Atheism causes creationism

kylith

ed2hands wrote: »

They can all be adhered to in other matters yes, just saying i personally think it's not suitable to apply such rules to this forum in general.

I think that that rule is perfectly acceptable for this forum. You can argue anything you want without evidence over in Christianity, but should be aware that A&A are going to want you to use facts to back your arguement up. Would you argue that facts are an unsuitable demand for the skeptics forum too?

Sonics2k

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

In other words, what was the first cause, i.e. the uncaused cause ? Or did something spring from nothing ?

This roughly translates into "We don't know how it all began, therefore it was all-knowing all powerful space ghost that asks us to eat the symbolic flesh and drink the symbolic blood of his only Son once a week"

ed2hands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then take it up with people who have actually done so, I certainly have not.

Yeah ok.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am merely pointing out that there is nothing wrong with suggesting that one should have evidence for what one is espousing... let alone that expecting such "reduces" the conversation at all or is "cack-handed"

I agree. Nothing wrong with that at all. It just gets cack-handed when it's trotted out ad nauseum in every other post, just thrown in there whatever the topic.

kylith wrote: »

I think that that rule is perfectly acceptable for this forum. You can argue anything you want without evidence over in Christianity, but should be aware that A&A are going to want you to use facts to back your arguement up.

Again, nothing wrong with wanting facts. My point is solely with the possible usage by some of the charts guidelines as a blunt instrument to stifle other threads in what is currently a very enjoyable forum. End of.

kylith wrote: »

Would you argue that facts are an unsuitable demand for the skeptics forum too?

What? Of course not. That would be stupid.

Penn

ed2hands wrote: »

Exactly my point. It shouldn't, but some will claim it all the same i presume.

The chart clearly implies victory/defeat:
"You are deemed to have conceded all opposing arguments up to this point"
"You forfeit any right to complain about the discussion"

And my personal favourite, "You cheated, the discussion is terminated":pac:

But those parts of the chart only apply if you didn't follow the rules of the discussion. And the rules are unbiased and fair for both parties involved in whatever the discussion may be about.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

How is 'attest' a weasel-word?

It's a weasel-word because it allows you, within your own mind anyway, to avoid the point that poster, after poster, after poster has made to you. And that point, to reiterate it again, is that the people who allowed themselves to be killed -- if there were such people, and that's debatable, to say the least -- allowed this to happen because they thought that whatever stories they'd been told were true.

They're obviously not going to "attest" that their beliefs were false, since that would imply that they were suicidal and probably insane.

Incidentally, and just for the record, your use of the word "attest" in this context is highly specific to certain strands of christian belief and suggests to me that some religious service provider is using this term specifically in this context, and specifically in order to muddy the waters.

Newsite wrote: »

One major difference between Christianity and the 9/11 guys, or the Holocaust deniers, is that in the case of the deniers, we can clearly prove them wrong, so they are exposed as a sham. Re 9/11, it's suspect as to whether this was perpetuated by Muslims at all, but we won't go there.

You believe that 9/11 "troofers" can be easily exposed as a sham, but you're doubtful that islamics were involved? I don't even know where to begin trying to tease apart the contradictions there. As you say, perhaps best to leave that.

Newsite wrote: »

But with Christianity, we have very few people rejecting the idea that Christ died and rose again in early Christianity, right? Why didn't the Romans refute it at the time?

They didn't refute it because it didn't happen.

And to lob you a question -- if it was common knowledge that some guy had been executed and then come back to life again, then why on earth didn't the Romans report it widely? Roman authors, even staid historians, were no strangers to reporting weird things. An event like that would have electrified everybody. But it doesn't even warrant so much a single reliable mention anywhere in any of the texts we have remaining, save for one in Josephus which is almost certainly fraudulent. Why is that? Simple answer -- it never happened and was simply made up.

Newsite wrote: »

The onus may be on me to 'prove' something, but you can't claim something is rubbish without providing your reasons for why that is - drawing parallels with other systems proven to be false is far from enough.

You are claiming that your belief system is unique and uniquely true, but you back this up with dubious facts and faulty reasoning. And these dubious facts and faulty reasoning are shared with many other religions and philosophies.

Your task on this thread is to explain why your belief system is the one real one and all the others are false, whilst not cutting away the branch you're sitting on. I don't envy you this task!

robindch

Zombrex wrote: »

For all we know Jesus was screaming like a child begging to be taken down of the cross and recanting anything he preached. But you ain't going to find that in the official Christian records.

Oddly enough, one of the few Jesus quotes which has ever sounded genuine to me was the line he is alleged to have said as he was dying on the cross. Or at least, what he was reported in Matthew and Mark to have said. Jesus final words, as reported by Luke and John, are predictably, quite different.

Possibly Jesus, according to Matthew and Mark anyway wrote:

My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?

Since Jesus may well have thought he was going to be rescued by a deity before he died, it makes sense that he's as surprised as hell to realize that his beliefs turned out to be false.

Sin City

robindch wrote: »

Oddly enough, one of the few Jesus quotes which has ever sounded genuine to me was the line he is alleged to have said as he was dying on the cross. Or at least, what he was reported in Matthew and Mark to have said. Jesus final words, as reported by Luke and John, are predictably, quite different.Since Jesus may well have thought he was going to be rescued by a deity before he died, it makes sense that he's as surprised as hell to realize that his beliefs turned out to be false.

I dont think Jesus wanted to be rescued by God, that was the whole point of it, dying to redeem mankind. (Not a religious nut or anything)

swampgas

robindch wrote: »

Oddly enough, one of the few Jesus quotes which has ever sounded genuine to me was the line he is alleged to have said as he was dying on the cross. Or at least, what he was reported in Matthew and Mark to have said. Jesus final words, as reported by Luke and John, are predictably, quite different.Since Jesus may well have thought he was going to be rescued by a deity before he died, it makes sense that he's as surprised as hell to realize that his beliefs turned out to be false.

Yep, have always wondered about that quote, and it has always suggested to me that if Jesus was in some way delusional and had some kind of messiah complex, he may well have believed that he was going to be saved by divine intervention at the last minute.

The problem is that no matter what the evidence looks like to an objective observer, a religious believer will find some way to rationalise the evidence to fit into their religious world view rather than face the prospect of having to rebuild their mental model of the world.

Dades

ed2hands wrote: »

They can all be adhered to in other matters yes, just saying i personally think it's not suitable to apply such rules to this forum in general.

Are you suggesting there should be a different standard of proof for topics here? For both the atheist/religious sides of the argument or just the religious one?

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

I agree. Nothing wrong with that at all. It just gets cack-handed when it's trotted out ad nauseum in every other post, just thrown in there whatever the topic.

It is no less tiresome from our side to have to keep asking for it! So I can sympathize with your pain.

However if users keep insisting on espousing unsubstantiated claims, we will likely have to keep demanding the evidence. The eternal circle.

So rather than one side moaning about having to give evidence, and the other side moaning about having to ask for it.... maybe one can just substantiate ones claims in future and bypass the entire issue???

ed2hands

Dades wrote: »

Are you suggesting there should be a different standard of proof for topics here? For both the atheist/religious sides of the argument or just the religious one?

No. I'm saying i think the forum works ok the way it is without adding too strict a dialectic guideline as per the chart.
Sure, the chart works for discussing science, and for some topics here.

dead one

robindch wrote: »

Since Jesus may well have thought he was going to be rescued by a deity before he died, it makes sense that he's as surprised as hell to realize that his beliefs turned out to be false.

from bible
“For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;” (Psalms 37:28)
Yet when Jesus Christ was put on the cross according to the Bible. He cried out
“About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mathew 27:46)
“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34)
How can Jesus be forsaken when God does not forsake his faithful ones?? Now the Christians have four options to choose from.
1. The person put on the cross was not really Jesus.
2. Jesus was not faithful to God.
3. Jesus lied that God forsook him.
4. Bible is lying when it says that God does not forsake his beloved ones.
You have four options to choose from. Now with whatever gymnastics you try. You cannot add a fifth option here. So decide for yourself."

robindch

Sin City wrote: »

I dont think Jesus wanted to be rescued by God, that was the whole point of it, dying to redeem mankind. (Not a religious nut or anything)

Should have been clearer!

I think he was expecting to die, at least if the inconsistent accounts of his life up to that point are to be believed. However, I think he was expecting to go in rather more glorious circumstances than nailed or bound to a cross and simply dying due to straightforward human injury. Perhaps a deistic hand reaching down from the heavens to cradle him as he died, a splendid release from the cross and ascent into the skies, though slumped close to death, or some other equally glorious and memorable exit.

I don't think he was expecting nothing at all to happen, hence the intensely sad cry of desperation as he perhaps realized that he'd fooled himself.

It's one of the very few truly poignant moments in the whole NT, the vast majority of which is filled with wooden characters lumbering weirdly about a make-believe stage, mouthing obviously contrived-after-the-fact speeches.

robindch

dead one wrote: »

Christians have four options to choose from.
1. The person put on the cross was not really Jesus.
2. Jesus was not faithful to God.
3. Jesus lied that God forsook him.
4. Bible is lying when it says that God does not forsake his beloved ones.
You have four options to choose from.

Atheists and other non-believers have at least one another option:

5. The bible is lying about (a) what Jesus said, or (b) what Jesus was, or (c) what Jesus said he was, or (d) the deity, or (e) the relationship between Jesus and the deity or (f) any combination of the previous options.

Incidentally, plagiarism is not permitted in this forum and you've been warned about this before. Your text was stolen from here.

ed2hands

Dades wrote: »

Also, I doubt anybody considers such a termination a victory - more likely a frustration.

Post #255:
"Ah now, you can't hold them to that standard. They would lose 95% of all their arguments cos they'd constantly be breaking the 3rd rule. They'd also be breaking the 4th rule pretty consistently."

dead one

robindch wrote: »

Atheists and other non-believers have at least one another option:
5. The bible is lying about (a) what Jesus said, or (b) what Jesus was, or (c) what Jesus said he was, or (d) the deity, or (e) the relationship between Jesus and the deity or (f) any combination of the previous options.

Why is bible lying -- I mean what makes you think that writers of bible were liar?

Dades

ed2hands wrote: »

No. I'm saying i think the forum works ok the way it is without adding too strict a dialectic guideline as per the chart.
Sure, the chart works for discussing science, and for some topics here.

Ah now to be fair - all that chart does is try to prevent is people bailing on arguments or moving the goalposts after posters have put a lot of thought into specific replies. No topic should suffer from people hiding from responses or just repeating points with nothing to back them up.

Beside, it's hardly going to applied ad nauseum here as moderating here is already like herding cats.

Think of it as a guideline, rather than a rule.

Dades

ed2hands wrote: »

Post #255:
"Ah now, you can't hold them to that standard. They would lose 95% of all their arguments cos they'd constantly be breaking the 3rd rule. They'd also be breaking the 4th rule pretty consistently."

T'would be a hollow victory, then!

Sin City

dead one wrote: »

Why is bible lying -- I mean what makes you think that writers of bible were liar?

If they had a deity that actually did nothing the religeon would fail, The Bible owas written for a people who were trying to start a civilisation, so needed a creation story so they came up with Genisis etc. A lot of it is very shady, full of incest stories and magical stories.

Take Noahs ark for example how did he fit two of every animal onto the ark and feed them for that length of time

Adam and Eve, it was said that death and pain only came into the world when man fell, so how did they eat animals if the animals could not die etc

Sonics2k

dead one wrote: »

Why is bible lying -- I mean what makes you think that writers of bible were liar?

You mean aside from the whole Jesus coming back to life three days after being crucified and stabbed through the ribs with a spear?

Or how about that bit with Noah and the Ark?

Improbable

ed2hands wrote: »

Post #255:
"Ah now, you can't hold them to that standard. They would lose 95% of all their arguments cos they'd constantly be breaking the 3rd rule. They'd also be breaking the 4th rule pretty consistently."

It wasn't to be taken literally! I meant it metaphorically! It's a metaphorical loss!

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

Did you miss it the first time

Luke 8
1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

As I said, still wondering where the references are for this claim :

"this afforded him a life style he could not have otherwise obtained simply working as a carpenter"

A carpenter could afford more than that, including his own house, possessions etc. So apart from food to eat and somewhere to sleep, exactly what "lifestyle" was afforded ? Have you details of how much they saved, property bought, possessions owned, etc. ?

Morbert

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Evolution is another interesting field of the naturally limited known physical sciences. It rightly does not attempt to explain or deal with any concepts outside its own field including any metaphysical concept.

Correct, but it serves as a refutation of the theist assertion that no physical law or process can account for the complexity of life.

The Quadratic Equation

Morbert wrote: »

Correct, but it serves as a refutation of the theist assertion that no physical law or process can account for the complexity of life.

Some theists are not all theists, and physical laws or processes deal with only the known physical aspects of the universe. A limited field.

housetypeb

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Some theists are not all theists, and physical laws or processes deal with only the known physical aspects of the universe. A limited field.

I guess it would be nice if we could have physical laws for the UNKNOWN physical aspects of the universe?

Reminds me of Rumsfeld-
-there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

Morbert

Zombrex wrote: »

Of course this is like worrying about not being able to swim. Coming around the corner very soon is the fall that is going to kill, in the form of an natural theory of religion within evolutionary psychology.

That is going to be HUGE and it is something every religious person on the planet is going to have to face and it is going to be much much harder to adapt beliefs around it because it is basically going to say that their religious beliefs are all imaginary.

It is going to make the Creationism debate look like a polite discussion about the weather

I don't think it will be a big deal. They will just say God, through evolution, brought about a psychological disposition towards religion to help us know him.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

As I said, still wondering where the references are for this claim :

"this afforded him a life style he could not have otherwise obtained simply working as a carpenter"

A carpenter could afford more than that, including his own house, possessions etc. So apart from food to eat and somewhere to sleep, exactly what "lifestyle" was afforded ? Have you details of how much they saved, property bought, possessions owned, etc. ?

Er, you seem to be spectacularly missing the point. For the 3 1/2 years Jesus was preaching he didn't have to work

Being a labour in Biblical times would have involved tough back breaking work from dawn to dust. Jesus avoided all of this. Everything was paid for by others. Jesus was effectively on a 3 1/2 year holiday.

If Jesus had saved up all the money before hand to support his "career break" he wouldn't have had to be supported by wealthy women he had conveniently enough cured of evil spirits.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Some theists are not all theists, and physical laws or processes deal with only the known physical aspects of the universe. A limited field.

Good point, why limit yourself to the real world when there is all this imagination and make believe to explore, sure it is a big as what ever humans can dream up next.

psychward

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

physical laws or processes deal with only the known physical aspects of the universe. A limited field.

Reason and logic do indeed limit us to facts when it comes to making credible claims. I consider this superior to religious belief systems which do not have any respect for facts. Someone who is not limited by fact is also not limited by common sense, logic or reason and therefore is the most limited of all, as limited as a lunatic in an asylum.
A distaste for logic and reason becomes apparent when the deluded world view which the ego of a ''believer'' holds as a sacred cow comes into inevitable conflict with the real world.
This causes a reaction of inventing and making up your own laws regardless of whether they are proven true or not. The spiral into deeper and deeper delusion is pretty obvious with theists. Each further delusion covers the ass of the previous unsubstantiated claim and so on. Of course we are limited by what we know. And nobody knows whether a God exists.

nozzferrahhtoo

ed2hands wrote: »

No. I'm saying i think the forum works ok the way it is without adding too strict a dialectic guideline as per the chart.
Sure, the chart works for discussing science, and for some topics here.

Careful, there is a very open door here for people to construe you as pretty much saying "I am ok applying the rules of which you speak.... until such time as they get in the way of what I want to espouse then I find them too strict".

Maybe that is not what you meant, maybe it is, but it certainly smacks of it.