Materialist Bias?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2014, 04:48 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 03:48 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 09:23 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  What are those beliefs?
My beliefs are too numerous to list and discuss in a single thread. Do you have a problem with me discussing one or two at a time as they come up on the forum? If so...why???

Do you believe that disbelief in Christianity is reasonable given the nature of the evidence for the historicity of the OT and NT?

Why isn't the salvific doctrine of Christianity--the most important thing for humans to know claim Christians--easier to demonstrate than something mundane and ultimately inconsequential like the atomic nature of matter? If the entire universe --as it currently is--exists solely as a stage for the salvation of humans why does the salvific doctrine rely entirely on special revelation for its discovery? The epistemic mis-match between the importance of the salvific doctrine versus its mode of discovery seems utterly perplexing to me. If Christianity were true then I take it that knowledge of the salvific doctrine is more important than the knowledge that sun exposure can cause skin cancer. Yet it is easier for us to demonstrate that the UV rays of the sun cause skin cancer than it is to demonstrate the truth of the salvific doctrine. Reasonable disbelief about the link between the sun and cancer is not possible but reasonable disbelief about the truth of the Christian salvific doctrine is--in my opinion--possible. Why are we so epistemically impoverished in relation to something as important as eternal salvation?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
05-01-2014, 05:10 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 03:48 AM)alpha male Wrote:  My beliefs are too numerous to list and discuss in a single thread. Do you have a problem with me discussing one or two at a time as they come up on the forum? If so...why???
Did you think we wouldn't notice that you dodged the question you conveniently left out in your quote? Consider

How old do you think the Earth is?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
05-01-2014, 05:31 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 05:10 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Did you think we wouldn't notice that you dodged the question you conveniently left out in your quote? Consider
I hoped that you would recognize that question for the red herring that it is.

You're giving us another example of bias. Sometimes people don't respond to every point in every post of mine, but you don't call them out on it. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 05:41 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 04:48 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Do you believe that disbelief in Christianity is reasonable given the nature of the evidence for the historicity of the OT and NT?
Yes.
Quote:Why isn't the salvific doctrine of Christianity--the most important thing for humans to know claim Christians--easier to demonstrate than something mundane and ultimately inconsequential like the atomic nature of matter? If the entire universe --as it currently is--exists solely as a stage for the salvation of humans why does the salvific doctrine rely entirely on special revelation for its discovery? The epistemic mis-match between the importance of the salvific doctrine versus its mode of discovery seems utterly perplexing to me. If Christianity were true then I take it that knowledge of the salvific doctrine is more important than the knowledge that sun exposure can cause skin cancer. Yet it is easier for us to demonstrate that the UV rays of the sun cause skin cancer than it is to demonstrate the truth of the salvific doctrine. Reasonable disbelief about the link between the sun and cancer is not possible but reasonable disbelief about the truth of the Christian salvific doctrine is--in my opinion--possible. Why are we so epistemically impoverished in relation to something as important as eternal salvation?
1 Cor 1
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 05:43 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 05:31 AM)alpha male Wrote:  I hoped that you would recognize that question for the red herring that it is.
How is that question a red herring?

It seems to me that the actual reason why you refuse to answer the question is because you are too embarrassed to admit that you have such outlandish beliefs.

(05-01-2014 05:31 AM)alpha male Wrote:  You're giving us another example of bias. Sometimes people don't respond to every point in every post of mine, but you don't call them out on it. Consider
How do you know that I have read those particular posts?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 06:19 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
red herring = difficult questions?

I asked it because it was discussed in a previous thread, and you refused to answer on it. When people would put words in your mouth, you'd say that it wasn't what you believed, but you never actually said what you believed. So how old is the world?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
05-01-2014, 07:39 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 05:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  How is that question a red herring?
It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Quote:It seems to me that the actual reason why you refuse to answer the question is because you are too embarrassed to admit that you have such outlandish beliefs.
It seems to me that you guys pose the question when you're losing on unrelated topics and want to get back to what you consider to be more solid ground.
Quote:How do you know that I have read those particular posts?
Seems likely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 07:43 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 06:19 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  red herring = difficult questions?
No, red herring = unrelated questions. The threads on bias, not the age of the earth. It's specifically on material bias, but I accepted the bit on OTF as it's also related to bias. It seems you guys want to switch to something completely unrelated as you weren't successful with the issue at hand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 07:58 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 05:41 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(05-01-2014 04:48 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Do you believe that disbelief in Christianity is reasonable given the nature of the evidence for the historicity of the OT and NT?
Yes.

Why would a benevolent God organise reality such that something as important as the doctrine of salvation could be reasonably doubted but some mundane things couldn't be reasonably doubted?

Quote:1 Cor 1
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.

That doesn't answer my questions. It doesn't explain why reasonable doubt regarding the salvific doctrine of Christianity is possible. I can accept that an unreasonable doubt need not be prevented, but a reasonable doubt? How is that fair?

Another issue that relates to equity is that those that witnessed Christ's alleged miracles did not need to recruit any faith since they had first-hand experience. But everyone else was required to use faith. How is that fair? Surely a just God would not privilege anyone in this way.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 07:59 AM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2014 08:04 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Materialist Bias?
(05-01-2014 05:41 AM)alpha male Wrote:  1 Cor 1
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to declare the truth of scripture without giving any good reason for believing it. 18 For the message is false, but we who believe it feel good and clever and righteous and noble in our belief. 19 For it is written: “Smart people who know what they are talking about are the natural enemy of religion and must be ignored if you want to preserve your faith.” 20 Where is the scholar? He says things that are different to what you believe, and is therefore wrong. 21 For since God chose not to reveal himself in any way that can be logically supported, in the wisdom of God, God only sent his message to the credulous that they may be controlled by the leaders of his church. 22 For sceptical thought requires facts and evidence; 23 but we lack these things and cannot provide them, 24 but we'll show the sceptics by living lives in total submission to the nefarious church leadership. 25 Because the credulity of God's followers is greater than their ability for rational thought, the rational thought of sceptics cannot penetrate the defences of baseless belief. 26 For you see the job you must accomplish that no sceptic can. 27 But God has chosen the credulous amongst us to rally together and break down science and knowledge and progress in the name of crass ignorance; 28 and the ignorance and false things of the world will overcome man's ability to act cohesively as a rational society, 29 that we will tear it down and burn it forever. Let the world burn in our credulous ignorance and our obedience to baseless church dogma, doctrine, and leadership.

Fixed.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: