Written Evidence For The Exodus

[Kris]

Steve--- I won't be watching the videos you recently provided. I don't want to listen to sermons. That is why I am an ex-Christian. I listened to many sermons in my day, spoke in tongues, prayed and all the stuff I was supposed to. But I never felt a connection with god--- and eventually, I was honest with myself and ended the charade of trying to be a believer. No amount of preaching is going to get me back to church. I really don't think anyone else on this site would disagree with me. I just am not sure why you don't get that about us.

[Ravenstar]

Thank you BAA.

[LivingLife]

If we were all heartless bastards, we could say "life's a bitch and then you die" but we did not say that did we?

 

I too wish you strength in whatever form works for you and best wishes for your mom and your family.

[Guest SteveBennett]

You know, its funny how suffering and terrible endurances brings the better out of all of us.  Talking to my mother who raised me, feeling her motherly love even as her heart felt my thankfulness for it, really causes me to feel as though there is some real purpose behind her suffering-- as if our hearts, not our intellects, is actually the more important thing. As if our own mercy, love, grace, and forgiveness is somehow unlocked whilst we endure in, and offer company along side of, the final bedsides of one another's sufferings.

 

It is my earnest hope that all of us, when we meet our passing, do so with compassion and understanding as my mother has been allowed.

 

You see, my mother made many mistakes . . . as did I-- the both of which I can not even pretend to begin to count on two (or even three) hands.

 

Regardless of this I am dumbfounded-- stifled is, perhaps, a better word-- by the fact that I can only speak from my own life experiences and the knowledge that researchers in centuries, and millennium past, have provided others. . . only a fraction of which I have probably read.  Regardless of my own ignorance or knowledge, I know I am only one of many who endure such sufferings.

 

I've often found myself thunderstruck by the choices one must make when they decide how to regard such information as "suffering" bombards us with. Where does one's minds go when they are pulled toward this view of suffering or that?  I can not help but somehow think the we regard the entire ordeal as we want to-- that it is. . .  something that is actually so much more than how we regard it.

 

For as many of us regard it, I think, true suffering is a kind of alien. . . or a foreign thing that ought not to belong.  Some of us not only regard it as such, but actually treat it as such-- and actively engage in while *compartmentalizing* such alien experiences away from other subjects as science, or humanities, or literature, or theater, or mathematics..

 

But, in the end, I feel I can only choose a set of lenses by which to actually view it-- a set of lenses through which I may interpret the facts. . . my mother is dieing.  What other lenses shall I choose? It matters not the subject. . . she is going to die.  One subject may seem colder or more detached, and the other more compassionate of the facts, another more offended by them, but the fact itself still remains.

 

I'm a Christian. . . and I am fully willing to admit that it is because I have some degree of "skin in the game."  I admit that I don't want to believe my mother will be gone soon, just as any atheist doesn't want to believe he/she will be judged by God for what they have done soon.

 

I find myself confined within the polarizing facts of death as anyone else does when it comes to these matters. . . but I find myself thinking that my mother will soon continue her relationship with God as the Two of Them have, Together, defined it.

[RogueScholar]

Steve, I'm terribly sorry about your mother. However I need to call you out. As an atheist, it's not a matter of me not wanting to believe in hell. I'm perfectly willing to believe but there is simply no compelling evidence. I am not talking about a fairy tale book of evidence, but a real hypothesis that makes predictions I or others can test and reproduce.

 

I'm willing to believe crazy stuff. I've had to come up against some non-intuitive concepts. Atomic theory for example. It's mind blowing. However, the theory says something like this; "hey I'm all crazy and stuff, but check it out. You put the kinetic and potential energy into this here operator and let it act upon this function and you'll get solutions for the energy levels in an atom." That's the prediction. For me to believe the prediction, it must stand up to tests. A test that I can do is take some atoms and excite their electrons into higher energy levels. As the electrons fall back down to lower energy levels, the atoms will release light. The energy of that light had better be the difference between between the different, predicted energy levels. If not, I am under absolutely no obligation to believe. That's how we make sense of the world. Look at my avatar. It is a picture of a certain set of light lines (called emission lines) that I calculated for Hydrogen atoms using atomic theory. The picture represents lines at energies that are in almost absolute agreement with what was predicted in my calculations.

 

You see, it's no longer about wanting to believe, but rather what I'm willing to believe based on the evidence. Unfortunately, the bible is not even capable of making basic predictions about the universe. Hydrogen emission lines are pretty basic compared to some of the other predictions contemporary science makes.

 

Steve, you are free to believe whatever you like; however, nobody is under any obligation to believe without hypotheses that can be tested and reproduced.

 

Edit: "can" added for additional context.

[MerryG]

Steve, I'm terribly sorry about your mother. However I need to call you out. As an atheist, it's not a matter of me not wanting to believe in hell. I'm perfectly willing to believe but there is simply no compelling evidence.

 

Thank you, RogueScholar. I wanted to say the same thing as soon as I read SteveBennett's post, but I wanted to wait until I could say it without rancor.

 

SteveBennett, I'm sorry your mom may be dying and I'm sorry you're hurting. But that does not excuse misunderstanding Ex-C people so blatantly after all the time you've spent here. After the extreme heartache, study, prayer, questioning, and dislocation virtually all of us have endured -- suffering that you've had ample opportunity to read about -- we don't deserve to be dismissed with the old cliche that we're just people who "don't want to believe."

 

And since you misunderstand this place so badly, I probably also have to point out that many here are not atheists. Ex-Cs include Hindus, pantheists, Deists, Asatruars, and more. I know that, to you, those are probably all just people "who don't want to believe" (and I'm aware that the unspoken words that follow that phrase are "because they prefer to sin").

 

I'm just saying that your heartfelt post makes it seem that you want us to understand your individual needs, thoughts, and sufferings -- all the while you refuse to hear ours.

[mymistake]

. . .  just as any atheist doesn't want to believe he/she will be judged by God for what they have done soon.

 

 

So you don't want to believe that after you die you will stand before Osiris and the Tribunal of the 43 dieties, where your heart will be weighed against maat and should you be found unwothy Ammit the Gobbler will consume your soul?

 

Or do you not believe simply because the whole thing is silly?  If you find the Egyptian judgement day theology to be silly then why not the religion that copied it?

[bornagainathiest]

When my mom died after suffering a long illness I did NOT take any cheap shots at the Christians in the forum!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 I admit that I don't want to believe my mother will be gone soon

I'm sorry to say, Steve, but this is precisely the reason why religions were invented in the first place.  christianity is nothing more than a different spin on the death cult and salvation religions of antiquity.  You believe in it because it comforts you in the face of tragedy, not because there is any compelling reason or evidence.  Your beliefs are tied directly to your emotions, however much they might mask themselves behind your intellect.  This is clearly evident in your response to your mother's soon departure.

 

I genuinely wish I had something more comforting to offer you.

[falemon]

 

 

I find myself confined within the polarizing facts of death as anyone else does when it comes to these matters. . . but I find myself thinking that my mother will soon continue her relationship with God as the Two of Them have, Together, defined it.

 

I'm spending a lot of time with my grandparents, but I accept that one day they will not wake up. Their last moments may be filled with despair or anxiety as they struggle to take their last breath, but the thought does not sadden me one bit. I may even be there when it happens but it doesn't frighten me one bit either.

 

See they lived great lives, had children and grandchildren that they can be proud of. They have made their mark and left a legacy. They have learned many lessons from the many mistakes they have made. They have been foolish and they have been wise. They have been naive and they have been prudent. Each of these characters have been expressed in a myriad of ways throughout their short passage through life.

 

A hundred years from now any tears I could shed over their death could be forgotten and my grief would be in vain. No, I am glad they have lived and having found peace in their lives, in their death they will be greatly celebrated.

 

---

 

FYI my disbelief has nothing to do with wants, I just don't believe. I don't believe the occult, I don't believe the spiritual, I don't believe the new age. Sure I get what they mean and some of it explains my experience and the many mysteries of my life, but until I'm hacking reality and bending spoons and know I'm doing it because I have supernatural access to the world, I'm not backing the supernatural

[mydisplayname]

 just as any atheist doesn't want to believe he/she will be judged by God for what they have done soon.

 

 

Steve, why would you say this? Do you really think I chose to reject my faith? Do you think I like being pitied by my friends over it? Do you think my Christian wife loves me more because of my decision?  

 

If there was a god and that god was a fair god then he/she would when judging me judge me for my actions on this planet during my life. I believe I would pass this test as I consider myself to be a moral and good person. If however this god judged that I deserve to be tormented for eternity, not because I was good or bad, but because I doubted this gods existence then that god is neither moral nor good and I would not want to spend eternity with a god like that anyway.

 

So let's be very clear. I WANT TO BELIEVE IN A GOD THAT IS LOVING AND FAIR.  I don't find your god to be a just and fair god and even if he did have those attributes I still don't see any evidence that he exists.

 

It's not about what we want to be true. It's about what is actually true. 

 

edit: words

[Guest SteveBennett]

I sincerely thank everyone for their best wishes and concern.

 

I certainly understand the differing points of view here.  Again, I truly believe that a lot of this comes down to *how* we, ourselves, choose to approach not only empirical evidence itself-- but also philosophical issues such as death, hell, heaven etc.

 

To clarify, I was not saying an atheist's reason for being an atheist was because atheism offers the comfort that God does not exist, just as I don't think anyone would read what I wrote and think my own reason for being a Christian is because it offers me comfort.  My point was, simply, that both world views do offer comfort.

 

I'm a Christian only because I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to Judeo-Christianity being true-- but I am willing to admit by biases.

 

 

---------

 

And that is really the point, I think.

 

Take every argument that is out there, every piece of empirical evidence that I'll continue in presenting here, take every manner of portraying things that you have ever heard.  Do you find your time and focus is split evenly?

 

See we all suffer from a thing called "confirmation bias."   No one is immune to its effects.  

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art12.html

 

And being aware of our own biases is only the first step.  After that, we have to set up an approach in which we actually control for our own biases.  This means:

 

1) Establishing objective criterion that is generally applicable to all ancient documents and all religions (including the one presented in the Bible) before we even begin to look at the evidence.

 

2) It means establishing, explicitly, how one is going to approach a subject.  Linearly?  Or by jumping around to whatever happens to attract our focus (this would be to allow our confirmation biases to take over).

 

3) It means taking a sincere inventory of how we ended up with the lenses that we did, and are we really willing to go back to the drawing board to see if a different set of lenses actually holds water?

 

4) It means deliberately, and consciously, choosing not to engage in any of the informal fallacies (ad lapidem, ad hominem, or ad novitatem are the most common) red herrings, or straw men as one investigates.

 

5) It means severing facts from worldviews, opinions, or various perspectives on history-- simply because it ought to be the facts, themselves, out of which worldviews or views on history emerge.

 

6) It means choosing the hypothesis that fits all of the data without violating lex parsimonia.

 

7) It means recognizing when a philosophy (like naturalism) is actually seeping into our analysis or research strategy and causing us to violate lex parsimonia.

 

It means sticking to the scientific method-- taking caution that our hearts are not clouding our minds-- while sifting through a vast ocean of vehemently powerful opinions.

 

1) Question

2) Research

3) Hypothesis

4) Experiment

5) Revise

6) Conclude

 

 

In step 1), I am starting with a simple question: does the Bible pass empirical testing? And, to what extent? I.e. Can it be treated as a credible primary source of information?

 

In step 2) We simply read through the bible linearly-- focusing on any parts which may be empirically experimented on, and discarding parts which can not.

 

In step 3) We maintain suspended judgment until all of the facts regarding the particular testable events have been gathered.

 

In step 4)  We assess the credibility of the experiment.  How conclusive was it? i.e. How much legitimate potential to falsify did the text provide us with?  This is vitally important to the scientific method-- if its not falsifiable, then it has what one would call "zero credibility."  One can show that Every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, starts because one or two charismatic people make a claim of revelation that none of his or her peers (at the time) were capable of fact checking for themselves.  Which means that every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, literally hinges on the credibility of one or two people.  So spotting legitimate potential to falsify is vitally important to any scientific thinker before claims are lent any credibility.  That is why, as we read the Bible in a linear fashion, our minds should zero in on finding opportunities to empirically falsify its claims.

 

In step 5)  We revise our hypotheses to align with the testable aspects.  If someone never, ever revises any of their hypotheses, or admits when they've made a mistake, beware that they are probably just out to argue-- not apply objective scientific criteria.  This is true for Christians as much as it is for non-Christians.

 

In step 6)  We conclude.  We ask "how many empirical tests did the Bible pass?"  And "how much legitimate potential to falsify its claims were provided to us in each of these tests?" If the level of potential falsifiability was very high, yet the claim was not falsified, then the likelihood of the text being credible is increased.  This is an important principle to remember about the scientific method. Because anyone can claim they won the lottery-- our focus should be on how falsifiable that claim is.  If it has no potential to be falsified, then it has what is known as "zero credibility."

 

 

On a side note, you might see why, now, the dating of the book of Luke and Acts is such a vitally important issue.

 

 

-----------

 

 

If, understanding the scientific method, one does not see why it is so important to proceed linearly (to control for our own cognitive biases, and to ensure that each individual fact gets accepted as research before one attempts a hypothesis) then maybe its because I'm a bad salesmen.  I don't know.

 

I do know that this method is not for everyone, but I noticed that a lot of people had asked that this approach be taken before I even began to post here.  I am primarily responding only to those people who are interested in taking a legitimately scientific approach that is designed to help us control for our own biases, and cipher facts from world views or opinions.

 

In the end, please understand, no one can ever make everybody happy.  My intention is *only* to respond to those who asked for this method of approach.

[bornagainathiest]

Dear Steve,

 

This is a polite reminder.

 

Please review the content of posts # 168, 171, 173, 180, 181, 191, 194 and 249.

 

Please remind yourself of the content and meaning of the first two sentences of your opening post.

 

Please make responding to the many valid points raised by Ravenstar your first order of business.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[thereisnoperfect]

Steve--

 

You're on a site for ex-Christians. We have all revised our hypotheses in a life-altering-apocalyptic way. 

 

Because you're right about confirmation bias and a million other things in our minds and communities that encourage us not to change our minds. 

 

But you don't hold the high ground in this fight: we do. Because we actually overcame all of those factors to become ex-cs. That doesn't guarantee that we are right--but it does help. It gives us the ability to see both sides better than someone who has always held one view. 

 

I'm open to the possibility of being wrong, because I know I can be and I know that being open to that possibility helps me to think more clearly. Are you open to that possibility? Because you keep posting in this condescending style that acts like you know more about how evidence and thinking works than anybody else. But you don't. You pointedly ignored it when I pointed out that your dependence on "logical fallacies" is a misplaced faith based on misunderstanding. And I'll see your "confirmation bias" that everybody knows about and raise you the entire contents of the book Being Wrong. 

 

When you're dealing with people like Ravenstar and BAA, you're not going to impress me or anybody by vaguely suggesting that they don't know how to think and need your patented method to do it right, and then they will inevitably reach your conclusions. That you can post that just proves to me that you have a poor understanding of how humans think, of how knowledge is constructed, THAT knowledge is constructed, and of how people can persuade others.

 

So how about you set aside your assumption that the Bible is reliable and historically accurate and consistent for a day or so before you lecture us about confirmation bias.

[♦ ficino ♦]

One can show that Every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, starts because one or two charismatic people make a claim of revelation that none of his or her peers (at the time) were capable of fact checking for themselves.  Which means that every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, literally hinges on the credibility of one or two people.

Not true. Hinduism. Greek and Roman "paganism." Animism of various kinds. Asatru. ...

 

On the other hand, Paul (or at least, the writer/s of the Pauline epistles) made claims of revelation that no one was capable of fact-checking. The content of much of Paul's message is claimed by him to have come directly from private revelation.

 

Fail.

[Blood]

 

 

In step 4)  We assess the credibility of the experiment.  How conclusive was it? i.e. How much legitimate potential to falsify did the text provide us with?  This is vitally important to the scientific method-- if its not falsifiable, then it has what one would call "zero credibility."  One can show that Every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, starts because one or two charismatic people make a claim of revelation that none of his or her peers (at the time) were capable of fact checking for themselves.  Which means that every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, literally hinges on the credibility of one or two people.  So spotting legitimate potential to falsify is vitally important to any scientific thinker before claims are lent any credibility.  That is why, as we read the Bible in a linear fashion, our minds should zero in on finding opportunities to empirically falsify its claims.

 

 

This is just pure apologetical, egotistical horse hockey: "Everybody else's religion is a myth, but not mine!" You haven't studied "every religion in the world" to verify this claim. You have demonstrated no expertise in world religions, and the ironic part is, of course, that Judaism and Christianity DO "hinge on the credibility of one or two people," namely Moses, Jesus and Paul. 

[mymistake]

 

 

1) Establishing objective criterion that is generally applicable to all ancient documents and all religions (including the one presented in the Bible) before we even begin to look at the evidence.

 

2) It means establishing, explicitly, how one is going to approach a subject.  Linearly?  Or by jumping around to whatever happens to attract our focus (this would be to allow our confirmation biases to take over).

 

3) It means taking a sincere inventory of how we ended up with the lenses that we did, and are we really willing to go back to the drawing board to see if a different set of lenses actually holds water?

 

4) It means deliberately, and consciously, choosing not to engage in any of the informal fallacies (ad lapidem, ad hominem, or ad novitatem are the most common) red herrings, or straw men as one investigates.

 

5) It means severing facts from worldviews, opinions, or various perspectives on history-- simply because it ought to be the facts, themselves, out of which worldviews or views on history emerge.

 

6) It means choosing the hypothesis that fits all of the data without violating lex parsimonia.

 

7) It means recognizing when a philosophy (like naturalism) is actually seeping into our analysis or research strategy and causing us to violate lex parsimonia.

 

It means sticking to the scientific method-- taking caution that our hearts are not clouding our minds-- while sifting through a vast ocean of vehemently powerful opinions.

 

1) Question

2) Research

3) Hypothesis

4) Experiment

5) Revise

6) Conclude

 

 

In step 1), I am starting with a simple question: does the Bible pass empirical testing? And, to what extent? I.e. Can it be treated as a credible primary source of information?

 

In step 2) We simply read through the bible linearly-- focusing on any parts which may be empirically experimented on, and discarding parts which can not.

 

In step 3) We maintain suspended judgment until all of the facts regarding the particular testable events have been gathered.

 

In step 4)  We assess the credibility of the experiment.  How conclusive was it? i.e. How much legitimate potential to falsify did the text provide us with?  This is vitally important to the scientific method-- if its not falsifiable, then it has what one would call "zero credibility."  One can show that Every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, starts because one or two charismatic people make a claim of revelation that none of his or her peers (at the time) were capable of fact checking for themselves.  Which means that every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, literally hinges on the credibility of one or two people.  So spotting legitimate potential to falsify is vitally important to any scientific thinker before claims are lent any credibility.  That is why, as we read the Bible in a linear fashion, our minds should zero in on finding opportunities to empirically falsify its claims.

 

In step 5)  We revise our hypotheses to align with the testable aspects.  If someone never, ever revises any of their hypotheses, or admits when they've made a mistake, beware that they are probably just out to argue-- not apply objective scientific criteria.  This is true for Christians as much as it is for non-Christians.

 

In step 6)  We conclude.  We ask "how many empirical tests did the Bible pass?"  And "how much legitimate potential to falsify its claims were provided to us in each of these tests?" If the level of potential falsifiability was very high, yet the claim was not falsified, then the likelihood of the text being credible is increased.  This is an important principle to remember about the scientific method. Because anyone can claim they won the lottery-- our focus should be on how falsifiable that claim is.  If it has no potential to be falsified, then it has what is known as "zero credibility."

 

 

Surely Steve you are not going to methodically go through 5,000 different religions and only get to Christianity in chronological order.  You have already directed us to jump to what attracts your focus.  You have already violated your own method.  The Bible does not pass empirical testing because you ignore all the mythical parts.  Generally the parts of the Bible that are reliable are physical or political geography.  That is what the Bible is good for - geography.

 

Sorry but your step 3 is not valid.  After the Bible fails thousands of times you do not have to continue to suspend judgment in the hope that you can find facts like the Nile flows through Egypt.

 

You made up the part about every religion except your favorite two.  It is also irrelevant because there doesn't have to be a right religion.  They could all be wrong.  Christianity and Judaism are diametrically opposed so they can't both be right.

 

"If someone never, ever revises any of their hypotheses, or admits when they've made a mistake, beware that they are probably just out to argue . . . "

 

Which reminds me, when do you ever revise the ideas you present here or admit they were completely wrong?  It's been made clear that Exodus if full of holes.

 

And at the end of the day we all have to admit that the Bible has zero credibility except as a window into the political and religious views of the humans who wrote it and edited it.  Except I'm not seeing you admit that.  I'm seeing you cling to your pretend scientific apologetics.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

One can show that Every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, starts because one or two charismatic people make a claim of revelation that none of his or her peers (at the time) were capable of fact checking for themselves.  

 False.  Christianity started out mainly because of the writings of a charismatic person we now call st. paul.  There were a few others, obviously; but it was the writings attributed to st. paul that gave christianity its push.

[Ravenstar]

I sincerely thank everyone for their best wishes and concern.

 

I certainly understand the differing points of view here.  Again, I truly believe that a lot of this comes down to *how* we, ourselves, choose to approach not only empirical evidence itself-- but also philosophical issues such as death, hell, heaven etc.

 

To clarify, I was not saying an atheist's reason for being an atheist was because atheism offers the comfort that God does not exist, just as I don't think anyone would read what I wrote and think my own reason for being a Christian is because it offers me comfort.  My point was, simply, that both world views do offer comfort.

 

I'm a Christian only because I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to Judeo-Christianity being true-- but I am willing to admit by biases.

 

 

---------

 

And that is really the point, I think.

 

Take every argument that is out there, every piece of empirical evidence that I'll continue in presenting here, take every manner of portraying things that you have ever heard.  Do you find your time and focus is split evenly?

 

See we all suffer from a thing called "confirmation bias."   No one is immune to its effects.  

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art12.html

 

And being aware of our own biases is only the first step.  After that, we have to set up an approach in which we actually control for our own biases.  This means:

 

1) Establishing objective criterion that is generally applicable to all ancient documents and all religions (including the one presented in the Bible) before we even begin to look at the evidence.

 

2) It means establishing, explicitly, how one is going to approach a subject.  Linearly?  Or by jumping around to whatever happens to attract our focus (this would be to allow our confirmation biases to take over).

 

3) It means taking a sincere inventory of how we ended up with the lenses that we did, and are we really willing to go back to the drawing board to see if a different set of lenses actually holds water?

 

4) It means deliberately, and consciously, choosing not to engage in any of the informal fallacies (ad lapidem, ad hominem, or ad novitatem are the most common) red herrings, or straw men as one investigates.

 

5) It means severing facts from worldviews, opinions, or various perspectives on history-- simply because it ought to be the facts, themselves, out of which worldviews or views on history emerge.

 

6) It means choosing the hypothesis that fits all of the data without violating lex parsimonia.

 

7) It means recognizing when a philosophy (like naturalism) is actually seeping into our analysis or research strategy and causing us to violate lex parsimonia.

 

It means sticking to the scientific method-- taking caution that our hearts are not clouding our minds-- while sifting through a vast ocean of vehemently powerful opinions.

 

1) Question

2) Research

3) Hypothesis

4) Experiment

5) Revise

6) Conclude

 

 

In step 1), I am starting with a simple question: does the Bible pass empirical testing? And, to what extent? I.e. Can it be treated as a credible primary source of information?

 

In step 2) We simply read through the bible linearly-- focusing on any parts which may be empirically experimented on, and discarding parts which can not.

 

In step 3) We maintain suspended judgment until all of the facts regarding the particular testable events have been gathered.

 

In step 4)  We assess the credibility of the experiment.  How conclusive was it? i.e. How much legitimate potential to falsify did the text provide us with?  This is vitally important to the scientific method-- if its not falsifiable, then it has what one would call "zero credibility."  One can show that Every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, starts because one or two charismatic people make a claim of revelation that none of his or her peers (at the time) were capable of fact checking for themselves.  Which means that every religion in the world, except for Judaism and Christianity, literally hinges on the credibility of one or two people.  So spotting legitimate potential to falsify is vitally important to any scientific thinker before claims are lent any credibility.  That is why, as we read the Bible in a linear fashion, our minds should zero in on finding opportunities to empirically falsify its claims.

 

In step 5)  We revise our hypotheses to align with the testable aspects.  If someone never, ever revises any of their hypotheses, or admits when they've made a mistake, beware that they are probably just out to argue-- not apply objective scientific criteria.  This is true for Christians as much as it is for non-Christians.

 

In step 6)  We conclude.  We ask "how many empirical tests did the Bible pass?"  And "how much legitimate potential to falsify its claims were provided to us in each of these tests?" If the level of potential falsifiability was very high, yet the claim was not falsified, then the likelihood of the text being credible is increased.  This is an important principle to remember about the scientific method. Because anyone can claim they won the lottery-- our focus should be on how falsifiable that claim is.  If it has no potential to be falsified, then it has what is known as "zero credibility."

 

 

On a side note, you might see why, now, the dating of the book of Luke and Acts is such a vitally important issue.

 

 

-----------

 

 

If, understanding the scientific method, one does not see why it is so important to proceed linearly (to control for our own cognitive biases, and to ensure that each individual fact gets accepted as research before one attempts a hypothesis) then maybe its because I'm a bad salesmen.  I don't know.

 

I do know that this method is not for everyone, but I noticed that a lot of people had asked that this approach be taken before I even began to post here.  I am primarily responding only to those people who are interested in taking a legitimately scientific approach that is designed to help us control for our own biases, and cipher facts from world views or opinions.

 

In the end, please understand, no one can ever make everybody happy.  My intention is *only* to respond to those who asked for this method of approach.

Are you kidding me?  We didn't ask for your interpretation of reasoned argument… just answer the replies and quit beating around the bush.

 

Now...Other than Buddhism, Islam and Christianity can you name ONE religion that has a one or two charismatic leaders? Oh.. wait.. Confucianism, but that's actually a philosophy, not a religion. Your ignorance of other religions is outlined in neon here, Steve.

 

The rest is garbage…. sophistry. Red herrings and hubris.

 

Ready for a formal debate yet? Or how about just addressing my points?

[florduh]

The proper way to address the addressing of your points is to emulate, or masticate, the method of the Roman philosopher Biggus Dickus. Consider the spelling of the point, rather, how it woggles upon the tongue. Attaching together the coagulation of adversity and hummus is the essence of perambulation. It was Clark Griswold who said, "Look, Rusty," and this is even today the accepted freniculum of soppery. Look no further for genderation, but rather fellate the point in perpetuity. I am an excrement in this subject so listen gregariously to me, okay?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The proper way to address the addressing of your points is to emulate, or masticate, the method of the Roman philosopher Biggus Dickus. Consider the spelling of the point, rather, how it woggles upon the tongue. Attaching together the coagulation of adversity and hummus is the essence of perambulation. It was Clark Griswold who said, "Look, Rusty," and this is even today the accepted freniculum of soppery. Look no further for genderation, but rather fellate the point in perpetuity. I am an excrement in this subject so listen gregariously to me, okay?

You need to use more bold print and throw in a phrase in larger font now and again.  That is how you make a valid argument via the interwebs. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm a Christian only because I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to Judeo-Christianity being true-- but I am willing to admit by biases.

 Then why is it that you ignore every invitation to offer the evidence for the validity of christianity and the veracity of the scripture?  Does the evidence only work when we approach it using the guidelines that you insist we use?  Is that why every post of yours is overly verbatious and underly substantive?

 

You talk a lot about how you're going to present the evidence to us.  You tell us how we should interpret the evidence.  When are you going to present the evidence?

 

Lastly, what testable, falsifiable hypothesis are you attempting to posit here?  That christianity is true?  That is neither testable nor falsifiable.  It it that the book of exodus is true?  Again, neither testable nor falsifiable.  Is it that the book of exodus contains facts?  Perhaps it does, but that proves nothing of the truth of christianity any more than the discovery that Troy really was where Homer said it was proves Zeus is the one true god.

[♦ ficino ♦]

As for The Exodus: I quote a post made today by Atheos over on Freethought & Rationalism. It's in the public domain. Here's the link:

 

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=7647183#post7647183

 

Here's the post:

 

"The loss of all livestock in the area would have created a significant amount of economic turmoil, generating copious documentation of purchases made to attempt to restock herds. Two plagues destroyed all the cattle according to the storyline. There is no rationalization for the complete absence of any documentary evidence of these extraordinary events.

 

Even more devastating would have been the effects of the plague of hail that destroyed all the crops. This would have had a third major trauma to the livestock as well, as along with the loss of livestock there would be little left to feed man or beast.

 

The debilitating sores would have further crippled the economy. The death of all firstborn would have effected a 30%-40% reduction in the entire population of the nation, as it not only allegedly effected children but people and animals of any age. Finally the loss of the entire army by being drowned in the Red Sea would have left Egypt so precariously perched on the brink of ruin that marauders would have likely needed no second invitation to come in and pillage what was left.

 

Attempting to hide the plagues behind a facade of rationalism by suggesting that since they didn't include a plague of dragons or monsters is ludicrous. You're still stuck with staffs that turned into snakes, the magical leprous hand trick, the plague of hail mingled with fire, the 3 days of magical darkness where candles and oil lamps didn't work but just across the border in Goshen they had all the light they could use. You've still got a plague that kills only the first born children and animals throughout the land unless they happen to be inside a dwelling where someone has gang-tagged the doorposts with lamb's blood. You've still got the parting of the Red Sea where thousands of folks walked across the sea bottom on dry land. You've got ridiculous fairy tale elements at every turn of the plot. Whatever you do, don't try to sell this as a perfectly plausible story.

 

There is no freaking way the Exodus happened as described. No. Freaking. Way."

[ShackledNoMore]

1) Establishing objective criterion that is generally applicable to all ancient documents and all religions (including the one presented in the Bible) before we even begin to look at the evidence.

 

2) It means establishing, explicitly, how one is going to approach a subject.  Linearly?  Or by jumping around to whatever happens to attract our focus (this would be to allow our confirmation biases to take over).

 

3) It means taking a sincere inventory of how we ended up with the lenses that we did, and are we really willing to go back to the drawing board to see if a different set of lenses actually holds water?

 

4) It means deliberately, and consciously, choosing not to engage in any of the informal fallacies (ad lapidem, ad hominem, or ad novitatem are the most common) red herrings, or straw men as one investigates.

 

5) It means severing facts from worldviews, opinions, or various perspectives on history-- simply because it ought to be the facts, themselves, out of which worldviews or views on history emerge.

 

6) It means choosing the hypothesis that fits all of the data without violating lex parsimonia.

 

7) It means recognizing when a philosophy (like naturalism) is actually seeping into our analysis or research strategy and causing us to violate lex parsimonia.

 

I could critique your approach itself, but instead I'm going to go ahead and use YOUR approach:

 

1) Establishing objective criterion that is generally applicable to all ancient documents and all religions (including the one presented in the Bible) before we even begin to look at the evidence.

 

Off the top of my head, may I suggest the following criteria?

 

1) The ancient document(s) for a given religion do not contradict themselves.

2) If the document is true, then as we learn more and more about the world, we corroborate the claims of the ancient text(s) more and more.  This applies to science (cosmology, biology, geology...), archeology, etc.

3) Where there is prophecy and predictions, these are borne out.

 

The Bible is full of contradictions, is either reinterpreted through the ages to accommodate the ever receding god of the gaps, or real scientific knowledge is merely denied because it contradicts the Bible, and Bible prophecies have failed time and time again.  Yes, I can support this (with far more information than I want to type) and will cite specifics if necessary, but there are so many of these that are so brazen that if you have read the Bible and been debating ex-christians you have to be aware of them.  After your post, if you have not read all the mythologies offered by the all other major religions, or examined how these religions have evolved, then shame on you, but the Christian texts fail similarly to the texts of other religions on these grounds.

 

2) It means establishing, explicitly, how one is going to approach a subject.  Linearly?  Or by jumping around to whatever happens to attract our focus (this would be to allow our confirmation biases to take over).

 

Are you saying that the Bible should be read either in order, or to the best we can determine, chronologically?  Check.  You will notice in the old testament when stories are retold, they start to change, and in the New Testament how the stories grow more fantastical for accounts written at a later date.

 

3) It means taking a sincere inventory of how we ended up with the lenses that we did, and are we really willing to go back to the drawing board to see if a different set of lenses actually holds water?

 

Most of us Westerners were indoctrinated into Christianity from infancy--from a very young age.  Childhood indoctrination: that's why the United States is overwhelmingly Christian, and, say Saudi Arabia is overwhelmingly Muslim.  Your profile location says you are in Japan.  From the way you write and what you write, I would guess that you are a gaijin, and are there either as a missionary or an English teacher who is supporting a missionary (conjecture--it's possible that I'm wrong, but I think I'm most likely right about this).  You notice how hard it is to convert the Japanese?  There's a reason for this.  They haven't been indoctrinated into Christianity.  When they apply an outsider's test to the claims of Christianity, it is not likely to sound very plausible.

 

4) It means deliberately, and consciously, choosing not to engage in any of the informal fallacies (ad lapidem, ad hominem, or ad novitatem are the most common) red herrings, or straw men as one investigates.

 

We should absolutely avoid logical fallacies.  Are you sure that you are?

 

5) It means severing facts from worldviews, opinions, or various perspectives on history-- simply because it ought to be the facts, themselves, out of which worldviews or views on history emerge.

 

Where do you get your facts?  You know that just because any text any text says something, it doesn't make it true.  So we need to come to a better and better understanding of things by looking at the evidence.  We use the scientific method, to arrive at a better and better understanding of our world and our universe.

 

6) It means choosing the hypothesis that fits all of the data without violating lex parsimonia.

 

It's interesting that you have this one here.  Are you a Biblical literalist?  I hope not, because if so, you do realize that the Biblical account is a really poor hypothesis to explain the data.  In order for it to fit what we observe about the universe, the Christian god would have needed to create the universe already in existence in a state that it would have been in if it had existed for 14 billion years, plant fossils, and perform some major magic involving the flood.  And then when you start looking closer you'll start to see a lot more problems to explain.  Believe me, I've been there.  This universe would had to have been created by a vastly more complex god, yet a god who is in the same image of man, whose existence is entirely unexplained.  Now speaking of Occam's Razor (lex parsimoniae), is this really the simpler explanation with fewer assumptions?

 

7) It means recognizing when a philosophy (like naturalism) is actually seeping into our analysis or research strategy and causing us to violate lex parsimonia.

 

This conflicts with your own criteria that claims be testable and not falsifiable.  The supernatural we can only accept on blind faith.  Again, as with number 6 above, throwing in a magic supernatural element runs counter to lex parsimoniae.  The trouble with embracing the supernatural to explain what we observe and seek answers is that it is NOT testable, it is NOT falsifiable, and does not offer a basis to defend itself.  Your supernatural explanation is merely an unsupported claim.  I have no more reason to believe your unsupported supernatural claim than you have to believe that invisible unicorn riding leprechauns sprinkle undetectable fairy dust on people's yards to make their grass grow.

[sdelsolray]

As for The Exodus: I quote a post made today by Atheos over on Freethought & Rationalism. It's in the public domain. Here's the link:

 

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=7647183#post7647183

 

Here's the post:

 

"The loss of all livestock in the area would have created a significant amount of economic turmoil, generating copious documentation of purchases made to attempt to restock herds. Two plagues destroyed all the cattle according to the storyline. There is no rationalization for the complete absence of any documentary evidence of these extraordinary events.

 

Even more devastating would have been the effects of the plague of hail that destroyed all the crops. This would have had a third major trauma to the livestock as well, as along with the loss of livestock there would be little left to feed man or beast.

 

The debilitating sores would have further crippled the economy. The death of all firstborn would have effected a 30%-40% reduction in the entire population of the nation, as it not only allegedly effected children but people and animals of any age. Finally the loss of the entire army by being drowned in the Red Sea would have left Egypt so precariously perched on the brink of ruin that marauders would have likely needed no second invitation to come in and pillage what was left.

 

Attempting to hide the plagues behind a facade of rationalism by suggesting that since they didn't include a plague of dragons or monsters is ludicrous. You're still stuck with staffs that turned into snakes, the magical leprous hand trick, the plague of hail mingled with fire, the 3 days of magical darkness where candles and oil lamps didn't work but just across the border in Goshen they had all the light they could use. You've still got a plague that kills only the first born children and animals throughout the land unless they happen to be inside a dwelling where someone has gang-tagged the doorposts with lamb's blood. You've still got the parting of the Red Sea where thousands of folks walked across the sea bottom on dry land. You've got ridiculous fairy tale elements at every turn of the plot. Whatever you do, don't try to sell this as a perfectly plausible story.

 

There is no freaking way the Exodus happened as described. No. Freaking. Way."

Are you equating SteveBennet with our beloved (at FRDB at least) Ed, the Calvinist Wannabe and holder of the 2013 Award for The Most Mere Assertions in One Thread?