The Prefailure Of Apologetics

[★ Citsonga ★]

The Prefailure of Apologetics

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

" ... almost as if the apologist was trying to engineer an argument that would pack so many fallacies so tightly into one argument that it would create a singularity of stupid that would subsequently create a black hole so powerful that it would suck and devour any kind of skeptical counterargument."

 

Love it, love it!

[gall]

" ... almost as if the apologist was trying to engineer an argument that would pack so many fallacies so tightly into one argument that it would create a singularity of stupid that would subsequently create a black hole so powerful that it would suck and devour any kind of skeptical counterargument."

 

Love it, love it!

 

when confronted with idiots like this apologists it is like having an adult version of the "NO YOU" kid. Seriously all I see them as are spoiled brats. They are so immature in what they believe they stoop to ridiculous tactics to even stand a chance. Of course they are always standing in a 10 foot deep hole they dug with their mouth.

[Wololo]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - I like Carl Sagan, but I want to ask how we define what extraordinary is. Is it something unusual? Something we never see in our lives? We have to be careful not stray into an argument from popularity by saying that it's what people agree is extraordinary. We also have to avoid an argument from incredulity where it's extraordinary to "ME" and there for extraordinary. That doesn't even get into what would be defined as evidence and why.

 

The example the narrator uses to explain his point there is one where someone tells you that they had dinner with friends/family OR they had dinner with the president. The guy makes a perfectly logical explanation, but fails to make his intended point. We actually have a reason to doubt the person saying they visited the president, because someone of that importance is probably very busy...or perhaps you need to be screened for security, something that they didn't have the time to have done. There are actually reasons why we're skeptical that make us doubt that person's story. Eating food with your family is conceivable because there are no reasons to doubt it. The key point I personally want to make here is that I'm approaching everything people tell me thinking that they are more likely to be telling the truth than lying, whereas you may be more skeptical and assume that unless there is reason to believe it, they're probably lying.

 

The third example provided is outlandish because we have contrary evidence to what the person is saying. People that are dead stay dead and also tend to rot away, so to have dinner with them is physically impossible. (I do see the parallel to Christianity, but that's not my point, and that's a circumstance where we need to address more of the variables). The third claim requires greater evidence because we have massive doubt. I certainly agree with that. There are certainly religious claims that would require evidence in order to be proven. Sadly, those days are long passed, and much of the evidence of some of this is gone. This means that if someone makes a claim that can be considered outlandish, it is impossible to prove it. That much is a futile exercise.

 

I take issue with his point about taking religious claims seriously. If you want to go point by point and address them, fine, but just because one claim is extraordinary (and I will agree that there are some that are) does not mean that religion itself is to be discarded. Religion is based on philosophy and it is probably better to address the underlying philosophy where you can have a real debate. If you want to ignore some religious claims because they can't be proven (and you don't want to risk being wrong when the evidence is not great enough for you), then that's fine. If you want to tell me that science/empiricism is the only way for us to learn the truth, then you have just shifted the burden of proof to yourself. Moral of the story, why bother trying to prove things that are unprovable? If you don't want to believe something because it doesn't have enough empirical evidence anymore because the events allegedly occurred way in the past, that's okay.

 

In terms of God appearing to people and interacting with them. I do recall Jesus later on saying that they would not receive the miracle they demanded and then proceeding to explain why they wouldn't believe it anyway. Christians (and people of other faiths) don't control their deity. They can't just demand that it appear at their whim. Never understood why that was even a criticism. Anything with a will of its own can't be controlled by people that don't have access to it. Also note that the ancient culture may play a part in people assigning certain events to angels or to God himself.

 

As for what Christians are supposed to do (heal, cast out demons, etc.) I don't know and I don't really care. Talk to someone else who knows more about that matter.

 

His closing points about 'thought experiments' and 'philosophical arguments' can be thrown right back at him. Science is a philosophy. Materialism and empiricism are philosophies. They also make the claim that they are the only valid way of learning the truth. Prove it then. Or maybe they can tell me how to experience empirically that empirical evidence is the only valid evidence. I'll agree that empirical evidence is valid, but I don't agree that it's the only way of learning the truth. The guy in the video basically says "you can make philosophical claims as long as there's empirical evidence for them." I call BS. You can't take a philosophy (empiricism), assume it's exclusively the truth, and then say that you can make other philosophical arguments so long as you have this philosophy's evidence included. A philsophical argument is independent of empirical evidence (almost...aside from a few axioms).

 

You can call this apologetics, but what'll happen is you'll wave and dismiss my counter arguments and counter attacks or resort to name calling like the last time I was here.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Wololo, not sure where you're going with your reply to the OP. You don't seem to want to:

 

1. deny that "Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples and after forty days, ascended into heaven" etc. is an extraordinary claim. You rightly caution against fallacies like ad populum and ad ignorantiam. Surely you're not unconsciously led to accept this as an ordinary claim because centuries of culture have made us all used to hearing it, are you? It's extraordinary because we don't have documented cases of dead people coming to life after three days (or even 1 1/2). But you acknowledge in your 3rd paragraph that a claim that someone came back to life would be extraordinary.

2. maintain that the evidence that Christians bring in support of this claim is extraordinary evidence. I gather from what you say above that you don't maintain this. It's going to be a stretch to maintain that the gospel stories amount to extraordinary evidence.

3. deny Sagan's requirement, i.e. deny that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In your 3rd paragraph, you don't seem to want to deny that.

 

So, is it that you want to:

4. maintain that the grounds for accepting that Jesus rose from the dead etc. are not evidential but lie in philosophical argument? Your second-to-last paragraph makes it sound as though 4. might be your position. But it would seem you could not get much farther than deism on philosophical grounds. You'll need evidence that resolves to something empirical if you want to maintain the bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus. The gospels present the story as though the evidence was empirical - e.g. Doubting Thomas (cf. BAA's comments on that story in other threads).

 

But perhaps I misunderstand, and perhaps you are interested here in arguing for something like deism but are not going on to argue for orthodox Christianity with its many historical claims.

[bornagainathiest]

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63715-thomas-the-skeptic-something-for-ironhorse/#.VEgZZvnF8uk

 

The thread Ficino was referring to.

[Wololo]

Hi Wololo, not sure where you're going with your reply to the OP. You don't seem to want to:

 

1. deny that "Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples and after forty days, ascended into heaven" etc. is an extraordinary claim. You rightly caution against fallacies like ad populum and ad ignorantiam. Surely you're not unconsciously led to accept this as an ordinary claim because centuries of culture have made us all used to hearing it, are you? It's extraordinary because we don't have documented cases of dead people coming to life after three days (or even 1 1/2). But you acknowledge in your 3rd paragraph that a claim that someone came back to life would be extraordinary.

2. maintain that the evidence that Christians bring in support of this claim is extraordinary evidence. I gather from what you say above that you don't maintain this. It's going to be a stretch to maintain that the gospel stories amount to extraordinary evidence.

3. deny Sagan's requirement, i.e. deny that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In your 3rd paragraph, you don't seem to want to deny that.

 

So, is it that you want to:

4. maintain that the grounds for accepting that Jesus rose from the dead etc. are not evidential but lie in philosophical argument? Your second-to-last paragraph makes it sound as though 4. might be your position. But it would seem you could not get much farther than deism on philosophical grounds. You'll need evidence that resolves to something empirical if you want to maintain the bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus. The gospels present the story as though the evidence was empirical - e.g. Doubting Thomas (cf. BAA's comments on that story in other threads).

 

But perhaps I misunderstand, and perhaps you are interested here in arguing for something like deism but are not going on to argue for orthodox Christianity with its many historical claims.

I do agree that there are extraordinary claims that have been made. In fact, resurrection in particular is extraordinary. All I was taking issue to at the beginning was the idea that all religious claims are extraordinary (in particular I dispute that the plausibility of a creator God being extraordinary is something I dispute).

 

Yeah, I want to clarifiy just a bit. I agree that to prove that extraordinary claims are true that we require powerful evidence. In order to be certain of something where there is a lot of reason to doubt it, we need lots of evidence. My point was that it is impossible to prove because we are no longer there. The events happened historically, and much of the evidence has faded into history making certainity and proof impossible. This is why I'm comfortable with people doubting that it happened. I'm not going to mock people for not believing it. What I will dispute though is that there is no evidence, or that it is silly to believe it. There is testimonial evidence, similar to a court case. We do have writings that date somewhat close to that time period that elaborate on the events. You can bring the reliability of those texts into question, but like any other historical texts, we do need to evaluate them, however that is another discussion for another time.

 

Essentially, I believe the testimonies, and it is something that requires faith, like believing anything at all that is 'true' even though it hasn't been or cannot be proven. If you don't want to believe it because the testimonial evidence is inadequate for you, that's fine. It is certainly an amazing claim to say that someone was raised for the dead after three days. What personally gets to me about it is the fact that every single one of the core followers went to their grave (sometimes a horrible death) still believing what they saw. Not a single one recanted under duress. Many followers who were not eyewitnesses went to the lions or were persecuted. People do not go to terrible nasty deaths for something they know is a lie. To me that puts to rest some of the counterarguments to rest. Essentially though I agree with Carl Sagan so long as his statement is valid for proof, not for something that is possible, but unlikely. So I agree with all three of your points Ficino under the condition that they are referring to proving something where there is great reason to doubt.

 

I do want to talk a bit about skepticism and evidence but I'm going to read through your thread bornagainathiest before I do post a response.

 

EDIT: To be clear, one can believe something even if it is not proven or cannot be proven. It does require evidence to be remotely plausible though. Someone who believes that a can of Pepsi made the universe has a very long way to go to make that plausible.

[Roz]

"Many followers who were not eyewitnesses went to the lions or were persecuted. People do not go to terrible nasty deaths for something they know is a lie."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_ibn_Ali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Akbar_ibn_Husayn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Asghar_ibn_Husayn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Martyrs_of_Shia_Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Baqir_al-Hakim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_ibn_Ali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_al-Sadr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husayn_ibn_Ali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukayna_bint_Husayn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juramentado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Muslim_and_Ibraheem_ibn_Muslim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Jamaluddin_al-Makki_al-Amili

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasim_ibn_Hasan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Baqir_al-Sadr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaheeda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumayyah_bint_Khayyat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasir_ibn_Amir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayd_ibn_Ali

 

Just to name a few Muslims...

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

There is testimonial evidence, similar to a court case. We do have writings that date somewhat close to that time period that elaborate on the events. You can bring the reliability of those texts into question, but like any other historical texts, we do need to evaluate them, however that is another discussion for another time.

 

 

You mean the Gospels? Those are seriously problematic. They were written many years after the alleged events; they contradict each other many times; they take many Hebrew Scriptures completely out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments; and we do not have the original writings. Such "testimonial evidence" would be ripped to shreds in "a court case."

 

 

 

What personally gets to me about it is the fact that every single one of the core followers went to their grave (sometimes a horrible death) still believing what they saw. Not a single one recanted under duress.

 

 

That has not been established. It's based on religious tradition about characters who originated in the extremely problematic Gospels.

 

 

 

Many followers who were not eyewitnesses went to the lions or were persecuted. People do not go to terrible nasty deaths for something they know is a lie.

 

 

Actually, some psychotic people would, but I do agree that the vast majority of people would not sacrifice their lives for a known lie. However, many would indeed sacrifice themselves for a lie that they believe to be true. Just take a look at Roz's list above.

[Wololo]

"Many followers who were not eyewitnesses went to the lions or were persecuted. People do not go to terrible nasty deaths for something they know is a lie."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_ibn_Ali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Akbar_ibn_Husayn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Asghar_ibn_Husayn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Martyrs_of_Shia_Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Baqir_al-Hakim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_ibn_Ali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_al-Sadr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husayn_ibn_Ali

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukayna_bint_Husayn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juramentado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Muslim_and_Ibraheem_ibn_Muslim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Jamaluddin_al-Makki_al-Amili

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasim_ibn_Hasan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Baqir_al-Sadr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaheeda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumayyah_bint_Khayyat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasir_ibn_Amir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayd_ibn_Ali

 

Just to name a few Muslims...

 

I don't agree with everything Muslims believe, but I have great respect for real Islam and moderate Muslims.

 

Even if someone were to go to their grave being wrong, those people didn't go to their grave KNOWING that they were wrong.

 

We don't have evidence that they made up their beliefs. My point is that liars don't go to their painful deaths and still hold true to their lies. If you can find examples of that, I'd like to see them.

 

 

 

 

There is testimonial evidence, similar to a court case. We do have writings that date somewhat close to that time period that elaborate on the events. You can bring the reliability of those texts into question, but like any other historical texts, we do need to evaluate them, however that is another discussion for another time.

 

 

You mean the Gospels? Those are seriously problematic. They were written many years after the alleged events; they contradict each other many times; they take many Hebrew Scriptures completely out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments; and we do not have the original writings. Such "testimonial evidence" would be ripped to shreds in "a court case."

 

 

 

What personally gets to me about it is the fact that every single one of the core followers went to their grave (sometimes a horrible death) still believing what they saw. Not a single one recanted under duress.

 

 

That has not been established. It's based on religious tradition about characters who originated in the extremely problematic Gospels.

 

 

 

Many followers who were not eyewitnesses went to the lions or were persecuted. People do not go to terrible nasty deaths for something they know is a lie.

 

 

Actually, some psychotic people would, but I do agree that the vast majority of people would not sacrifice their lives for a known lie. However, many would indeed sacrifice themselves for a lie that they believe to be true. Just take a look at Roz's list above.

 

 

If you want to discuss the reliability of the gospels, this isn't the place, but my stance is based on them being like any other piece of historical literature.

 

I don't think Muslims are liars about their beliefs.

[Roz]

It proves that people die for what is now proven to be wrong all the time.  This does not prove the bible one bit.  I remember you as one of those christians who bends and deflects nearly everything that the bible says.  And still believes it with everything you have. 

 

I've re-read some of what you wrote when you were first here, and it's deism wrapped in the warm familiar blanket of christianity. 

 

You, like every other apologist, disagree amongst yourselves with major issues about your theology.

 

If christians were designing medical equipment like they would construct their theology, they'd be pretty popular for all the wrong reasons.

[Wololo]

It proves that people die for what is now proven to be wrong all the time.  This does not prove the bible one bit.  I remember you as one of those christians who bends and deflects nearly everything that the bible says.  And still believes it with everything you have. 

 

I've re-read some of what you wrote when you were first here, and it's deism wrapped in the warm familiar blanket of christianity. 

 

You, like every other apologist, disagree amongst yourselves with major issues about your theology.

 

If christians were designing medical equipment like they would construct their theology, they'd be pretty popular for all the wrong reasons.

 

Proven to be wrong? That's a pretty strong claim to make about any system of beliefs, not just Christianity. As for deflecting...it's not defecting at all. You, like the fundies, have decided that the Bible needs to always be taken literally instead of with a historical and cultural context taken into account. There are a lot of things that people here assume and it informs their responses. We take so many other historical texts seriously and have no problem with a proper analysis, but with religious ones we have a double standard and feel the need to throw everything out the window.

 

I find your likening my beliefs to deism to be quite funny...and also unfounded and unproven.

 

Yes, we do disagree amongst ourselves. So what? I don't care much for the term apologist. Sometimes it's necessary to go down that road, but I'd much rather be asking you questions with the same aggression that you ask people like me.

[mymistake]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - I like Carl Sagan, but I want to ask how we define what extraordinary is. Is it something unusual? Something we never see in our lives? We have to be careful not stray into an argument from popularity by saying that it's what people agree is extraordinary. We also have to avoid an argument from incredulity where it's extraordinary to "ME" and there for extraordinary. That doesn't even get into what would be defined as evidence and why.

 

 

An extraordinary claim is one that conflicts with the generally known facts, including probability.

 

 

In terms of God appearing to people and interacting with them. I do recall Jesus later on saying that they would not receive the miracle they demanded and then proceeding to explain why they wouldn't believe it anyway. Christians (and people of other faiths) don't control their deity.

 

You mean you heard a story about Jesus?  That is kind of like reading a story about Harry Potter.  Yes the people who wrote stories about Jesus had no way to produce a God so they had to come up with all kinds of excuses for why that never happens.

 

 

They also make the claim that they are the only valid way of learning the truth. Prove it then.

 

Do you realize that you made this demand by hitting keys and then ordering your computer to upload it to a network that connects most of the computers on Earth?  See the irony?

 

 

 

 

.

[Roz]

For any guests out there, here's a bit of the real nature and character of Wololo. 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62389-a-christian-framework/?hl=wololo#.VEhO98l3MiM

 

It's a lot to get through, but it's a bit of IH with End3, although I will say that even End3 has more coherent arguments.

[mymistake]

 

It proves that people die for what is now proven to be wrong all the time.  This does not prove the bible one bit.  I remember you as one of those christians who bends and deflects nearly everything that the bible says.  And still believes it with everything you have. 

 

I've re-read some of what you wrote when you were first here, and it's deism wrapped in the warm familiar blanket of christianity. 

 

You, like every other apologist, disagree amongst yourselves with major issues about your theology.

 

If christians were designing medical equipment like they would construct their theology, they'd be pretty popular for all the wrong reasons.

 

Proven to be wrong? That's a pretty strong claim to make about any system of beliefs, not just Christianity.

 

 

Do you have a solution for the Problem of Evil?  If you do then I would love to see it.

 

 

You, like the fundies, have decided that the Bible needs to always be taken literally instead of with a historical and cultural context taken into account.

 

Careful now.  You wouldn't want to make a false accusation now, would you?

 

 

 

I find your likening my beliefs to deism to be quite funny...and also unfounded and unproven.

 

Well why don't you tell us about your religious views so that we will know.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Essentially, I believe the testimonies, and it is something that requires faith, like believing anything at all that is 'true' even though it hasn't been or cannot be proven. If you don't want to believe it because the testimonial evidence is inadequate for you, that's fine. It is certainly an amazing claim to say that someone was raised for the dead after three days.

OK, that's cool, to say that belief in doctrines like Jesus' bodily resurrection and ascension requires faith. I don't know that anyone expects you to prove such doctrines before you decide to believe them. I think people on Ex-C are right to demand very high level evidence if we are expected to believe those doctrines against our current judgment. I think you are down with that.

 

I am still not sure that you're factoring in the HUGENESS of what the supposed testimonial evidence claims to testify. A dead person coming to life again -- as opposed to someone who wasn't really dead -- goes against universal human experience. What would be the probability? So when you get a story from 2000 years ago saying that someone rose from the dead, what does it take to establish that story as credible? As I said earlier, in the West we're all enculturated to ideas like Jesus' resurrection. They don't strike us as bizarre. But, as Bhim has pointed out elsewhere, there are accounts of Hindu swamis rising from the dead within the last century. Would you accept those? If not, why not? And why would much older, more contradictory stories about Jesus get a pass if those do not? (I'm sorry I don't remember the thread with Bhim's comments right now. Maybe I can find it later.)

 

What personally gets to me about it is the fact that every single one of the core followers went to their grave (sometimes a horrible death) still believing what they saw. Not a single one recanted under duress.

I used to think of this as the "Who Moved the Stone" argument because Morison makes it in that book. I imagine it has been made by others too. As Citsonga said, the problem is, like those with the gospels, the evidence for the martyrdom of the original apostles lands you in a thicket of problems. I think we've spoken before about Candida Moss' recent book assailing many of the early martyr stories as later legends. To support assertions in the gospels with assertions in early tradition gets us onto a never-ending merry-go-round. Those stories might be true. Do we have reasons to think they're true, reasons that are STRONG ENOUGH to trump the ALMOST ZERO probability that someone rose from the dead? How are you weighing probabilities here?

 

My point is not that you are irrational to believe, Wololo. It's that to pitch a return to Christianity to me and others who are glad to be out of the cult, you've got to have strong evidence and something better than question-begging stuff like TAG!  (I don't know that you push TAG, but the guy on the video in the OP was arguing against  proponents of TAG.)

 

Finally, it occurred to me today that TAG is a species of a larger genus of a kind of thinking that goes back at least to Spinoza and Descartes, maybe to Plato. It's the conviction that, since thought is not reducible to matter, there must be some source of the universe that is not material but has consciousness or Mind - we can't "account for" thought if all that exists are atoms moving at random in the void. I see no reason to buy into that conviction, but I think it's at the base of TAG.

 

Cheers, F

[Wololo]

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - I like Carl Sagan, but I want to ask how we define what extraordinary is. Is it something unusual? Something we never see in our lives? We have to be careful not stray into an argument from popularity by saying that it's what people agree is extraordinary. We also have to avoid an argument from incredulity where it's extraordinary to "ME" and there for extraordinary. That doesn't even get into what would be defined as evidence and why.

 

 

An extraordinary claim is one that conflicts with the generally known facts, including probability.

 

 

In terms of God appearing to people and interacting with them. I do recall Jesus later on saying that they would not receive the miracle they demanded and then proceeding to explain why they wouldn't believe it anyway. Christians (and people of other faiths) don't control their deity.

 

You mean you heard a story about Jesus?  That is kind of like reading a story about Harry Potter.  Yes the people who wrote stories about Jesus had no way to produce a God so they had to come up with all kinds of excuses for why that never happens.

 

 

They also make the claim that they are the only valid way of learning the truth. Prove it then.

 

Do you realize that you made this demand by hitting keys and then ordering your computer to upload it to a network that connects most of the computers on Earth?  See the irony?

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

I define an extraordinary claim as one where there is much reason to doubt it.

 

Sorry I don't see the irony when you don't actually make a point. It did nothing to demonstrate that empiricism is the only valid philosophy.

 

For any guests out there, here's a bit of the real nature and character of Wololo. 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62389-a-christian-framework/?hl=wololo#.VEhO98l3MiM

 

It's a lot to get through, but it's a bit of IH with End3, although I will say that even End3 has more coherent arguments.

 

I wish I had been more articulate as that's really a rather incomplete picture of my beliefs. People here make it hard to stay coherent with their ad hominem.

 

 

 

It proves that people die for what is now proven to be wrong all the time.  This does not prove the bible one bit.  I remember you as one of those christians who bends and deflects nearly everything that the bible says.  And still believes it with everything you have. 

 

I've re-read some of what you wrote when you were first here, and it's deism wrapped in the warm familiar blanket of christianity. 

 

You, like every other apologist, disagree amongst yourselves with major issues about your theology.

 

If christians were designing medical equipment like they would construct their theology, they'd be pretty popular for all the wrong reasons.

 

Proven to be wrong? That's a pretty strong claim to make about any system of beliefs, not just Christianity.

 

 

Do you have a solution for the Problem of Evil?  If you do then I would love to see it.

 

 

You, like the fundies, have decided that the Bible needs to always be taken literally instead of with a historical and cultural context taken into account.

 

Careful now.  You wouldn't want to make a false accusation now, would you?

 

 

 

I find your likening my beliefs to deism to be quite funny...and also unfounded and unproven.

 

Well why don't you tell us about your religious views so that we will know.

 

 

I don't think the problem of evil exists at all. Evil is not its own concept, merely the absence of good. Dualisms are problematic a lot of the time so many of them should be done away with. Think of it like light vs. dark. Darkness is not its own thing, but merely the absence of light. Cold is just the absence of energy, not its own thing.

 

You're right though, I shouldn't overgeneralize. Roz though has already dismissed the historical-critical method along with a few other people I've interacted with here so that statement applies to many of you that I have seen here.

 

I would share the entirety of my beliefs but not only would it be long and complex, but very few of you even bother to be civil and logical with your discussions so I don't find it worth it. If I grow to respect you to some degree, I will be more willing to share. I've had enough crap from people here that I'm not going to waste time on something that would involve so much effort.

[Roz]

You're here essentially preaching.  It was you who made that thread.  Now you're crying for fairness?  If your arguments stand on their own merit, no one can take it down.  It doesn't care about civility (which you've demonstrated you're equally depraved of), it stands regardless of any insults hurled at it.  What that thread has demonstrated is that people want proof, and you haven't given an ounce of it.

 

No one's cared that you left here, this is not the place where christians trade different philosophies. 

[Wololo]

 

Essentially, I believe the testimonies, and it is something that requires faith, like believing anything at all that is 'true' even though it hasn't been or cannot be proven. If you don't want to believe it because the testimonial evidence is inadequate for you, that's fine. It is certainly an amazing claim to say that someone was raised for the dead after three days.

OK, that's cool, to say that belief in doctrines like Jesus' bodily resurrection and ascension requires faith. I don't know that anyone expects you to prove such doctrines before you decide to believe them. I think people on Ex-C are right to demand very high level evidence if we are expected to believe those doctrines against our current judgment. I think you are down with that.

 

I am still not sure that you're factoring in the HUGENESS of what the supposed testimonial evidence claims to testify. A dead person coming to life again -- as opposed to someone who wasn't really dead -- goes against universal human experience. What would be the probability? So when you get a story from 2000 years ago saying that someone rose from the dead, what does it take to establish that story as credible? As I said earlier, in the West we're all enculturated to ideas like Jesus' resurrection. They don't strike us as bizarre. But, as Bhim has pointed out elsewhere, there are accounts of Hindu swamis rising from the dead within the last century. Would you accept those? If not, why not? And why would much older, more contradictory stories about Jesus get a pass if those do not? (I'm sorry I don't remember the thread with Bhim's comments right now. Maybe I can find it later.)

 

What personally gets to me about it is the fact that every single one of the core followers went to their grave (sometimes a horrible death) still believing what they saw. Not a single one recanted under duress.

I used to think of this as the "Who Moved the Stone" argument because Morison makes it in that book. I imagine it has been made by others too. As Citsonga said, the problem is, like those with the gospels, the evidence for the martyrdom of the original apostles lands you in a thicket of problems. I think we've spoken before about Candida Moss' recent book assailing many of the early martyr stories as later legends. To support assertions in the gospels with assertions in early tradition gets us onto a never-ending merry-go-round. Those stories might be true. Do we have reasons to think they're true, reasons that are STRONG ENOUGH to trump the ALMOST ZERO probability that someone rose from the dead? How are you weighing probabilities here?

 

My point is not that you are irrational to believe, Wololo. It's that to pitch a return to Christianity to me and others who are glad to be out of the cult, you've got to have strong evidence and something better than question-begging stuff like TAG!  (I don't know that you push TAG, but the guy on the video in the OP was arguing against  proponents of TAG.)

 

Finally, it occurred to me today that TAG is a species of a larger genus of a kind of thinking that goes back at least to Spinoza and Descartes, maybe to Plato. It's the conviction that, since thought is not reducible to matter, there must be some source of the universe that is not material - we can't "account for" thought if all that exists are atoms moving at random in the void. I see no reason to buy into that conviction, but I think it's at the base of TAG.

 

Cheers, F

 

 

I'm not trying to be unreasonable with you people, and I did initially come across rather poorly, not realizing how little we seem to agree on.

 

In terms of extraordinary claims like the resurrection and such, I don't expect people here to believe them. As I've said, it's not even something provable anymore. Personally I've taken the whole of Christianity, evaluated it rigorously for myself and it has come out clean for me. That isn't to say that I don't have my own doubts, concerns, and contentions to address and that I'm as blind as many of my brethren are. I ask questions of my own and don't allow myself to settle on anything less than the truth. It's a constant lifelong search that is incomplete.

 

Yes, it was highly improbable (though there are still weird stories about this sort of thing happening, as you mentioned.)...but we also have to look at the historical context. The people of that era would have thought the same thing. Even the Romans were rather skeptical. How on Earth could someone come back from the dead? People would have thought that the followers of Jesus were madmen (and I'm sure that some did). So how were so many people convinced? Why did Christianity explode into popularity like it did? Are we to assume that people of that era were ignorant or stupid? (Hint: don't.) If the resurrection was so improbable, surely there were people that had the same view that many of you do. Why didn't this system of beliefs get snuffed out? There are a lot of nagging questions that I have that just don't seem to have good answers.

 

To address your contentions about Hindus and resurrection, I don't know. I would be very interested to study them and see for myself if there is some sort of basis.

 

We don't really have an external method for establishing probability. The reason we take death so seriously is because we've never really experienced anything other than death being final. I don't think the odds are nil of someone coming back from the dead. In fact there are people whose heart stops beating (the usual sign that they are dead) and they have come back and lived the rest of their lives normally. I wouldn't give it a probability of ZERO, but it is definitely something that is highly unlikely. Of course the question of Christ's divinity or lack thereof would need to be answered, and that's a whole different ball game. Scientifically speaking, this is definitely an extraordinary claim.

 

You are right that my beliefs are traced back to Plato through people like Descartes and a lot of early Church fathers like Augustine. My philosophical framework is grounded in Neoplatonism (which a lot of people like to wave away). I'm still eagerly exploring philosophy because I desire the Truth. I believe we CAN find the truth.

[Wololo]

You're here essentially preaching.  It was you who made that thread.  Now you're crying for fairness?  If your arguments stand on their own merit, no one can take it down.  It doesn't care about civility (which you've demonstrated you're equally depraved of), it stands regardless of any insults hurled at it.  What that thread has demonstrated is that people want proof, and you haven't given an ounce of it.

 

No one's cared that you left here, this is not the place where christians trade different philosophies. 

 

I don't have an airtight argument. You will be able to find problems with it, just as I could press you on your beliefs in life and find problems with them. Nobody has a perfect case for their beliefs, because if we were to find one, all other systems of belief would become unviable. Civility is a prerequisite to discussion. It is utterly pointless to discuss things with people who throw human dignity out the window.

 

People want ONLY empirical proof. I've already asked why we can ONLY have empirical proof, but most people here prefer to just hurl insults instead of engaging in proper discussion and debate and giving a proper answer. I'm not here to prove to you that Christianity is right. I'm not here to prove that God exists. I don't care if you believe or not because that's not my business.

 

I've encountered a few people that refuse to even agree on things that are widely accepted as true just so that they aren't on record agreeing with me. (*cough* Big Bang theory *cough*)

[Roz]

"Even the Romans were rather skeptical. How on Earth could someone come back from the dead?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

--Just a list of some messiahs

 

http://listverse.com/2013/03/30/10-resurrected-religious-figures/

--People claim x, y, z, p, q were all resurrected, they were not -and are still not- uncommon

 

People would have thought that the followers of Jesus were madmen (and I'm sure that some did). So how were so many people convinced?

--Why is Hinduism so popular in India?

--Why is Islam so popular in the Mideast?

--Why is Christianity so popular in Europe and the US?

 

Religion is regional because it's what was used to help raise up society in that area.  Nothing more.  It is ingrained in culture, which is why secular Jews may still observe Jewish traditions for tradition's sake.

 

Why did Christianity explode into popularity like it did? Are we to assume that people of that era were ignorant or stupid? (Hint: don't.)"

--Yes, because all people are to an extent ignorant.  They were far more ignorant of how physics, medicine, engineering, mathematics, etc. than we are now.  In the 25th century, people will look back at our era with the exact same perspective.  You're displaying your ignorance by saying "don't" when it's a fact that they in fact knew less than we do today.

 

"People want ONLY empirical proof. I've already asked why we can ONLY have empirical proof,"

--Yes, because empirical proof is not subjective.  Your 'quest for truth' has led you down some beliefs that are completely at odds with what the majority of your same religion believes.  Why?  Because no one can prove the other wrong. 

 

It is your desire for 'truth' and your base assertion that 'I CAN find the Truth' (such narcissistic hubris) that drives you to conclusions that are solely yours.  

[Roz]

Another preacher comes to town, I'm trying to see who's more insane, End or Wol.

[Roz]

And even though Wol has said he's not here to preach... viewers, you be the judge:  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62389-a-christian-framework/?hl=wololo#.VEhhEsl3MiM

[♦ ficino ♦]

So how were so many people convinced? Why did Christianity explode into popularity like it did? Are we to assume that people of that era were ignorant or stupid? (Hint: don't.) If the resurrection was so improbable, surely there were people that had the same view that many of you do. Why didn't this system of beliefs get snuffed out?

Certainly the triumph of Christianity shows how much the religion had going for it. Consider - if we assume that the gospels are accurate, then in some 300 years it had taken over Armenia, the Roman empire, Ethiopia, and other areas - at least in the more urban centers, maybe not completely in the countryside ("pagan" = literally, "person from the countryside").

 

Consider how much Mormonism has flourished. It began in the 1820s. It promulgates absurd doctrines. "Explode into popularity"? Kind of. And the explosion of Islam in just a century... Reasoning from Christianity's success to its truth is not sound.

 

You are right that my beliefs are traced back to Plato through people like Descartes and a lot of early Church fathers like Augustine. My philosophical framework is grounded in Neoplatonism (which a lot of people like to wave away). I'm still eagerly exploring philosophy because I desire the Truth. I believe we CAN find the truth.

Plato is the bomb. (except when he's not ... but never mind! lol) I'm working RIGHT NOW on ancient skeptics who claimed Plato as one of their own - as someone who thought the most we can be certain of is our ignorance. heh heh

 

You may get a kick out of Cicero's Academica, of which we have parts of Cicero's earlier and parts of his later editions. Gives a good run-down of the different ancient philosophical schools, prior to Neo-Platonism, of course, and contrasts dogmatists and skeptics and those in-between. Cicero, writing toward the end of his life, talks about how obscure are many problems, how short is human life, how limited our capacities - but how we push on after truth nevertheless.

[mymistake]

 

Sorry I don't see the irony when you don't actually make a point. It did nothing to demonstrate that empiricism is the only valid philosophy. 

 

 

Without empiricism you would be living in the dark ages.  All the technology we have developed since -all of it- is evidence that demonstrates what we learn from empiricism.

 

Meanwhile what do we learn from other systems?

 

Nothing verifiable of course.

 

 

 

I don't think the problem of evil exists at all.

 

Then you concede Christianity is proven false?

 

 

Evil is not its own concept, merely the absence of good. Dualisms are problematic a lot of the time so many of them should be done away with. Think of it like light vs. dark. Darkness is not its own thing, but merely the absence of light. Cold is just the absence of energy, not its own thing.

 

No, I'm talking about the classic Problem of Evil found in philosophy.  Surely you remember it from Phil 101.  If you don't have a solution then don't you agree that Christianity is false?

 

 

 

I would share the entirety of my beliefs but not only would it be long and complex, but very few of you even bother to be civil and logical with your discussions so I don't find it worth it.

 

We tend to be very logical around here.  Whether or not we are civil depends on the believer.  If you present your beliefs as unsupported faith and you don't try to preach we respect that.  If you make claims that you can prove your religion is true or you start preying upon individuals here then you are going to have a bad time.

 

Anyway if you want us to understand where you fall on the religion spectrum you can put something more specific in your "Still have any Gods" question of your profile.  If you leave it vague then give us some leeway when we guess.