Author Topic: An Attempt at a Modest Reply  (Read 4395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Str82Hell

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1453
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2010, 08:18:53 AM »
To summarize, I believe in miracles because I believe I have good reason to believe in God.  However, I also believe in the resurrection because of the evidence surrounding it and this gives me enough justification to believe that Jesus was who he said he was.  Thank you for your question.
It's not justified at all. Your logic goes like this: "since we have a heap of 1900 years old eyewitness accounts of events which happened 2000 years before, I'm justified to believe these events truly happened". It should be like this "we now have a great knowledge of how the human body works and due to modern medicine we are able to 'resurrect' people if they 'died' less than 5 minutes ago. Therefore it seems highly unlikely to us that a mystical force, which we see nowhere else in this universe, resurrected the son of the creator of the universe, which we now know started 13.7 billion years ago with a naturalistic event, after he had been death for three days. Therefore we must conclude that those 'eyewitnesses' describing the event 100 years later, weren't eyewitnesses at all."

And then the rationalisations kick in. Despite these obvious facts and without refuting them, you say: "yeah but I still keep believing in it, because of this and that".
Quote from: George Bernard Shaw
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one

Offline naemhni

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4377
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2010, 08:57:21 AM »
Nice vid! +1

Thanks!

Quote
I didn't catch the trick either ... that wuz kewl  8)

I remember the first time I watched the video... when they showed the trick, my jaw hit the floor.  I had always known that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but until I saw this, I had no idea just how easy it was for the mind to overlook things, even things that you'd think would be incredibly obvious.  I missed the trick, everyone else I've ever talked to about it has missed it, too... I've never even heard of anyone who caught it.

This is the video I always use whenever anyone starts trumpeting that they know the Jesus stuff is true because it was reported by eyewitnesses.  I have yet to receive a response from anyone.  Go figure.   &)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6667
  • Darwins +480/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2010, 09:11:32 AM »
I'm not so sure that the creation myth is meant to be taken literally.  Given the big bang, evolution, and the literary genre of Genesis, I am not certain it was ever intended to be a literal creation story at all, but rather, simply an explanation that ancient Israelites could understand.  Maybe it was meant to be a literal story.  That will be controversial with many Christians and many on this website.  I imagine someone here will say that it could simply be false and that is true.  Another argument put forward by some scholars is that the creation story tells the truth but not the whole truth.  That is to say, what it gives us is truth but it does not tell us everything about creation, such as evolution or the big bang and so forth.  I find this view to be persuasive.  It is certainly possible that it could have occurred even as science does much to explain other aspects of creation. 

Thanks for the wonderful laugh this gave me!  So the story is Genesis - according to you - may be:
1) Not literal, but metaphor.
2) Partially true (and partially false).
3) Leaves out relevant facts.
4) Could be literal truth.
5) Could be a description suitable for very primitive people.

Talk about hedging your bets!

The point is that if any one aspect of your Bible is indeed as massively open to interpretation as this - ranging from a meticulously literal story to a complete fabrication made up to impress some yokels - then there is no reason why ANY part of the Bible should necessarily be accepted as more than that latter view.

When you then entirely fail to provide one scrap of evidence for your chosen interpretation (or even to make clear precisely what you interpretation is), then as has been pointed out, you have presented no justification for your beliefs whatsoever.  "Because I want to" seems about the limit of your answer, and in that respect deserves no more consideration than that of the next Christian along, or of a Muslim, Jew, or Hindu, or of the child who believes there is a boogeyman in their closet.

If that works for you, that's fine - good luck to you sir.  But don't for one moment try to pretend you have given any reason for me to consider your beliefs more valid than the child's boogeymen - nor make any claim that your beliefs deserve to be taught in schools, or enshrined in law.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +288/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2010, 01:36:22 PM »
Before I finish, I would like to make one final comment.  I agree with JeffPT that we should not be listening to Richard Dawkins.  However, I disagree that Bart Ehrman is any less biased than someone like N.T. Wright or Dawkins or Hitchens.  It may be fruitful to either read the transcript of the debate between Ehrman and Craig or watch it on video.  That convinced me as to the reliability of Ehrman as I was convinced that he was strongly refuted by Craig.  Just food for thought.

I said we shouldn't be listening to Dawking OR Wright.  How very Christian of you to leave that part out. 

Either way, you missed the point. 

When I say we shouldn't listen to Dawkins, I mean we shouldn't listen ONLY to Dawkins.  We should hear what he has to say, just like we should hear was Wright has to say.  But we need to keep in mind their bias. 

When I say I think we should listen to Ehrman first and foremost, it has to do with the fact that, as an agnostic, he is professing the least bias.   He isn't trying to win points.  He isn't trying to make people think one way or another.  He is presenting the evidence as it exists.  He is not an atheist, nor is he a believer.  That's what I was trying to say. 

I also like how you completely ignore the rest of my post and focus only on the little tiny part where I say we shouldn't listen to Dawkins.  And in true Christian form, you bias it in your favor by not including Wright (which I didn't do, BTW).  Do you care to address the other points or are you going to be just like every other Christian who comes here and glosses over, dodges or outright ignores the completely valid points brought up by people who know you are wrong?  Would you care to go paragraph by paragraph with what I wrote and logically take it apart?  I invite you to do that.  Go ahead.  I WILL do the same.  You won't see us hiding from anything you write.  Know why?  Because we have the truth and you don't.  And it's a helluva lot easier to argue the side of truth than your side.  If you're not up to it, then at least admit that your entire belief system rests on a shrug of the shoulders and a  "Hey, it could be true". 
 
You are wrong jgunter.  Your religion is flat out wrong.  God isn't real.  You've probably believed the lie for a long time and it's really sad.  Sorry.  Time to pick up a new hobby.  You've wasted enough time on that one. 

 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Graybeard

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 8426
  • Darwins +882/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2010, 02:38:42 PM »
But how do I arrive at the belief that the virgin birth and the resurrection are true?  I find both claims plausible, especially the resurrection, given the testimony of the people who saw Christ in multiple instances.  I won't go into this extensively but given the eyewitness accounts, Paul's writings, and the lives of the disciples after the resurrection, it seems reasonable to believe that Christ rose from the dead.

How do you come to the conclusion that the witness statements are plausible? Where they are recorded, they are contradictory. If this had been a murder trial, the accused would walk from court a free man!

What of all the dead who rose from their graves? You believe that?

Quote
If someone wants a fuller treatment of this account, I recommend N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God.  It is a lengthy tome but well worth the read and it spells out what I said more fully.

I will not be spending money on such a book and it may be a little unreasonable for you to think that people might do, merely to respond to one point. The point here is that nothing much is going to get past the appalling witness testimony.

Quote
To summarize, I believe in miracles because I believe I have good reason to believe in God.

What could that be?

Quote
However, I also believe in the resurrection because of the evidence surrounding it and this gives me enough justification to believe that Jesus was who he said he was.  Thank you for your question.

See above.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #34 on: December 17, 2010, 10:50:59 AM »
To summarize, I believe in miracles because I believe I have good reason to believe in God.

There's a better way to summarize this:

"I believe because I believe".

That's your whole argument... one giant tautology.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2010, 10:53:15 AM by plethora »
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2010, 11:36:28 AM »
bm
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5592
  • Darwins +181/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2010, 09:56:48 PM »
jgunter...

How do you rationalize talking snakes, virgin births, and resurrected dead people?  I'm curious.
How come on certian questions asked,theists can speak clearly on what their God's intentions are,but in other instances defend God's descisions as his own? They pick and choose the stuff where they KNOW EXACTLY what god wants but when things go unanswered god did it no longer works
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 8509
  • Darwins +369/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2010, 11:19:04 PM »
jgunter...

How do you rationalize talking snakes, virgin births, and resurrected dead people?  I'm curious.
How come on certian questions asked,theists can speak clearly on what their God's intentions are,but in other instances defend God's descisions as his own? They pick and choose the stuff where they KNOW EXACTLY what god wants but when things go unanswered god did it no longer works

I will answer:  snakes cannot talk, human eggs must be fertilized by the sperm of a human male, and people who are dead cannot come back to life.  simple, clean, and unambiguous.

Now, for the theist, or at least some of them, it would be more like this:  It say's so in The Bible.

Offline ksm

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1592
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2010, 06:28:53 AM »
You seem to be asking a question about how I justify miracles.  First, regarding talking snakes in Genesis, I'm not so sure that the creation myth is meant to be taken literally.  Given the big bang, evolution, and the literary genre of Genesis, I am not certain it was ever intended to be a literal creation story at all, but rather, simply an explanation that ancient Israelites could understand.  Maybe it was meant to be a literal story

Perhaps the resurrection is is not meant to be taken literally either? How do you know which stories are meant to be taken literally and which not?

Offline Graybeard

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 8426
  • Darwins +882/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: An Attempt at a Modest Reply
« Reply #39 on: December 20, 2010, 05:38:00 PM »
He has a magic decoder ring.  ;D

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”