Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2016, 05:01 PM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 11:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 10:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  What I find ridiculous is believing when there is no evidence

And yes, we all know what you mean by evidence, or at least what you don’t mean by evidence.

You now speak for the whole forum? What do you think I mean by 'evidence'?

Quote:You also believe there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, by that logic we might as well label folks like Bart Ehrman as believing a ridiculous thing to hold to the existence of a historical Yeshua.

No, I have never said that. Your characterizations of others here have proven consistently erroneous.

I have said the the evidence for a historical Jesus is weak, and the extra-Biblical evidence for the Jesus described in the Bible is non-existent.

Quote:You basically resort to labeling everything you don’t believe in but that other mights, as consisting of “no evidence”.

I term personal experiences and anecdotes as not being evidence. Evidence is objective, observable by anyone.

Quote:Which is not uncommon, creationist who don’t believe in evolution, commonly claim there’s no evidence for it either, rendering the term “evidence” more hallow than it’s worth.

Creationists have no understanding of the scientific method or what constitutes evidence.

Quote:
Quote:Wrong. If one claims there are no gods, one is a gnostic atheist.

Wrong, if one claims to know there is no God they would be a gnostic atheist. If one merely believes that God does not exist, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true, he would still an agnostic atheists still, as is the case for agnostic-theist.

Agreed, but knowing is not the same as believing. If one claims to know, one is making a fact claim.

Quote:
Quote:I declare that I believe no gods exist, but I do not make a fact claim. You seem unable to discern the difference.

So does that make you a gnostic or agnostic atheist in your view?

Obviously not.

Quote:If believing that no Gods exists is not making a factual claim, is believing that God exists making a factual claim?

No, it is merely a statement of belief.

Quote:How about believing that you don’t exist, is that making a factual claim?

No, that's just idiotic.

Quote:Are you suggesting that believing x exists is a factual claim, but believing x doesn't exist is not?

No, where have I said anything like that?

Quote:
Quote:Your demands that people declare a position when there is lack of evidence are silly and childish.

I think the whole notion of a lack of belief when it comes to the God question is ridiculous.

Why? Believing anything for which there is no evidence is what is ridiculous.

Quote:I don’t lack a belief in Santa, I believe that Santa does not exist. In fact it’s a position composed entirely for tactical reasons, more driven by your desire to have no position to defend, than anything else. More protective, than honest or reflective.

Don't be childish. I make claims that can be supported by evidence and do not make claims for which there is little or no evidence.
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

Quote:
Quote:What I find ridiculous is believing when there is no evidence.

If one thing is true here, it's that each of us finds the other ridiculous.

However, there is a great deal of evidence that you make ridiculous claims.

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
28-03-2016, 08:49 PM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 09:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-03-2016 08:49 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Since you brought it up in this manner, what would you look for in terms of supernatural vs natural phenomenon that is not understood yet? (i.e. lightning 500 years ago).


I think in our age the distinction between supernatural and natural is so blurred that it's non-existent. It's hard for me even to distinguish what they mean anymore in practice.

It seems to be casually assumed by atheists at least, that if theres observable properties than they can't be labeled as supernatural, beats me were this assumption came from. If we observed something supposedly supernatural, we might acknowledge some new and unknown properties of the universe, but it doesn't seem to follow for me that this acknowledgement makes it no longer supernatural.

I mean I would think an atom being able to be in two places at the same time, is supernatural. But others would find that term inappropriate. I think modern physics and cosmology paint a reality that's considerably spooky, that defies common sense, that tends to rip the veil off the manifest image we've grown accustom too.

So my inclination is to avoid the terms all together, and just wonder when I hear of an account about the sort of explanations my mind finds itself drawn to, and then wondering why that is. Such as when I think of the resurrection, the early beliefs that he literally rose from the dead, I tend to believe it partly because its hard to find a believable natural explanations. If i were to settle for the sort that might be commonly suggested, and be honest with myself, it would't be because I find those explanations likely, but more so because of a desire not to believe in the unthinkable, because I don't want to believe that.

Quote: Why would a god NOT make it obvious of his presence unless it doesn't want to be seen?

While there are variety of things to be said about the silence of God, particularly when it comes to questions of God's nature, but purely in terms of God existence, I think that is obvious.

What seems not to be obvious here is notion that we're a product of a cosmic accident, that we exists for no rhyme or reason, that a humanity with his moral, creative, self-aware, and intellectual capacities, with a desire for truth, and goodness and meaning, was an unintentional outcome, a freak accident of nature.

In my view anyone believing such a thing is not driven to it by his honesty, but his desire not to believe in God, at least that's the only reason I could think for myself believing such a thing.

Perhaps like many others here, you'd say you don't believe this either. That you lack a belief one way or the other. That you neither believe God exists, nor believe he doesn't exist. That you neither believe our existence was purposeful, or believe it was a cosmic accident. Settling to define yourself as merely lacking a belief. Which for me seems like another non-obvious position as well.

You really didn't answer much. Just because you don't understand something does not make it supernatural.

In regards to your "obsrvation" that atheists label things observable as natural I think is the more responsible thing to do. Without literally one example of a supernatural force, is it really that insane to first treat something new with what you know? I don't think so.

You also didn't answer my question.
How would you distinguish between a supernatural occurence and a natural phenomenon that you simply do not understand?

In regards to the"spooky" part of what we understand of the quantum world, you don't seem to understand how statistics work.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 06:38 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 08:49 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You really didn't answer much. Just because you don't understand something does not make it supernatural.

In regards to your "obsrvation" that atheists label things observable as natural I think is the more responsible thing to do. Without literally one example of a supernatural force, is it really that insane to first treat something new with what you know? I don't think so.

You also didn't answer my question.
How would you distinguish between a supernatural occurence and a natural phenomenon that you simply do not understand?

I already stated the lines are fuzzy to the extent that no real distinction can be made. If we observe some force, that does a variety of things we though we're not possible, someone might label it as a natural force, since it's been observed with properties that where previously unknown. Whether we label the phenomena as natural or supernatural, seems more to be matter of personal preference, than any discernible feature of phenomena itself.

I personally avoid the terms all together, because they seem to have little agreed upon meaning.

I believe in a literal resurrection, it doesn't matter to me whether this falls under the category of supernatural if it were true, or fall into the category that it was a result of someone currently unknown forces etc....

The distinction between natural and supernatural seems entirely cheap.

Quote:In regards to the"spooky" part of what we understand of the quantum world, you don't seem to understand how statistics work.

Are you suggesting that the statistics show that the quantum world isn't "spooky"? You should perhaps tell that to the numerous writers on the subject who use that term.

"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
29-03-2016, 06:48 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-03-2016 05:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 11:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And yes, we all know what you mean by evidence, or at least what you don’t mean by evidence.

You now speak for the whole forum? What do you think I mean by 'evidence'?

Quote:You also believe there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, by that logic we might as well label folks like Bart Ehrman as believing a ridiculous thing to hold to the existence of a historical Yeshua.

No, I have never said that. Your characterizations of others here have proven consistently erroneous.

I have said the the evidence for a historical Jesus is weak, and the extra-Biblical evidence for the Jesus described in the Bible is non-existent.

Quote:You basically resort to labeling everything you don’t believe in but that other mights, as consisting of “no evidence”.

I term personal experiences and anecdotes as not being evidence. Evidence is objective, observable by anyone.

Quote:Which is not uncommon, creationist who don’t believe in evolution, commonly claim there’s no evidence for it either, rendering the term “evidence” more hallow than it’s worth.

Creationists have no understanding of the scientific method or what constitutes evidence.

Quote:Wrong, if one claims to know there is no God they would be a gnostic atheist. If one merely believes that God does not exist, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true, he would still an agnostic atheists still, as is the case for agnostic-theist.

Agreed, but knowing is not the same as believing. If one claims to know, one is making a fact claim.

Quote:So does that make you a gnostic or agnostic atheist in your view?

Obviously not.

Quote:If believing that no Gods exists is not making a factual claim, is believing that God exists making a factual claim?

No, it is merely a statement of belief.

Quote:How about believing that you don’t exist, is that making a factual claim?

No, that's just idiotic.

Quote:Are you suggesting that believing x exists is a factual claim, but believing x doesn't exist is not?

No, where have I said anything like that?

Quote:I think the whole notion of a lack of belief when it comes to the God question is ridiculous.

Why? Believing anything for which there is no evidence is what is ridiculous.

Quote:I don’t lack a belief in Santa, I believe that Santa does not exist. In fact it’s a position composed entirely for tactical reasons, more driven by your desire to have no position to defend, than anything else. More protective, than honest or reflective.

Don't be childish. I make claims that can be supported by evidence and do not make claims for which there is little or no evidence.
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

Quote:If one thing is true here, it's that each of us finds the other ridiculous.

However, there is a great deal of evidence that you make ridiculous claims.

We can continue down this road, where I take several of the questions I asked you here, making them more precise and direct, but we all know what the end result of direct questions like that are with you, a series of non-answers, a series of wishy-washy responses.

It's all gotten kind of boring. It's not the you don't understand the questions, it's just that for whatever reasons you refuse to answer them. I would say you do this deliberately, but I think you're just not that self-aware.

"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
29-03-2016, 06:52 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
Mary had a little lamb. The midwife was surprised.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
29-03-2016, 08:47 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(29-03-2016 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 08:49 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You really didn't answer much. Just because you don't understand something does not make it supernatural.

In regards to your "obsrvation" that atheists label things observable as natural I think is the more responsible thing to do. Without literally one example of a supernatural force, is it really that insane to first treat something new with what you know? I don't think so.

You also didn't answer my question.
How would you distinguish between a supernatural occurence and a natural phenomenon that you simply do not understand?

I already stated the lines are fuzzy to the extent that no real distinction can be made. If we observe some force, that does a variety of things we though we're not possible, someone might label it as a natural force, since it's been observed with properties that where previously unknown. Whether we label the phenomena as natural or supernatural, seems more to be matter of personal preference, than any discernible feature of phenomena itself.

I personally avoid the terms all together, because they seem to have little agreed upon meaning.

I believe in a literal resurrection, it doesn't matter to me whether this falls under the category of supernatural if it were true, or fall into the category that it was a result of someone currently unknown forces etc....

The distinction between natural and supernatural seems entirely cheap.

Quote:In regards to the"spooky" part of what we understand of the quantum world, you don't seem to understand how statistics work.

Are you suggesting that the statistics show that the quantum world isn't "spooky"? You should perhaps tell that to the numerous writers on the subject who use that term.

So you basically just want to not see whether something even has an explanation. Got it. Lucky for you and the rest of the world, some actually care about real answers and seek to find them instead of making one up.

And your "numerous writers" is actually really just one, Einstein, who used the term "spooky" in an effort highlight what he viewed as an absurdity. Yeah, I know the EPR paper had other authors, but Einstein was easily the most famously outspoken. You are taking the use of the term "spooky" out of context. Your link was completely vacuous since you fail to begin to undersrand what they were referring to.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 10:00 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(29-03-2016 08:47 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  So you basically just want to not see whether something even has an explanation. Got it. Lucky for you and the rest of the world, some actually care about real answers and seek to find them instead of making one up.

I'm not sure where you get that from, clearly not from anything I wrote. Everything has an explanation, and I'm always interested in hearing them, and judging whether they hold as the more persuasive one or not. If someone has an alternative explanation they hold to mine, than I'm all ears.


Quote:And your "numerous writers" is actually really just one, Einstein, who used the term "spooky" in an effort highlight what he viewed as an absurdity. Yeah, I know the EPR paper had other authors, but Einstein was easily the most famously outspoken. You are taking the use of the term "spooky" out of context. Your link was completely vacuous since you fail to begin to undersrand what they were referring to.

You seemed to have derived all this, from a single sentence, that it all appears rather "spooky" to me. I don't think many people would argue that the quantum world is a bit weird, as well as the difficulty in reconciling the manifest image (our common sense understanding of the world), with the scientific image.

But I think you might have attached more to my use of the word "spooky", than I actually did.

"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
29-03-2016, 06:30 PM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(28-02-2016 07:03 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(26-02-2016 07:48 AM)DerFish Wrote:  Find us someone who has witnessed God, OK?
I have.

No, you have not. Assuming that you're not delusional, what you interpret as "witnessing" your imagined god is nothing more than your internalisation of non-specific, transitory, non-replicable events that you've erroneously accepted as empirical evidence for his existence.

Of course, similarly, I can say I witnessed Leonard Cohen in concert in 2013 in Melbourne, but I admit that, personally, I'm unable to provide the tiniest bit of empirical evidence to prove that I did. You just have to take my word for it. And you can—quite rightly—say I was suffering from some sort of delusion, and/or I misinterpreted what I thought I was seeing—or even that I could be blatantly lying about witnessing his concert.

But... it would it not seem strange that the Melbourne Ticketek booking agency still has a record of it on their database; that several friends of mine attended the same concert (are they too lying or delusional?); that a couple of them have photos taken backstage with Cohen; that several of our major newspapers reported favourably on his concert; or that Cohen's own web page cites his Melbourne concert dates? Are all these sources lying or deluded?

So... would you agree that Occam's Razor supports my contention that I actually witnessed the person known as Leonard Cohen? The probability is that I wasn't delusional or lying? And also the likelihood that Leonard Cohen actually exists in the real world, and is not an imaginary, supernatural being?

I'd be interested in seeing a similar breakdown of the witnessing of your putative god.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
30-03-2016, 06:05 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
Yeah...unfortunately my experience was one of a personal nature that no one else really witnessed. It's way off topic anyway. Not to mention my experience isn't proof for any one else and never will be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2016, 07:11 AM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(30-03-2016 06:05 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yeah...unfortunately my experience was one of a personal nature that no one else really witnessed. It's way off topic anyway. Not to mention my experience isn't proof for any one else and never will be.

[Image: 06_-_ckqbo.gif]

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: