tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2935924292743350080..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Putting words into a person's mouthVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger119125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8657471921161171892015-01-02T10:37:54.504-07:002015-01-02T10:37:54.504-07:00The Rufus known to Mark was the son of Simon, who ...The Rufus known to Mark was the son of Simon, who bore Jesus' cross. The Rufus known to Paul was one of the prominent early builders of the church. Many scholars feel that they were the same person. But either way, I don't see what all the fuss is all about. Rufus was not included in the account of the crucifixion, except that he was mentioned as the son of Simon, who was supposedly there. So Rufus was known to Mark and to Paul, who greeted him (as he did many of the church founders), but 1 Peter never mentions him at all. This is what you call being "intricately woven into the narrative"? Two brief mentions in the entire NT, and not a hint that this Rufus ever knew or saw Jesus, dead or alive? And we don't really know if they are the same Rufus. This proves something to you? <br /><br />And you have the gall to compare me to a conspiracy theorist or a hoaxer? What a joke.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88719224196430467582015-01-02T09:05:12.296-07:002015-01-02T09:05:12.296-07:00OK, so as expected, both Skep and Linton fail the ...OK, so as expected, both Skep and Linton fail the due diligence in research test. Allow me to present the Readers' Digest version here:<br /><br />1. Mark is the only Gospel that references Simon of Cyrene as "the father of Alexander and Rufus" (Mark 15:21). Just a casual aside, mind you - it adds nothing to the narrative.<br /><br />2. Paul sends greetings to Rufus in Rome (Romans 16:13), who he calls "eminent in the Lord". So now we know where Rufus is in the Apostolic Age.<br /><br />3. Peter passes on greetings from Mark, who he says is with him in "Babylon", a codeword for Rome (1 Peter 5:13).<br /><br />4. So one can see how Mark, being in Rome would have personally known the "eminent" Rufus, and included him in his own account of the Crucifixion, while the other Evangelists did not.<br /><br />5. It stretches the bounds of credibility that, were the New Testament somehow "made up" or a product of imagination, such a trivial detail would be so intricately woven into the narrative, covering as it does three different writers over a period of several years, who are in no way checking their work against each other. To believe that such a construct is a deliberate fraud is to be capable of believing anything. Such thinking is identical to the fevered conspiracy theories so beloved of moon landing hoaxers or 911 truthers. Rufus's presence in the narrative screams of its authenticity. It simultaneously is strong, if not decisive, evidence for Marcian authorship of the second Gospel.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66836310769994100242015-01-02T08:48:01.625-07:002015-01-02T08:48:01.625-07:00"You see it as rock solid because of your fai..."<i>You see it as rock solid because of your faith.</i>"<br /><br />No, not at all - only in your totally subjective view of things. Any genuinely objective person would dispassionately examine the evidence for the Resurrection and conclude that it is "rock solid" in favor of its veracity. Sorry to pop your bubble.<br /><br />"<i>There is not one single word in the NT that even purports to be eye-witness testimony of the resurrection.</i>"<br /><br />Depends on what you call a witness. I say that anyone who saw the Resurrected Christ (say, in the Upper Room or on the shore of the Sea of Galilee) is an eyewitness to the Resurrection. The Resurrection is not just a moment in time.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4702640678002797432014-12-31T16:49:27.946-07:002014-12-31T16:49:27.946-07:00I should be more careful in what I write I said Ma...I should be more careful in what I write I said Matthew when I should have said Mark: What does Mark say?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5511211282699857012014-12-31T15:59:53.458-07:002014-12-31T15:59:53.458-07:00... touting Rufus as someone who could testify tha...... touting Rufus as someone who could testify that <i>he</i> heard it from someone else who was there. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20433604355896287092014-12-31T15:52:52.807-07:002014-12-31T15:52:52.807-07:00"Your dismissal of the rock solid evidence I ..."Your dismissal of the rock solid evidence I have many times posted to this website as "an old book" is no argument at all. It is simply a bald assertion on your part, which happens to fall under the category of the logical fallacy "Poisoning the Well"."<br />- This is all about objectivity, Bob. You see it as rock solid because of your faith. It is only your faith that blinds you to just how weak the evidence is. Nobody but a Christian sees sees the evidence as convincing. Nobody but a Christian believes that Jesus rose from the dead. You are not objective. You are blinded by your faith. The evidence sucks.<br /><br />"Again, we are to accept this solely on your say-so?"<br />- It isn't me. This is the position of the majority of humanity. As I said, you have to be a Christian to believe it.<br /><br />"The New Testament is chock-a-block with eyewitness testimony."<br />- I don't think you know the definition of eye-witness testimony. There is not one single word in the NT that even purports to be eye-witness testimony of the resurrection. Nobody saw it. Nobody claims to have seen it.<br /><br />"The Evangelist Mark was there at the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus was arrested."<br />- We were discussing the resurrection, but we can consider other accounts in the NT. What does Matthew say? "Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane ..." He does not say "Then Jesus went with <i>us</i> to a place called Gethsemane". This is not eye-witness testimony. This was written by someone who wasn't there.<br /><br />"Peter goes out of his way to write "we were eyewitnesses""<br />- This is written in the first person, as is the author was actually present with Jesus. However, serious scholars don't buy it. <a href="https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter" rel="nofollow">It is a forgery.</a><br /><br />"On what grounds do you assert this?"<br />- I defer to the experts. And by the way, there is no doubt about who wrote <i>Moby Dick</i>, because there is ample historical evidence. The same cannot be said of many of the books of the NT.<br /><br />"Why should I insist on a ridiculously different standard for the Gospels?"<br />- Exactly. Why should you accept vastly different standards for the stories of the bible than you would for anything else?<br /><br />"Before you go on about the New Testament being an unreliable assemblage of untrustworthy documents, you must first explain how Rufus made his way into the text."<br />- I fail to see why you see this as being so significant. Rufus is mentioned not as an eye-witness of anything, but as someone who could present hearsay testimony of certain events. Rufus didn't see anything himself. He presumably heard about these events from his father. If you think about it, the fact that he is mentioned by Mark is strong evidence that Mark wasn't there. Because instead of touting himself as an eyewitness to those events, he resorts to touting Rufus as someone who could testify that who heard it from someone else who was there. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28272858502041116292014-12-31T15:27:17.391-07:002014-12-31T15:27:17.391-07:00Oh! That's right. I forgot. This christian ...Oh! That's right. I forgot. This christian does not have the imprimatur of the magisterium. So this Minister must be either lying or wrong about the 'flimsiest evidence' for the Rufus story, or even that he is not a 'real christian'. Right, Bob?Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38269804249897661432014-12-31T15:21:01.270-07:002014-12-31T15:21:01.270-07:00"Once you investigate the significance of Ruf...<i>"Once you investigate the significance of Rufus's appearances in the NT, you will see how anything other than a scrupulously faithful adherence to facts by its authors is improbable in the extreme."</i><br /><br />Oh Dear. It becomes even embarrassing for the general reader when comments of this nature are touted as fact, and characterises the christian belief system as all the more irrational and perverse. Contrast Bob's position to that this <a href="http://www.providenceumc.org/files/mediaArchive/193/June-16-13.pdf" rel="nofollow">CHRISTIAN MINISTER</a> views the Rufus tale. He prefaces his story [and that is all it is, a story]:<br /><br /><i>"Who on earth was Rufus? <br />Before we get into that, I need to acknowledge that what I am about to say to you this morning might be wrong. I am going to reconstruct a Bible story from the flimsiest of evidence. I am going to make a lot of assumptions; I am going to make shadowy connections. Why would I preach a sermon that might be wrong? Because it might be right. And if that’s the case, then the story of Rufus needs to be told…especially on Father’s Day."</i><br /><br />Believe what you will, Bob, but don't trot out exegetical apologetics as fact. It simply confirms the christian narrative as a contrived artifice, a cultural invention, and you, all the more credulous. Please try not to embarrass yourself further. It is somewhat unbecoming.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22660268310505904962014-12-31T10:47:51.113-07:002014-12-31T10:47:51.113-07:00One more thing. Before you go on about the New Tes...One more thing. Before you go on about the New Testament being an unreliable assemblage of untrustworthy documents, you must first explain how Rufus made his way into the text. Until you can do this, it is impossible to look upon the writings in the NT as anything but reliable and believable.<br /><br />And no, I will <b>NOT</b> explain what I mean by this. The process of actually doing your own homework here would do you some good. Once you investigate the significance of Rufus's appearances in the NT, you will see how anything other than a scrupulously faithful adherence to facts by its authors is improbable in the extreme.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37021771553987897182014-12-31T10:38:59.358-07:002014-12-31T10:38:59.358-07:00This posting will have to be in two parts. Part On...This posting will have to be in two parts. Part One:<br /><br />"<i>If you want to claim that some extremely improbable event happened, you need extremely good evidence.</i>"<br /><br />Sez hoo? I do not accept this adage. Kindly demonstrate why I should. However, we must move immediately to Part Two:<br /><br />"<i>You don't have it.</i>"<br /><br />But I do, Skep, I do. Your dismissal of the rock solid evidence I have many times posted to this website as "an old book" is no argument at all. It is simply a bald assertion on your part, which happens to fall under the category of the logical fallacy "Poisoning the Well".<br /><br />Oh, heck. I won't be back on the internet until tomorrow (at the earliest), so let's go ahead with Part Three:<br /><br />"<i>no eyewitness accounts</i>"<br /><br />Again, we are to accept this solely on your say-so? The New Testament is chock-a-block with eyewitness testimony. The Evangelist Mark was there at the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus was arrested. Matthew saw everything from practically Day One. John likewise. Peter goes out of his way to write "we were eyewitnesses", and John says "we have heard, we have seen with our eyes, we have touched with our hands". Dang, but that sounds like eyewitness testimony to me!<br /><br />And please don't respond with that bunk about "anonymously written documents". On what grounds do you assert this? Because the writers do not identify themselves <i>within</i> the text? Heck, by that standard my copy of <i>Moby Dick</i> must be anonymously written. <i><b>Nowhere</b></i> inside the novel do I find the name Herman Melville - only on the cover. Damn, must be an anonymous work!<br /><br />Why should I insist on a ridiculously different standard for the Gospels?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23278356497429694752014-12-30T16:03:40.260-07:002014-12-30T16:03:40.260-07:00"Israel in 4 BC Had no mass communication&quo..."Israel in 4 BC Had no mass communication"<br /><br />If he came today we could all see. I don't see him. None of us can see him. But many believe anyway.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86443228287697271982014-12-30T15:15:33.069-07:002014-12-30T15:15:33.069-07:00im-skeptical wrote: If you want to claim that some...<b>im-skeptical</b> wrote: <i>If you want to claim that some extremely improbable event happened, you need extremely good evidence.</i><br /><br />That reminded me of a song I haven't listened to in a long, long time:<br /><br /><i>Every time I look at you<br />I don't understand<br />Why you let the things you did<br />Get so out of hand<br />You'd have managed better<br />If you'd had it planned<br />Now why'd you choose such a backward time<br />And such a strange land?<br /><br />If you'd come today<br />You could have reached a whole nation<br />Israel in 4 BC<br />Had no mass communication</i><br />wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11320809251333521472014-12-30T14:32:12.494-07:002014-12-30T14:32:12.494-07:00[... continued ...]
John Loftus wrote: In one of ...[... continued ...]<br /><br /><b>John Loftus</b> wrote: <i>In one of these above books, on apologetics, several authors argue against presuppostionalism. I suppose you are certain they are wrong too, correct?</i><br /><br />If by "presuppositionalism" you mean "Christian presuppositionalism" then, yes, they are wrong.<br /><br />Go back and re-read what I wrote. As a mathematician, I will say that we cannot escape our axioms. What we believe controls how we evaluate evidence. Then I said that I think that Atheism is a consistent, complete worldview. I also said that Christianity is a consistent, complete worldview.<br /><br />That doesn't mean that there aren't inconsistent Christians, or inconsistent Atheists. im-skeptical is an inconsistent Atheist. He could be a consistent atheist, but whether or not he has that eureka moment only time will tell.<br /><br /><i>See a trend here? You are correct. Every other Christian is wrong. Seriously?</i><br /><br />Only in your imagination.<br /><br /><i>The historical trend is also telling, ...</i><br /><br />Are you saying that truth is determined by numbers? Really? And 100, or 200, or 1,000 years from now, when the trend has changed, will your great-great-great grandchildren try to use the same argument?<br /><br /><i>There are several former believers who no longer believe. ... Have you read these works?</i><br /><br />Some of them. On the other hand, there are former atheists who now believe. Me, for one. C. S. Lewis, for another.<br /><br />So what? If I have to weigh intellect against intellect, I'd certainly put C. S. Lewis ahead of John Loftus, or Bart Ehrman.<br /><br />But what you don't understand is that I'm not playing that game. Atheism vs. Christianity isn't about evidence. It never has been. It's about how brains process evidence.<br /><br /><i>Let's say that it's possible you are wrong.</i><br /><br />I'm a software engineer. I'm also married. I'm wrong a thousand times a day.<br /><br /><i>Wouldn't you want to know? No, seriously, wouldn't you want to know, yes or no?</i><br /><br />Of course I would.<br /><br />How about you?<br /><br /><i>You have Christians debunking themselves, where the trend is from conservatism to atheism, with several former intellectual believers several rejecting your faith and writing about it.</i><br /><br />Truth has never, ever been about numbers. That you even try this argument means that you don't know how epistemology works. You're exhibiting the "r" side of r/K selection traits (i.e. where group consensus is more important than anything else).<br /><br />And that you commit the fallacy of "selective citing" only shows how bankrupt your argument is. Note that this doesn't prove that Christianity is right and Atheism is wrong. It just proves that you are an ignorant atheist, as opposed to an intelligent atheist.<br /><br /><i>Wouldn't you want to know why this is the case? Satan is too easily an answer. You would not accept that as an answer if someone said YOUR theology was of Satan, would you?</i><br /><br />Why don't you let me provide my own answers? Otherwise, you can just have a conversation with yourself and whatever straw-men you want to talk to.<br /><br /><i>My claim is that doubt should be the position of everyone until such time as the evidence shows otherwise.</i><br /><br />A self-defeating philosophy if ever there was one because, if you really believed it, you would doubt it and enter into a vicious circle.<br /><br />And, for the last time, you're trying to argue evidence with someone who says that it isn't about the evidence. After all, if both Christianity and Atheism are complete consistent systems, there isn't any evidence that can possibly exist to settle the argument one way or another.<br />wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13844147337973901312014-12-30T14:21:15.173-07:002014-12-30T14:21:15.173-07:00"Well, of course they usually don't. It w..."Well, of course they usually don't. It was an extremely improbable event. But you have decided that improbable events can't happen. And you can't have done this based on evidence -- because evidence for improbable events is few and far between. You've based it on the a priori belief in atheism. You haven't stepped outside of your ideology at all."<br /><br />If you want to claim that some extremely improbable event happened, you need extremely good evidence. You don't have it. You only have a story in an old book that was written for the purpose of convincing people to believe in a religious faith. That's all. No physical evidence, no eyewitness accounts, no historical accounts (other than this book), no corroborating information of any kind. That's not good evidence from any kind of objective perspective. And that's why only Christians believe it. You don't have to be an atheist to see how weak this is. You just have to be free of the Christian ideology. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37932729824457705242014-12-30T13:58:38.600-07:002014-12-30T13:58:38.600-07:00John Loftus wrote: wrf3, I've been reading you...<b>John Loftus</b> wrote: <i>wrf3, I've been reading your comments with some interest. You represent the kind of person who intrigues me.</i><br /><br />Thank you?<br /><br /><i>Since I never know what spark can be ignited that will eventually start a fire of knowledge and understanding free of brainwashing, here goes.</i><br /><br />I just love it how you automatically poison the well by using emotive terms like "brainwashing." We poor dumb biased Christians have been brainwashed, while you objective rational clear-thinking atheists have broken free. Just pathetic.<br /><br /><i>Does is bother you that you come across as having the whole truth and nothing but the truth--that you have all the answers? It should.</i><br /><br />It doesn't, for the simple reason that "how I come across" is based more on your incomplete perception of me, rather than how I actually am. We all know that, in these politically correct times, offense can be taken where none was either intended, nor given. In the same way, I suspect you're reading more into my responses than what I've actually written.<br /><br /><i>For the more a person knows the less s/he claims to know. Tell us what you don't know pertaining to religious truth, if you want to prove me wrong.</i><br /><br />That would fill a book. Shall I write another book about what I don't know about mathematics, even though I have a degree in math? How about a book about what I don't know about science, even though my math degree is from an engineering school, so I've had to take physics, chemistry, biology, thermodynamics, circuit and devices, astronomy, materials science, ...<br /><br /><i>I'll be curious to learn if you admit ignorance about several important basic details of your particular religious worldview, while at the same time claiming certainty about the whole worldview itself. That would be odd wouldn't you think, if you admit ignorant of the foundational details but certain of the whole?</i><br /><br />First, you tell me what the "foundational details" you think I'm ignorant of. Because we may disagree on what is foundational and what is derived.<br /><br />Second, by your criteria, I should throw out the American Constitution and Quantum Mechanics. I should throw out the American Constitution because there is no universal agreement on what the 2nd amendment means. Even the Supreme Court was divided, 5-4, on whether or not the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own firearms.<br /><br />And we should throw out Quantum Mechanics, because while most everyone agrees on Schrödinger's equation, there is widespread disagreement on how to interpret it. Copenhagen, Many-worlds, De Broglie-Bohm, ... You might enjoy the articles <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Lubos Motl</a> posts about idiot scientists who say idiotic things about science. This one is a recent one about a paper published in <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/12/ellis-silks-falsifiability-babbling-in.html" rel="nofollow">Nature</a>. And this one about proponents of the <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/simple-proof-qm-implies-many-worlds.html" rel="nofollow">many worlds</a> interpretation of quantum mechanics.<br /><br /><i>Let me link to a few items for your reflection on this question. ... Christians debate many doctrinal and foundational specifics, as seen in these books. Are you claiming to know the answers for every issue?</i><br /><br />Of course not. Ask me which eschatological view I hold. On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays I prefer amillennialism. On Thursdays I like postmillennialism. On Fridays I reflect on partial preterism. On Saturdays, I consider historic dispensationalism.<br /><br />So there are ambiguities. So what? That's true of anything, whether it is interpretation of Christian doctrine, interpretation of the American Constitution, or interpretation of nature.<br /><br />It's how our neural nets work.<br /><br />Shall we declare science wrong because scientists can't agree on how to interpret nature via quantum mechanics?<br /><br />[... to be continued ...]wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72327786027975177342014-12-30T13:04:28.351-07:002014-12-30T13:04:28.351-07:00im-skeptical wrote: For clarification, I said that...<b>im-skeptical</b> wrote: <i>For clarification, I said that being objective is getting outside your own ideology and looking at something the way others see it.</i><br /><br />If that had been all that you said, then that would be better, but it would still be wrong.<br /><br />But let's objectively look at what you actually said:<br /><br /><i>There have been theists who are willing to examine the evidence objectively. We call those people atheists.</i><br /><br /><i> The resurrection story [is evidence that theists aren't objective]. 'Nuff said.</i><br /><br /><i>It's a question of how you view the evidence, and whether you can look at it objectively. You obviously don't.</i><br /><br /><i> The evidence for the resurrection is extremely weak at best, but Christians do not look at it objectively.</i><br /><br /><i> No, I equate 'objectively' with seeing things for what they are.</i><br /><br /><i>That is a sure sign that this ideology is the critical factor in determining your interpretation. You are not objective.</i><br /><br />[-- just a note to show how wrong im-skeptical is here. It wasn't pre-existing ideology that made me become a Christian. My pre-existing ideology was atheism. I most certainly did not want to become a Christian at the time.]<br /><br />So, what are we to make of this?<br /><br />Your definition of "objectivity" is more than just looking at things from different axiomatic systems (i.e. getting outside Russell's "instinctive beliefs"). You entwine "objectivity" with "agreement with atheism."<br /><br />And when asked why evidence for the Resurrection isn't "objective" you reply that dead people don't get up and walk.<br /><br />Well, of course they usually don't. It was an extremely improbable event. But you have decided that improbable events can't happen. And you can't have done this based on evidence -- because evidence for improbable events is few and far between. You've based it on the a priori belief in atheism. You haven't stepped outside of your ideology at all.<br /><br /><i>Both of you are 100% wrong about what I said. so you didn't listen and understand, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. So which is it?</i><br /><br />The fallacy of the false dilemma. We did listen, we do understand, and we see a problem with your statements that you, yourself, do not see.<br /><br />Now, even when your inconsistency is demonstrated (yet again), your brain still has to process this evidence. Whether it does it correctly (which would be shown by actually understanding and admitting your mistake) or continues to do it incorrectly ("you aren't listening!!!"), you can't escape it.wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73944030934415286862014-12-30T12:33:21.681-07:002014-12-30T12:33:21.681-07:00wrf3, I've been reading your comments with som...wrf3, I've been reading your comments with some interest. You represent the kind of person who intrigues me. Since I never know what spark can be ignited that will eventually start a fire of knowledge and understanding free of brainwashing, here goes.<br /><br />Does is bother you that you come across as having the whole truth and nothing but the truth--that you have all the answers? It should. For the more a person knows the less s/he claims to know. Tell us what you don't know pertaining to religious truth, if you want to prove me wrong. I'll be curious to learn if you admit ignorance about several important basic details of your particular religious worldview, while at the same time claiming certainty about the whole worldview itself. That would be odd wouldn't you think, if you admit ignorant of the foundational details but certain of the whole?<br /><br />Let me link to a few items for your reflection on this question.<br /><br />Christians debate many doctrinal and foundational specifics, <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2014/03/christians-debunk-themselves-theres.html" rel="nofollow">as seen in these books</a>. Are you claiming to know the answers for every issue? Have you studied these issues out as much as the authors have done? When you speak of the Christian worldview do you know how many Christian worldviews there are given the different answers given to these issues?<br /><br />In one of these above books, on apologetics, several authors argue against presuppostionalism. <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/van-tillian-presuppositional.html" rel="nofollow">LINK</a>. I suppose you are certain they are wrong too, correct?<br /><br />See a trend here? You are correct. Every other Christian is wrong. Seriously? <br /><br />The historical trend is also telling, <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/08/if-nothing-else-look-at-trend-from.html" rel="nofollow">From Conservative to Moderate to Liberal to Agnostic to Atheist</a>. It's so pronounced that the new evangelicals don't even recognize they have changed <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-new-evangelical-orthodoxy.html" rel="nofollow">LINK</a>.<br /><br />There are several former believers who no longer believe. They should know why, don't you think, like Hector Avalos, Dan Barker, Robert Price, Bart Ehrman, William Dever, myself and many others. Have you read these works? <br /><br />Let's say that it's possible you are wrong. Wouldn't you want to know? No, seriously, wouldn't you want to know, yes or no? <br /><br />You have Christians <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-to-debunk-christianity.html" rel="nofollow">debunking themselves</a>, where the trend is from conservatism to atheism, with several former intellectual believers several rejecting your faith and writing about it.<br /><br />Wouldn't you want to know why this is the case? Satan is too easily an answer. You would not accept that as an answer if someone said YOUR theology was of Satan, would you? <br /><br />My claim is that doubt should be the position of everyone until such time as the evidence shows otherwise. <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="" rel="nofollow"></a><br /><a href="" rel="nofollow"></a><br /><a href="" rel="nofollow"></a><br /><a href="" rel="nofollow"></a>John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07167826997171207256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61536546378820496242014-12-30T12:20:58.097-07:002014-12-30T12:20:58.097-07:00For clarification, I said that being objective is ...For clarification, I said that being objective is getting outside your own ideology and looking at something the way others see it.<br /><br />wrf3: That's slipping your atheist ideology into it.<br /><br />Bob: So it's if you don't agree with me, you're not being objective.<br /><br />Both of you are 100% wrong about what I said. so you didn't listen and understand, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. So which is it?<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54165162514620844202014-12-30T11:16:46.865-07:002014-12-30T11:16:46.865-07:00For clarification, Skep posted his latest comment ...For clarification, Skep posted his latest comment while I was writing mine, so I did not see it until publishing my own.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74134322644248905382014-12-30T11:14:55.229-07:002014-12-30T11:14:55.229-07:00"You have shown beyond any doubt that you are..."<i>You have shown beyond any doubt that you are unwilling to even listen</i>"<br /><br />Don't worry, wrf3. Skep tried the same line on me, when I informed him that I did listen to everything he said. His response? "<i> If you did [listen to me], you'd show some hint of understanding [i.e., you would agree with me].</i>" <br /><br />Classic, just classic. Every last "argument" that Skep has ever produced on either this or his own website can be boiled down to the following:<br /><br />1. I am right.<br />2. If you disagree with me, you are either <br /> a) not listening, or <br /> b) not being objective.<br /><br />By the way, this has become far more entertaining now that I no longer have internet access from my home. Reading all the comments just once or at most twice a day (at the coffee shop) is definitely the way to go!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37240964973151672802014-12-30T11:07:49.333-07:002014-12-30T11:07:49.333-07:00wrf3,
I don't care what you believe, and it m...wrf3,<br /><br />I don't care what you believe, and it makes no difference to me whether you agree or not. I don't expect anyone here to agree with me, but some will at least understand what I say. This is about your steadfast refusal to listen and understand what people say.<br /><br />"Furthermore, when I was an atheist, I used the exact same arguments."<br /><br />I find that impossible to believe. You show no sign of understanding what my arguments are. If you ever used them, you did so without knowing what you were arguing.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45190372977521705192014-12-30T10:25:35.556-07:002014-12-30T10:25:35.556-07:00im-skeptical wrote: You have shown beyond any doub...<b>im-skeptical</b> wrote: <i>You have shown beyond any doubt that you are unwilling to even listen.</i><br />Repeating myself: you are confusing disagreement with desire to listen. I've heard everything you've said. Furthermore, when I was an atheist, I used the exact same arguments. Your arguments are wrong.<br /><br /><i>I shouldn't have to keep repeating what I said when you fail to recognize that I said it.</i><br /><br />It's so much easier to blame the other person than recognize your own shortcomings, isn't it?<br /><br />The alternate, scientific, objective explanation is that the last set of questions caused cognitive dissonance of such a magnitude that your brain gave up instead of continuing in discomfort.<br /><br /><i>This is a waste of time.</i><br /><br />This is you admitting that you are unable to break out of your mental rut.<br /><br />But that's expected. "Unless a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55730528358114143352014-12-30T09:13:54.529-07:002014-12-30T09:13:54.529-07:00wrf3,
I think it is pointless to carry on with th...wrf3,<br /><br />I think it is pointless to carry on with this. You have shown beyond any doubt that you are unwilling to even listen. I shouldn't have to keep repeating what I said when you fail to recognize that I said it. And it's not just me. You don't understand what Loftus has said, and you definitely don't understand Bertrand Russell. So just carry on. This is a waste of time.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77289472095577746372014-12-29T19:59:06.766-07:002014-12-29T19:59:06.766-07:00[... continued from previous post ...]
and then y...[... continued from previous post ...]<br /><br /><i>and then you accused me of hating science because I couldn't see your theistic "evidence".</i><br /><br />And yet you don't see the connection between suppression of teleology and atheism.<br /><br /><i>And if you think this is inconsistency on my own part, all I say is evidence has to be something we can actually detect - not just feelings or beliefs we have.</i><br /><br />As I've said several times, and as Russell confirms, you cannot separate the evaluation of evidence from the beliefs that you have.<br /><br /><i>Dead people don't get up and walk.</i><br /><br />Not normally, no. Are miracles impossible?<br /><br /><i>Cartoon triangles have no intentions. It's just an illusion.</i><br /><br />The story told by the animator is an illusion? The meaning really isn't there?<br /><br /><i>Scientific methods are remarkably effective at eliminating bias. You can choose to follow a more scientific approach. And that doesn't mean you must adopt an atheist ideology before looking at the evidence. It simply means you can use this approach to take a more objective view of the evidence.</i><br /><br />Is it possible that an objective view of the evidence for the Resurrection leads to the conclusion that it actually happened?<br /><br />And, btw, you might find <a href="http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-history-isnt-scientific-and-why-it.html" rel="nofollow"> Why History isn't Scientific...</a> of interest.wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69928934818110983462014-12-29T19:58:49.229-07:002014-12-29T19:58:49.229-07:00im-skeptical wrote: I disagree. If you take an obj...<b>im-skeptical</b> wrote: <i>I disagree. If you take an objective view, you might be able to recognize or infer that you are working on a curved surface.</i><br />The key word is "might". If you can't determine the curvature, then all you have are your axioms.<br /><br /><i>Science concludes that a naturalist perspective is appropriate because that's where the evidence leads. Science certainly didn't start out with this perspective, but the conclusion was inevitable, based on the evidence.</i><br /><br />Let's put that to the test.<br /><br /><i>A scientific approach can explain what happened [in Flatland]</i><br /><br />Ok. Do it. What is the scientific conclusion to A. Square's story? Why was he locked in prison? Did the other Flatlanders not apply the scientific approach? Or did they come to the wrong conclusion? If they came to the wrong conclusion, on what evidence do you base your statement?<br /><br /><i>You haven't even attempted to understand what I'm telling you.</i><br /><br />Please don't take my complete disagreement with your epistemological biases as not understanding what you're trying to tell me. I do understand you. I used to use the exact same arguments against Christians. I used to believe exactly as you do.<br /><br /><i>When I try to describe how we can be more objective, you accuse me of slipping in my own ideology.</i><br /><br />Of course I say this, because you are no different from any other human being on the planet. You haven't yet shown that you know how to think outside your ideology.<br /><br />It's possible, but it takes a lot of practice.<br /><br /><i>No. I was only talking about being objective. Why can't you see that?</i><br /><br />Because your particular expression of what it means to be "objective" is wrong.<br /><br />A person who accepts the axiom that space is curved will develop a consistent geometry which is different from a person who accepts the axiom that space is flat. Both of these people are objective, but they will see the same world differently.<br /><br />Now, suppose (for the sake of argument) that it's impossible to measure the mass of the universe and thereby determine it's exact curvature.<br /><br />Is one of these individuals less objective than the other? If so, why?<br /><br /><i>Oh, brother. Russell was talking about whether we should trust the evidence of our senses. He most definitely was not referring to belief in the supernatural.</i><br /><br />One of the evidences of your senses is teleology. If you a priori suppress the possibility of meaning in nature, then the only possible conclusion is atheism.<br /><br /><i>What scientific study that describes how we suppress teleology?</i><br />I've already provided several links. If you can't find them, then I'll supply them again. But there's a bowl game on I want to watch.<br /><br /><i>Cartoon triangles don't intend anything at all. The artist who produced them intended to make them move as if they were some king of live critter. He created an illusion. This doesn't prove anything except that we can see apparent intention where there is none.</i><br /><br />That's so bizarre. The story told by the animator is certainly not an illusion. The message is there, even if the medium is triangles.<br /><br /><i>You rejected science as being inherently naturalistic, ... </i><br /><br />I don't reject science. Being on a firm epistemological foundation, I happen to know its limits.<br /><br />[... to be continued ...]wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.com