Materialist Bias?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2014, 07:06 AM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 07:09 AM by RobbyPants.)
RE: Materialist Bias?
(08-01-2014 01:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 07:32 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  No, you're missing the point. You're reasoning is still circular. You're still using the Bible to prove the Bible. I don't care if the Koran contains nothing but recipes for cupcakes (it's too bad it doesn't, really); you're still using the Bible to prove the Bible.
Except I'm not claiming to have proved the Bible. You don't seem able to get it through your skull that these are relative comparisons, not absolute proofs.

You don't seem to understand why it doesn't matter if they are relative comparisons or absolute proofs. You reject the Koran because you feel it's circular (when Mohammad used it to prove itself), and you say this is somehow different than using the Bible to prove itself. You keep trying to shift the goal posts to hide your special pleading.

And I don't care if the Bible had multiple authors. It's not hard for one person to take something someone else wrote decades earlier and write something based on it. None of these later authors were witnesses to the events or even taking it second hand. They're third hand accounts, at best. The fact that they wrote something decades later that roughly matches something else is not impressive.


(08-01-2014 01:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:How? The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah because he wasn't what the foretold.

Judaism posits a self-admittedly jealous war god who will punish people generations down the line for sins committed decades or centuries ago. Christianity posits a (usually) peace-loving savior who is the son of a (supposedly) merciful god.
In 30 years you didn't read Revelation?

You are right. Both the OT and NT posit a terrible god. Christianity does reconcile Judaism wonderfully. With Jesus inventing hell, we can more fully understand the glory of Almighty God.


(08-01-2014 01:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:And the Koran verifies itself. How is this different?

The fact that there are multiple authors of the Bible is meaningless.
You're crazy as well as biased. Historical analysis values multiple sources. You know that. Atheists in this very thread are pointing that out - they just can't come up with multiple sources on their side of Quirinius.

It's not hard for one person to take something someone else wrote decades earlier and write something based on it. None of these later authors were witnesses to the events or even taking it second hand. They're third hand accounts, at best. The fact that they wrote something decades later that roughly matches something else is not impressive.


(08-01-2014 01:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Luke wrote his work well after Paul wrote his and borrowed heavily from Mark. It's not hard to take something that someone wrote decades ago and come up with something that corroborates it. It's not like he's a first-hand witness who's brining a fresh take to things, or anything. It's not impressive at all.
Except at tis point we're talking about Paul's suffering, and yes, Luke was a first-hand witness to it.

Yeah, but as for the gospel, he wasn't a first-hand witness. I didn'y say that a person named Paul didn't exist, or that he didn't write most of the Epistles.


(08-01-2014 01:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Because nothing corroborates the NT other than... the NT. Again, it's not hard for one person to take something someone else wrote decades earlier and write something based on it.
Again, the NT is a collection, not a single work.

It's not hard for one person to take something someone else wrote decades earlier and write something based on it. None of these later authors were witnesses to the events or even taking it second hand. They're third hand accounts, at best. The fact that they wrote something decades later that roughly matches something else is not impressive.


(08-01-2014 01:40 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Why do you assume that the Koran is invented?
I don't assume. As explained, I rule it out based on the extraordinary evidence concept. Why do you keep saying I assume things when I've given my reasoning?

Lolololol pot meet kettle. The Koran doesn't have extraordinary enough evidence to prove its claims but the Bible does?

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, you're not even trying anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
08-01-2014, 07:37 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(08-01-2014 07:06 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  You don't seem to understand why it doesn't matter if they are relative comparisons or absolute proofs. You reject the Koran because you feel it's circular (when Mohammad used it to prove itself), and you say this is somehow different than using the Bible to prove itself. You keep trying to shift the goal posts to hide your special pleading.
Suppose Fred says he looked at new cars, but didn't buy one. Jack says he looked at new cars and did buy one.

At this point, all I have is Jack's word that he bought a car. I don't have proof. But, I certainly do have more reason to think that Jack bought a car than I do to think Fred bought one. This is pretty simple. I don't understand why you struggle with it.
Quote:And I don't care if the Bible had multiple authors. It's not hard for one person to take something someone else wrote decades earlier and write something based on it. None of these later authors were witnesses to the events or even taking it second hand. They're third hand accounts, at best. The fact that they wrote something decades later that roughly matches something else is not impressive.
But, you don't apply this reasoning to Josephus, Tacitus, etc. They weren't witnesses to the events. Their writings on it are hearsay. You're inconcsistent due to bias.
Quote:You are right. Both the OT and NT posit a terrible god. Christianity does reconcile Judaism wonderfully. With Jesus inventing hell, we can more fully understand the glory of Almighty God.
If Christianity matches up better with the OT than other religions which claim it as a foundation, then Christianity is better supported than those religions.
Quote:It's not hard for one person to take something someone else wrote decades earlier and write something based on it. None of these later authors were witnesses to the events or even taking it second hand. They're third hand accounts, at best.
Can you support this? Traditional views have Matthew and John as witnesses to much of it; Mark as second-hand, writing what he learned from Peter; and Luke as second-hand or more regarding the gospel, but first-hand to much of Acts.
Quote:Yeah, but as for the gospel, he wasn't a first-hand witness. I didn'y say that a person named Paul didn't exist, or that he didn't write most of the Epistles.
Do you agree that he likely suffered for his faith?

Quote:It's not hard for one person to take something someone else wrote decades earlier and write something based on it. None of these later authors were witnesses to the events or even taking it second hand. They're third hand accounts, at best. The fact that they wrote something decades later that roughly matches something else is not impressive.
Can you support this? Traditional views have Matthew and John as witnesses to much of it; Mark as second-hand, writing what he learned from Peter; and Luke as second-hand or more regarding the gospel, but first-hand to much of Acts.

Quote:Lolololol pot meet kettle. The Koran doesn't have extraordinary enough evidence to prove its claims but the Bible does?
Yes. You seem to confuse the extraordinary evidence with the means of perceiving the extraordinary evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(08-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Suppose Fred says he looked at new cars, but didn't buy one. Jack says he looked at new cars and did buy one.

At this point, all I have is Jack's word that he bought a car. I don't have proof. But, I certainly do have more reason to think that Jack bought a car than I do to think Fred bought one. This is pretty simple. I don't understand why you struggle with it.

Now, explain to me why Fred is Christianity and Jack is Islam (or however that analogy is supposed to work).

I certainly understand the concept (remember the pegasus question I asked you four times?); I just don't see how it relates to your special pleading.


(08-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  But, you don't apply this reasoning to Josephus, Tacitus, etc. They weren't witnesses to the events. Their writings on it are hearsay. You're inconcsistent due to bias.

Correction: I said that in the thread originally, then when pressed, I said that I'd only picked that up from having read the Census thread. I explicitly said that I didn't even know anything about that particular census until reading the thread and said I was totally willing to drop my stance on it, since it's not pivital to my world view.

You, however, have not.


(08-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:It's not hard for one person to take something someone else wrote decades earlier and write something based on it. None of these later authors were witnesses to the events or even taking it second hand. They're third hand accounts, at best.
Can you support this? Traditional views have Matthew and John as witnesses to much of it; Mark as second-hand, writing what he learned from Peter; and Luke as second-hand or more regarding the gospel, but first-hand to much of Acts.

By "traditional", you mean views that make a lot of unfounded assumptions. Scolars who don't make those assumptions don't make those assumptions don't assume that Matthew and John actually witnessed it. What proof do you have that they did? None of the authors give any statements in the affirmative that they were there, nor did they even sign their own works.


(08-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Yeah, but as for the gospel, he wasn't a first-hand witness. I didn'y say that a person named Paul didn't exist, or that he didn't write most of the Epistles.
Do you agree that he likely suffered for his faith?

Red herring. It doesn't matter if he suffered because of his beliefs or not. Hundreds of people willfully drank poison on Jonestown for something that they believed.


(08-01-2014 07:37 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Lolololol pot meet kettle. The Koran doesn't have extraordinary enough evidence to prove its claims but the Bible does?
Yes. You seem to confuse the extraordinary evidence with the means of perceiving the extraordinary evidence.

So how does that differentiate Islam from Christianity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
08-01-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
Let's see here...
Well alpha, you're truly doing a bang up job here.
At least one amazing post before you have a full blown, tambourine slapping, fall down and shake, big tent revival.

Quite the technique you are displaying.
How many times has this worked for you?

"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. 'Cause sinners are much more fun."- Billy Joel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: