Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

galljga1

hinault wrote: »

Blaming your parents.:rolleyes:

For what?

hinault

RikuoAmero wrote: »

In other words, like us atheists, for those religions, you default to the null hypothesis (lack of belief) when it comes to those other religions.

No. I respect the fact that others may hold a different belief and they're entitled to hold their belief.

Their system of belief may well hold some of the same truths that Catholicism holds, but obviously there are other parts of their belief which are not Catholic.
So be it.

orubiru

RikuoAmero wrote: »

In other words, like us atheists, for those religions, you default to the null hypothesis (lack of belief) when it comes to those other religions.
As I'm pretty sure you've heard multiple times before, we take it one god further.

Actually... I would disagree here.

For example, I do not know if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or not. I lack belief in Him (and His Noodly Appendage) so in that sense I am an Atheist.

Every Catholic I know is 100% convinced that Pastafarians are completely wrong and their God does not exist. They can't provide proof either way yet they insist that He does not exist.

So, they don't actually default to the null hypothesis. They actively claim that other Gods are 100% false. Without proof, I might add.

hinault

TheLurker wrote: »

My point was if strong faith of followers is a reason to follow a religion wouldn't that be a reason to follow any and all religions?

Faith can ebb and flow. I said this earlier.

hinault

orubiru wrote: »

Won't Jesus cast me into the fire for not accepting though?

You're certain that that fire doesn't exist.

RikuoAmero

hinault wrote: »

You're certain that that fire doesn't exist.

But it's in your religion's holy book. It mentions a negative consequence of some kind for those who don't believe.
If there is ANY negative consequence (of any kind) for not believing, then this renders your claim of there not being duress false.

hinault

RikuoAmero wrote: »

But it's in your religion's holy book. It mentions a negative consequence of some kind for those who don't believe.
If there is ANY negative consequence (of any kind) for not believing, then this renders your claim of there not being duress false.

Several posters here don't accept what the Bible says.

So if they don't accept what the Bible says, presumably they don't accept that Hell exists, right?

orubiru

hinault wrote: »

You're certain that that fire doesn't exist.

I do not believe that it exists but of course I cannot be certain.

My stance is basically "this sounds like a big load of nonsense so I think I'll take my chances".

It seems highly, HIGHLY, unlikely that Hell exists but I have personally never died before so how can I say for sure?

What do you think? I refuse to believe in Jesus, due to lack of evidence. If I am wrong and God/Jesus was revealed to me then I wouldn't exactly have nice things to say to them.

IF the fire exists, will I be cast into it?

hinault

orubiru wrote: »

I do not believe that it exists but of course I cannot be certain.

My stance is basically "this sounds like a big load of nonsense so I think I'll take my chances".

It seems highly, HIGHLY, unlikely that Hell exists but I have personally never died before so how can I say for sure?

What do you think? I refuse to believe in Jesus, due to lack of evidence. If I am wrong and God/Jesus was revealed to me then I wouldn't exactly have nice things to say to them.

IF the fire exists, will I be cast into it?

I have no difficulty with you taking your own chances, oru.

As I said earlier you are entirely free to accept or reject what the Bible teaches.

I'm not here to try to persuade you, or anyone else, to accept what the Bible says. That decision to accept, or to reject, what the Bible says is your decision alone.

PopePalpatine

orubiru wrote: »

You did not identify any fallacies AT ALL. You misunderstood what Atheism is and you ran with it.

When corrected on this, several times now, you just ignore the correction.

You then continued being disingenuous and dishonest instead of actually addressing any of the points made.

Atheism is not a belief that God does not exist. It is a lack of belief in God. Can you see the difference there, yes or no?

Atheism does not claim that God does not exist, nor does it aim to prove that God does not exist.

So what is your point?

He's probably going to respond this post with "ad hominem" and nothing more. :rolleyes:

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

But it's in your religion's holy book. It mentions a negative consequence of some kind for those who don't believe.
If there is ANY negative consequence (of any kind) for not believing, then this renders your claim of there not being duress false.

Not so. If belief in those adverse consequences is itself dependent upon belief in Christ, then obviously there is no duress.

If you don't believe, then neither do you believe in the adverse consequences. You can hardly be under duress of something that you believe to be non-existent.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Ditto. Nick Park earlier mentioned something along the lines of "evidence that wouldn't convince you", as if there's two types of evidence? This to me sounds like Ken Ham, who posits two types of science: observational science, and historical science.

Two types of evidence? You mean like in the following quote?

RikuoAmero wrote:

There is no physical evidence in support of the hypothesis of alien life, but there is statistical evidence in favour of it.

RikuoAmero sounds to me like Ken Ham.

orubiru

PopePalpatine wrote: »

He's probably going to respond this post with "ad hominem" and nothing more. :rolleyes:

The thing is, if someone make a misrepresentation such as confusing "Evolution" with "Abiogenesis" or if they ignore repeated attempts to correct their misunderstanding of "Atheism" then it follows quite naturally that the next point made will be an attempt to correct that error.

Yes, while, "YOU are actually incorrect about X" is something of an ad hominem argument it is almost impossible to have a discussion with someone when they want to shift the goal posts on what things mean, misunderstand what things mean, or misrepresent things that are said AND ALSO want to deny any argument that involves correcting their error as false because "ad hominem"

I get it, some people understand the vocabulary of argument "strawman" "ad homenim" "fallacy" "logic" etc but they do not understand how to use that vocabulary to make a statement that makes any sense.

Just in this case any attempt to point out the fact that the person making the argument has made an error with their argument is met with the response that you are criticising the person making the argument and therefore your correction is not noted.

I find it to be highly amusing though.

TheLurker

hinault wrote: »

Faith can ebb and flow. I said this earlier.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.

Do you accept the religious faith of Jesus followers is not a reason to believe the claims of Christianity? That all religions are full of true believers and their existence says nothing other than it is relatively easy to get some people to believe in the most outrageous claims if you follow a particular pattern and target certain individuals?

hinault

TheLurker wrote: »

Do you accept the religious faith of Jesus followers is not a reason to believe the claims of Christianity?

No.

TheLurker

hinault wrote: »

No.

Well there you go.

So if it is support for the truth of Christians claims, is the strong religious faith of other religious followers not also support for the truth of their claims. Scientology, or People Temple or Heaven's Gate for example?

hinault

TheLurker wrote: »

Well there you go.

So if it is support for the truth of Christians claims, is the strong religious faith of other religious followers not also support for the truth of their claims. Scientology, or People Temple or Heaven's Gate for example?

I can't offer a view as to why other people hold those others views that they hold.

Nick Park

The strong faith of the first followers of Jesus is usually referenced as an indicator that their accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus etc were not fabricated.

Of course there are members of many different religions who hold firm opinions, and are even prepared to die for those opinions. So simply having a strong faith is no indication as to the truthfulness of the object of that faith.

However, when we look at those who claimed to be eye-witnesses of an event, then their willingness to die rather than retract their testimony becomes significant. Is it really credible that people would choose to die, often in the most painful ways imaginable, when they knew that their religion was based on a lie and that admitting as much would save their lives?

This, of course, does not prove the Resurrection to be true. It still allows alternative hypotheses where the disciples were genuinely mistaken and thought that they had witnessed the Resurrection of Jesus. But it is a fairly convincing argument against any theory that claims that the first followers of Jesus concocted a false story.

TheLurker

hinault wrote: »

I can't offer a view as to why other people hold those others views that they hold.

Yes, that is the point. So why are you able to say that the reason the followers of Jesus believed is because the claims were true. As opposed to any other reason, from mental health problems to pressure, to simply the accounts being wrong?

Surely the actions of the followers of Jesus should have no bearing on the truth of the claims of early Christianity since we have no insight into what the believers actually were like. There is no one around to testify that actually they were all delusional or had mental health issues.

Nick Park

indioblack wrote: »

Because, once again, if you have physical evidence what need do you have for faith?

In most aspects of our lives we make choices and believe certain things to be true, not because we have conclusive proof, but because there is evidence that leads us to a certain conclusion.

So, for example, in a criminal investigation you will find different investigators examining the same evidence yet reaching different conclusions. That is often because they disagree as to the significance or weight they attach to each piece of evidence.

So, in most cases, there is still an element of faith required even in the presence of physical evidence. This is often overlooked when antitheists try to construct a 'blind faith' strawman.

TheLurker

Nick Park wrote: »

However, when we look at those who claimed to be eye-witnesses of an event, then their willingness to die rather than retract their testimony becomes significant. Is it really credible that people would choose to die, often in the most painful ways imaginable, when they knew that their religion was based on a lie and that admitting as much would save their lives?

Yes, considering we have documented cases of this happening. We have cases of cult members suffering hardship and even death at the orders of cult leaders, including members of the inner circles who involved themselves in the deception and lies involved in recruiting new members.

For example the inner circle of the People's Temple (aka the Jonestown cult) were involved in faking the faith healing the Jones performed in his church in order to gain new followers.

These same people drank the poison during the mass suicide, and ordered the death of their family and children.

A similar thing happened in the Branch Davidians, who refused to surrender despite knowing that David Koresh had been abusing children in his care and had faked miracles.

One should never underestimate what a person will do if they are part of a cult.

Nick Park

TheLurker wrote: »

Yes, considering we have documented cases of this happening. We have cases of cult members suffering hardship and even death at the orders of cult leaders, including members of the inner circles who involved themselves in the deception and lies involved in recruiting new members.

For example the inner circle of the People's Temple (aka the Jonestown cult) were involved in faking the faith healing the Jones performed in his church in order to gain new followers.

These same people drank the poison during the mass suicide, and ordered the death of their family and children.

A similar thing happened in the Branch Davidians, who refused to surrender despite knowing that David Koresh had been abusing children in his care and had faked miracles.

One should never underestimate what a person will do if they are part of a cult.

Neither of those examples are remotely close to what I was talking about. But, since so many strawmen are floating around this thread, I can't blame you for clutching at a few stray straws.

The Resurrection of Jesus was not a minor incidental to the life of Jesus. It was certainly not comparable to the conjouring tricks that Jones or Koresh used to trick the gullible.

You could be a committed follower of Jones or Koresh and see the healing tricks as a legitimate tactic to bring the waverers on board.

However, the Resurrection of Jesus is so central to the claims of Christianity that without it, everything falls apart. The idea that the disciples falsified the resurrection, and then willingly suffered torture and death rather than deny the Resurrection, is really not going to be accepted by any but the most biased critics of Christianity.

hinault

TheLurker wrote: »

So why are you able to say that the reason the followers of Jesus believed is because the claims were true..

As humans we accept the veracity of the testimony that people make.
We do this all the time. We make judgments based on objective evidence and subjective evidence too.
If someone you trust says something to you, you tend to trust their judgement and their account of what happened.

The life and ministry of Jesus Christ spread from Nazareth to the end of the Earth.
The testimony of those who witnessed at first hand what that life encompassed, recorded their accounts so that others could share the good news.

I accept the bona fides of those witness accounts. I accept that the characters who wrote those accounts are accurate and truthful people.
I accept that only truthful people who be enlisted to recount the life of Jesus Christ.

God doesn't need lies in order to teach the message of salvation.

If others want to decide that none of the accounts are true or half true, so be it.

TheLurker

Nick Park wrote: »

Neither of those examples are remotely close to what I was talking about. But, since so many strawmen are floating around this thread, I can't blame you for clutching at a few stray straws.

The Resurrection of Jesus was not a minor incidental to the life of Jesus. It was certainly not comparable to the conjouring tricks that Jones or Koresh used to trick the gullible.

You could be a committed follower of Jones or Koresh and see the healing tricks as a legitimate tactic to bring the waverers on board.

The healing miracles of Jones were stated repeatably by followers as the primary proof that he was a miracle worker, that he was sent by God.

It is a bit difficult to have a miracle worker who fakes his miracles. The idea that his devoted followers would have just viewed it as immaterial as to whether the miracles were actually real or not is frankly ridiculous. His whole mission was set up around proving his divine mission through his miracles. If Jones wasn't a miracle worker he was just a guy talking about religion. Hardly worth dying for.

hinault

TheLurker wrote: »

The healing miracles of Jones were stated repeatably by followers as the primary proof that he was a miracle worker, that he was sent by God.

It is a bit difficult to have a miracle worker who fakes his miracles. The idea that his devoted followers would have just viewed it as immaterial as to whether the miracles were actually real or not is frankly ridiculous. His whole mission was set up around proving his divine mission through his miracles. If Jones wasn't a miracle worker he was just a guy talking about religion. Hardly worth dying for.

We can take it that the adherents to what Jones and Koresh espoused have failed to enlist growing numbers of new believers.

TheLurker

hinault wrote: »

If someone you trust says something to you, you tend to trust their judgement and their account of what happened.
...
I accept the bona fides of those witness accounts. I accept that the characters who wrote those accounts are accurate and truthful people.
I accept that only truthful people who be enlisted to recount the life of Jesus Christ.

Why do you trust them? You know nothing about them other than the religious claims they made. You don't know anything else about them other than what the religion itself told you.

If you read the official Scientology biography of L. R Hubbard would you view that as trust worthy simply it came from the church?

TheLurker

hinault wrote: »

We can take it that the adherents to what Jones and Koresh espoused have failed to enlist growing numbers of new believers.

Thankfully we can. We live in a world full of information, it is much harder for cults to take hold of people these days when the average person is surrounded by information that can counter claims. For example the tales of the cons used in these cults were spread even during the time.

Imagine though that we didn't live in such a time, and that Jonestown has been championed by kings and emperors who controlled the flow of information. What I wonder then would be the records we would be left about what happened.

Nick Park

TheLurker wrote: »

Imagine though that we didn't live in such a time, and that Jonestown has been championed by kings and emperors who controlled the flow of information. What I wonder then would be the records we would be left about what happened.

Hardly relevant, given that the first followers of Jesus, and the millions of others that were inspired by their testimony over the next 250 years, were far from championed by kings and emperors.

hinault

TheLurker wrote: »

Why do you trust them? You know nothing about them other than the religious claims they made. You don't know anything else about them other than what the religion itself told you.

I trust them because they swore on pain on death that what they recounted was true.

I trust them because the account of the life of Jesus, many of the accounts that were recounted by the gospel writers, were prophesized in the Old Testament.
Being knowledgeable Jews, they knew the risks taken by publicly professing their belief in Jesus and what that profession might cost them.

I trust them because the 5,000 or so copies of the New Testaments dating from the 1st century that we possess today, show no textual difference throughout any of the copies. This is a remarkable fact. And this attests to the care and reverence that writers and their copiers put in recording precisely the life and teaching of Christ so that people who have access to the truth.

I trust them because God would only recruit truthful men to recount the life of God's only begotten Son.

Nick Park

TheLurker wrote: »

The healing miracles of Jones were stated repeatably by followers as the primary proof that he was a miracle worker, that he was sent by God.

It is a bit difficult to have a miracle worker who fakes his miracles. The idea that his devoted followers would have just viewed it as immaterial as to whether the miracles were actually real or not is frankly ridiculous. His whole mission was set up around proving his divine mission through his miracles. If Jones wasn't a miracle worker he was just a guy talking about religion. Hardly worth dying for.

That isn't actually the case if you read the accounts of those who followed Jones. The 'miracles' were incidental to the main truth that they thought he was a prophet who held the key to the future. You could take the miracles away and still believe in Jones. And no follower of Jones was ever tortured or executed because of their testimony to the 'miracles'.

The Resurrection of Jesus is in a completely different category. Without it, the entire claim of Jesus would collapse. And His followers would suffer torture and die for the very specific claim that Jesus had risen from the dead.