Uniqueness Points Towards Christianity

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

End, what do you mean the book points time and time again to what we witness? Are you meaning in some metaphysical sense or natural sense?

Everybody eats; that's why jesus said, "This is my body, which is broken for you, take it and eat it."  Likewise, everybody drinks; and it's no coincidence that jesus said, "This is my blood..."  Everybody also poops, which is why the bible is full of shit.  You see what you want to see.

[LimitedGrip]

4 hours ago, end3 said:

Just an observation LG.....take it or leave it...no biggie.

 

Is faith, in general, dependent on and justified by such observations? 

 

 

[Guest end3]

4 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

Posted 1 hour ago

  12 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

"I'm not addicted to Christianity, but the book sure points time and time again to what we witness. "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

If you had been born in Saudi Arabia End, you'd have written...

 

"I'm not addicted to Islam, but the Quran sure points time and time again to what we witness. "

 

 

 

Aware of your last three posts BAA.  Thanks,  these are just observations. 

.

.

.

You're aware of my last three posts... but you're unaware that only math uses proofs.

 

These are just your observations... but you've never observed any posts where we've explained to you that only math uses proofs.

 

Really?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I realize the math statement.  I realize certainty vs. proof.  Yes, I have observed your posts.  But there are more times than I can count that you say, lay out your evidence.  Truthfully, I was unaware of what anecdotal evidence was.  But yes, because we don't have high certainty in all areas that would transfer anecdotal observations to high certainty, then we are left with math perhaps or accepting that anecdotal observations are either very typical or atypical.  And yes, this doesn't mean they are true, but, when you put these observation together with science, I think it points to something there.   Conversely, I think it can also help us question the paths science is taking.  This reminds me our science fair discussion and the conversation asking about what can be tested.  My mind takes anecdotal observations and says "let's test that" vs. a more strict adherence.  And this is more how my mind works I think, than anything else.  Lol, only took how many years to figure this out...10?

 

Thanks BAA

[Guest end3]

3 hours ago, LimitedGrip said:

 

Is faith, in general, dependent on and justified by such observations? 

 

 

I think so.  If it can't be defined/tested/analyzed by some accepted scientific methodologies, then I think the logical assessment is:  What do we observe on a very wide scale that is typical.  Using my uniqueness example, what I observe and what is referenced in the Bible, is that we need to know others in order that we understand each other (because we are unique and other reasons).....which allows for grace and forgiveness, etc.  Another example, I would probably be much more tolerant to immigration if I were to visit the immigrant's homeland.  "Sure amigo, come on over, I don't know how you lived there honestly".  Again, I must "know" the situation. 

 

Science can't yet define everything and I think it's not a good idea to throw what I think is about half of our understanding. 

[Guest end3]

6 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Could you say, "I don't believe in Jesus?"

 

 

No, I believe in Jesus. 

[Guest end3]

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

End, what do you mean the book points time and time again to what we witness? Are you meaning in some metaphysical sense or natural sense?

LF, I've tried to point out many many times on this site things I've noticed that points to the Bible.  Would have to go look at some of the old threads from years ago when I was much more a zealot.   I'll see if I can dig one up for fun.

[Guest end3]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Everybody eats; that's why jesus said, "This is my body, which is broken for you, take it and eat it."  Likewise, everybody drinks; and it's no coincidence that jesus said, "This is my blood..."  Everybody also poops, which is why the bible is full of shit.  You see what you want to see.

See you get it.  The passages I referenced, paraphrased, "I am in you and you are in me".....communion....knowing the other.....praying....etc. 

 

The question is Prof, if you get the nuances, why did you give up on belief, or could you just not believe anymore even if you tried.  I don't recall us having this conversation and I don't read the ex Christian confessions much.  In other words, what happened. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, end3 said:

See you get it.  The passages I referenced, paraphrased, "I am in you and you are in me".....communion....knowing the other.....praying....etc. 

 

The question is Prof, if you get the nuances, why did you give up on belief, or could you just not believe anymore even if you tried.  I don't recall us having this conversation and I don't read the ex Christian confessions much.  In other words, what happened. 

The koran also has nuances.  So does the bhagavad gita.  Hell, even the Harry Potter series has nuances which are pertinent to life.  Why don't I believe in mysticism?  Why am I not a moor?  Why did I never become a warlock? 

 

Nuances aren't meanings.

[bornagainathiest]

On 10/27/2017 at 2:27 AM, end3 said:

I realize the math statement.  I realize certainty vs. proof.  Yes, I have observed your posts.  But there are more times than I can count that you say, lay out your evidence.  Truthfully, I was unaware of what anecdotal evidence was.  But yes, because we don't have high certainty in all areas that would transfer anecdotal observations to high certainty, then we are left with math perhaps or accepting that anecdotal observations are either very typical or atypical.  And yes, this doesn't mean they are true, but, when you put these observation together with science, I think it points to something there.   Conversely, I think it can also help us question the paths science is taking.  This reminds me our science fair discussion and the conversation asking about what can be tested.  My mind takes anecdotal observations and says "let's test that" vs. a more strict adherence.  And this is more how my mind works I think, than anything else.  Lol, only took how many years to figure this out...10?

 

Thanks BAA

 

End,

 

LimitedGrip didn't say anything about proof.  You did. 

He didn't ask for it and didn't mention it.  But on Monday, at 10:31 pm you wrote... "With regard to proof, I'm not sure we will ever get there."   Ok, putting that behind us, let me ask you these questions.

 

1.  Why does not having a high degree of certainty in all areas justify raising your own anecdotal evidence to the level of high certainty?

 

2.  If the scientific evidence doesn't have a high degree of certainty, why would adding your own anecdotal evidence to it raise it to the level of high certainty?

 

3.  Why do you treat your own anecdotal evidence as more significant and more meaningful than anyone else's?

 

4.  Why don't you treat your anecdotal evidence as no more significant and no more meaningful than anyone else's?

 

5.  Would you unquestioningly believe someone else's anecdotal evidence over your own?

[LimitedGrip]

8 hours ago, end3 said:

I think so.  If it can't be defined/tested/analyzed by some accepted scientific methodologies, then I think the logical assessment is:  What do we observe on a very wide scale that is typical.   

 

Why do you think these observations can't be analyzed scientifically? How are you going to get meaningful information from your observations, if you don't analyze them? What questions could you ask to eliminate other explanations for your observation? 

 

The problem is that you are starting with the assumption that Christianity is true, and regarding any  attribute, no  matter how trivial, as support for that a priori belief. But what if you were agnostic?  What separates Christianity from any other philosophy regarding uniqueness? Can you see that from our point of view, uniqueness points in multiple directions, and tells us nothing?

[L.B.]

Quote

...when I was much more a zealot.

 

Don't kid yourself for a second, pal. Anyone who believes enough of the recycled 19th- and 20th-century Evangelical bullshit to claim (as you do in your signature) that they believe in someone called "Yeshua" is definitely an Evangi-Bot of the highest order.

 

"Yeshua" is a laughably bad Anglicism of a Hebrew name that I am sure you don't know without looking it up and certainly can't exegete from Hebrew.

 

All that to say that you're starting yet another thread where your awful assumptions about "God",  your version of which exists by dint of many rounds of majority vote in ecclesiastical circles, are put forward as true.

 

There's so much of a combination of fallacy and plain nonsense in your opening few posts that nobody with a brain could take you seriously if you were a six-year-old making these assertions. An adult who tries to play theological and philosophical ball with some of the minds on Ex-C by offering up what you post is a sad thing to behold.