferences of their own. A creationists would borrow your entire bag of tricks here to deny large scale evolution. Your underly psychology mirrors theirs, all the way down. Your clouded by your resentments.

Laugh out load

Amateur shrink playing psychologist!

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 06:35 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
Not even those who argue that Jesus didn't exist, those who belong to a fringe, but at least took the time to write books on the subjects, hold to your line of reasoning. They take the same available data, and attempt to draw a competing non-historical explanation. But you're mind is impaired by it's resentments to such a degree, you can't even begin to do that.

Unlike them, you can't even formulate an alternative explanations, and believe that since your that inapt, everyone else should be too.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 06:38 AM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2015 06:43 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 06:30 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-10-2015 06:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I just compare the pathologies. The blaring cognitive dissonance, than inability to draw competing inferences of their own. A creationists would borrow your entire bag of tricks here to deny large scale evolution. Your underly psychology mirrors theirs, all the way down. Your clouded by your resentments.

Laugh out load

Amateur shrink playing psychologist!

Either you're delusional, or you're just that stupid. I don't think it's the latter. Since the same problem likely doesn't exist for any other subject then the one's you see related to religion. Plus you're resentments have already been well established.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 06:42 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-10-2015 06:30 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Laugh out load

Amateur shrink playing psychologist!

Either you're delusional, or you're just that stupid. I don't think it's the latter. Since the same problem likely doesn't exist for any other subject then the one's you see connecting to religion. Plus you're resentments have already been well established.

Laugh out load

I'm the delusional one! Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 06:44 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 06:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-10-2015 05:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is little, if any, evidence for that. It is conjecture. Drinking Beverage

No, it's an inference drawn from a variety of circumstantial evidence. Which together strongly supports one inference over the other.

Exactly. It is an inference drawn from weak (at best) evidence. The rest is conjecture.

Quote:If you think a stronger inference can be drawn from it in favor of a non-historical Jesus, you'd be tin-foil hat territory. That's probably why you stay clear of offering one, and try and state the silly implication that none can be drawn.

There you go again, supposing you know what someone else thinks. You really need to stop that.

You either don't read responses, forget them, or don't understand them.
I am agnostic on this because neither side has a compelling argument.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

Quote:You argument is akin to creationist argument in regards to large scale evolution, that since there's no direct observational evidence, that it's just a guess.

But there is direct observational evidence of change in species. Read a book.

There is compelling physical evidence that supports other evidence and supports a theory that is consistent and for which there is no counter-evidence.

Not the same at all.

Quote:But what's common both in yours and TBDS pathology and theirs, is inability to draw competing inference from the available data of your own, and inability to recognize that you're treading the same ground as them. You both sleep in the same bed, one deluded by their affection to their religious beliefs, and the other deluded by the resentment towards anything that appears even remotely religious.

There you go again, supposing you know what someone else thinks. You really need to stop that.

What available data? The text of the Bible?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-10-2015, 07:46 AM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2015 07:54 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 06:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Exactly. It is an inference drawn from weak (at best) evidence. The rest is conjecture.

If it was that weak, then you should be able to draw an alternative explanation, or inference of a non-historical Jesus, that would be stronger or at least as strong. If all of it is more strongly supported in the direction of one inference over the other, we wouldn’t be talking about something weak. If it was weak evidence, that we should be able to explain all of it just as well with a non-historical explanation, as a historical one. If one stretches credulity far more so than the other, then we have a problem.

If the evidence was weak as you as say, you should be able to draw a competing explanation of non-historical Jesus, that is just as compelling. But you haven’t, and you likely’t can’t either.

[quote]But there is direct observational evidence of change in species. Read a book.

There is compelling physical evidence that supports other evidence and supports a theory that is consistent and for which there is no counter-evidence.

We have direct observation of small scale changes in species. Sort of like we have a first person account of someone who met Jesus’s brother, and disciples. Creationist will claim we can’t draw a larger inference from that this supports a larger account in regards to the vast diversity and complexity of life. The evidence for evolution is primarily circumstantial. Since we can’t directly observe millions of years in motion.

The problem both you and the hypothetical creationist here suffers, is the inability to recognize the explanatory capacity of the theory of evolution. That there’ no competing inference or explanation currently on the market, that holds any real candle to it.

Creationist at least try of course, offering what amounts to a competing AiG like explanations, but when it comes to historicity you don’t even try. If you think the evidence is weak, than you should be able to erect a competing explanation, with equal explanatory power, that is just as strong as historicity explanations. If you can’t, then your criticism are meaningless, and amount to nothing more then revealing your inaptitude.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2015 08:14 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 06:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  There you go again, supposing you know what someone else thinks. You really need to stop that.

I'm drawing a tentative hypothesis based on observational data about your mental states. If we all can be amateur historians, I'm not sure why I can't be an amateur psychologist. People like to tell me why I believe the things I do, diagnosis my own psychology, I don't mind. In fact it makes me curious as to why they draw those conclusions, and whether or not they might be accurate.

I don't suppose I know what you think, I just draw a tentative conclusion, and then gauge whether or not it holds up, upon further investigation, and try to factor in whatever variables, including my own biases whenever I can.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 08:56 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
Hello!

Sorry to jump in but there's a couple of things that jumped out at me and I thought I'd highlight them and asks some questions.

Hope no one minds.

(14-10-2015 07:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The evidence for evolution is primarily circumstantial. Since we can’t directly observe millions of years in motion.

From my limited exposure out on the internet and from reading lots of interesting links by interesting people here on the forums I do not think this is quite true.

In the case of evolution there are multitudes of bolstering information etc which go into strengthening/explaining/etc the theory.

Some one who's far better than I at explaining the problem with your comparison would be better placed to explain things on this front though...

(14-10-2015 07:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Creationist at least try of course, offering what amounts to a competing AiG like explanations, but when it comes to historicity you don’t even try. If you think the evidence is weak, than you should be able to erect a competing explanation, with equal explanatory power, that is just as strong as historicity explanations.

But... that's not how it works.

If the evidence is weak. If there is, in fact any evidence. Then it should be presented, reviewed, compared to other information available about the issue at hand.

From which conclusions can be made/drawn. Inferences worked out and then, perhaps, things can even be worked out to test the evidence etc.

That some one finds the evidence, lack their of or quality of evidence poor... it is then not their job to work on the evidence to make it better(Gooder? Worthyer?).

It is the person(s) presenting the evidence who have, upon problems, doubts, errors, issues and such being pointed out, who have to go back and resolve/investigate such things.

So.... are you (Tomasia) saying you have good evidence fro your ideas/hypothesis?

if so, might you share them with us? Even though I, for one, am but nothing more than an 'Average Joe' (Blue collar worker. No other formal training/education) to review/look at/think about/judge what it is you have to post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
14-10-2015, 09:20 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
"From my limited exposure out on the internet and from reading lots of interesting links by interesting people here on the forums I do not think this is quite true."

It isn't true at all that the only evidence of evolution is circumstantial. That is a complete straw man.

Genetics, Observational studies of speciation in modern (extant) species, the fossil record, etc.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: