Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Richard Dawkins on The Late Late show
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 29920
Ok.... Did a little digging...
www.shroud2000.com is owned by Russ Breault, a little more digging produced background for this guy.
Yeah, this guy is unbiased and likely to be open to the shroud being found to be completely fake. Not.
DeV.0 -
Think of it this way. You are on top of a very tall building and you throw a beach ball out of the window. It slowly falls to the ground, being tossed up and down by the wind, back and forth until eventually it lands in a specific spot on the ground 20 stories below.
What are the odds that the beach ball would land in that specific spot? Given the number of variables involved, from the wind currents at all levels of its flight to the strength and direction you threw it out of the window, to the air pressure in the beach ball itself, the odds are ridiculous. Trillions to one.
So, given that, why are all the people watching not fainting and collapsing with awe that the beach ball fell on that spot? Because that spot has no significance. The beach ball had to fall some where, where specifically it fell has no great value. If it fell 2 meters to the left or right no one would have cared either way. The odds of it falling in that spot are still trillions to one, but that doesn't mean anything to anyone.
Now, repeat but this time place a small target on the ground. You throw the ball out the window and it floats down and down until it lands exactly on that target.
Now the crowd are all standing there with wide open mouths amazed at what they just saw. The ball actually hit the target. Instantly the first thought in everyone's head is that this was fixed. There is no way the ball would hit the target unless someone was fiddling with something.
A very good analogy but I'd add to it to say that after you draw the target, instead of throwing one beach ball, you throw 50 trillion. Then not only is it not that amazing that one hit the target, it's practically a certaintyMiracles by their very nature are rare. Extremely rare.0 -
A very good analogy but I'd add to it to say that after you draw the target, instead of throwing one beach ball, you throw 50 trillion. Then not only is it not that amazing that one hit the target, it's practically a certainty
How many times must this be explained to you? A miracle is where something happens that defies the laws of nature. The frequency of occurence is completely irrelevant. As I've already said to you, if Jesus was still around and turned water into wine every single day it would still be a miracle. Yet again when I pointed out the flaw in what you were saying you ignored me and continued to make the same point to someone else! How can you accuse me of not listening and yet continue to say the same things in perpetuity no matter how many times you are corrected?
Because it would be highly inconvenient for him to consider any explanation which casts doubt on his beliefs.
As I said. Fingers in ears and laalaalaa!
0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »Because it would be highly inconvenient for him to consider any explanation which casts doubt on his beliefs.
As I said. Fingers in ears and laalaalaa!
No, no, no. As long as yes reasonably and rationally completely disprove the undisprovable he'll accept it. Sounds fair enough to me0 -
Sam: That's the point of miracles though. They are extremely rare. Irrespective of what previous points you may have made. It's due to their lack of frequency that they are even considered miracles.
If someone performed an amazing miracle one time, you would be in complete awe surely.
If someone performed the miracle repeated times, it would eventually be perceived as a normal occurrence.
Again, just because you seem to think to yourself that you have "rebutted" anything that I have said, doesn't mean so in reality or doesn't mean I am convinced. I'm not going to get into a petty argument about who rebutted who. I'm under no coercion to accept anything that you say, I am willing to listen though. That's the way it's going to be.
DeVore: I'm not sure you can embed a playlist in youtube, but some of the stuff I have read in the past has been dialogue of William Lane Craig a Christian philosopher. So check this out if you want to be somewhat open minded about it:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D3D7B3E8D08F46A60 -
Advertisement
-
Your definition of reasonable might be a little different to most around these parts. How is "God raised him from the dead" more reasonable than "They imagined it"?
I disagree that "they imagined it" is possible. How 11 people plus 500 witnesses could have all imagined Jesus Christ having raised from the dead is beyond me. How 11 people who had all known Jesus for 3 years could even be remotely mistaken is very unlikely in itself.
Then we are to look at the idea that the disciples were all lying. You have to factor in 11 consciences, and more considering that Luke and others of the 70 went with them also. It might well be conceivable that a single person went on their own and managed to suppress their conscience, but to multiply this by more and more numbers surely would be a recipe for disaster. How could these people who knew they were working in the face of death for a lie keep going?
It's these questions, that would phase me the most when people argue that the Resurrection couldn't have happened. You would need to explain it very very well through another means how the x in the sequence of events of the Resurrection I provided in a different thread could have linked through to spreading the Gospel across the world with conviction if they knew it was a lie. Sam Vimes attempted to do this earlier, and fair play to him, but he wasn't comparing like with like.Plenty of people have explained the possible intentions of the disciples using examples from other cults and basic human behaviour. Why did 25 Heaven's Gate people commit suicide for their religion? You don't have to look very far for plenty of examples of people genuinely believing some really wacky ideas that they are prepared to do some very drastic things based on these beliefs.
The disciples didn't commit suicide. Infact many of them saw death as being a detriment to the Gospel they were to minister for.You guys largely reject these explanations as being implausible or unrealistic, and then embrace an explanation that involves a god raising someone from the dead! So again your standards of what is reasonable or plausible would appear to be a little skewed.
Again, we're getting into natural vs supernatural for the next time in this thread. Yes, I think it is reasonable that if God exists, that through the Holy Spirit Christ was raised from the dead. If God did not exist, then it would be impossible that Christ was raised from the dead. I'm quite capable of discerning that much. That's basically what it comes down to Wicknight.Can you explain how one rules out the supernatural? Surely by definition that is impossible?
By definition it was impossible to think that people could communicate with eachother over large distances via a system similar to the telephone, and via the internet. Surely you should have faith that science can eventually do this. There is no disproof of the Resurrection or of Christianity otherwise. If someone can disprove this Resurrection event systematically, that would be the end of my Christianity.
However even in this very thread, we have had Sam Vimes rant on and on and on about how he claims to have refuted my points several times before. His claim is irrelevant unless it is actually convincing. Infact I'd say most of my discussions with him contain this rather than anything of substance.0 -
-
-
If someone performed an amazing miracle one time, you would be in complete awe surely.
If someone performed the miracle repeated times, it would eventually be perceived as a normal occurrence.
You're not getting the point of what Sam and others are saying about what a miracle is, i.e. a suspension of the laws of the universe or something impossible without the intervention of a supernatural agent.
To illustrate: If Jesus were to suddenly appear today (and let's leave out the theological connotations for the sake of this point!) and jumped off a skyscraper and miraculously floated down safely to the ground, and then (for whatever reason) proceeded to do the same thing multiple times off all the skyscrapers in the world, would that mean that "jumping off skyscrapers" is now a normal, everyday occurrence that anyone should be able to do? That there is no "miracle" involved the 1000th time he did it?
The point is there is a miracle involved no matter how many times he does it, and only he can do it anyway since a miracle is required for it to be possible.
So, as stated, infrequency of occurrence is not a defining characteristic of something miraculous.0 -
Sam: That's the point of miracles though. They are extremely rare. Irrespective of what previous points you may have made. It's due to their lack of frequency that they are even considered miracles.
*head explode*
No.it's.****ing.not. Can someone else please tell him as if our non divine explanations mean anything to him0 -
Advertisement
-
*head explode*
No.it's.****ing.not. Can someone else please tell him as if our non divine explanations mean anything to him
If you want to check my extended reasoning on miracles, read C.S Lewis' Miracles, he explains this rather well and in detail.
I don't know why every discussion on the A&A forum descends into childishness like yours Sam. We are of differing points of views. Perhaps if you didn't always aim for me to ditch my religion, we wouldn't get into these deadlock situations. I'm merely looking for a light discussion, not something that leads to widespread frustration on both sides.0 -
-
If you want to check my extended reasoning on miracles, read C.S Lewis' Miracles, he explains this rather well and in detail.
I don't know why every discussion on the A&A forum descends into childishness like yours Sam. We are of differing points of views. Perhaps if you didn't always aim for me to ditch my religion, we wouldn't get into these deadlock situations. I'm merely looking for a light discussion, not something that leads to widespread frustration on both sides.
It's not differing POV's that is the problem. It's your unwillingness to play the game by fair rules. That's why people get frustrated.
I'm well aware what you are like, though. So it's no surprise to me.
0 -
we have had Sam Vimes rant on and on and on about how he claims to have refuted my points several times before. His claim is irrelevant unless it is actually convincing. Infact I'd say most of my discussions with him contain this rather than anything of substance.
You're actually affecting my mental health at this stage. Your thick headed stubbornness to accept anything contrary to your indoctrinated, brain washed beliefs is making me want to pull my ****ing hair out, although you'll occasionally accept a point of mine if the same point is made by someone who is not me as we have seen. Here you're saying I'm ranting and that it's nothing of substance but you're ignoring the fact that everyone's agreeing with me and saying you're sticking your fingers in your ears. You're the one without any substance mate (Jakkass ignore something :eek:)
I'd like to congratulate you on being the first person to be put on my ignore list. Usually with people such as yourself I don't like to put them on ignore in case they're convincing someone else of their bullsh!t so I can correct them but I think it's safe to say you'll never convince anyone so you can be safely ignored0 -
If you want to check my extended reasoning on miracles, read C.S Lewis' Miracles, he explains this rather well and in detail.
:pac:I don't know why every discussion on the A&A forum descends into childishness like yours Sam. We are of differing points of views. Perhaps if you didn't always aim for me to ditch my religion,
He's not though, that is just you exercising a prejudice about the atheist. I personally couldn't give a crap what you believe in your heart etc. what is worth giving a crap about is you coming in here claiming something to be the truth and then retreating to the supernatural when you're quite obviously wrong.we wouldn't get into these deadlock situations. I'm merely looking for a light discussion, not something that leads to widespread frustration on both sides.
What else do you expect Jakkass? Some middle ground between atheists and theists about something? What?0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »It's not differing POV's that is the problem. It's your unwillingness to play the game by fair rules. That's why people get frustrated.
What are these "fair rules" of yours? Is there no way that people can have a reasonable discussion without people breaking out into childishness? Seriously. I'm actually willing to listen to what you say, but take note, there is no guarantee that I will automatically find what you say to be convincing or that I will accept it. People will disagree, and I clearly disagree with you, Sam Vimes and many others on this thread. It's how you choose to deal with such disagreement that really counts.Flamed Diving wrote: »I'm well aware what you are like, though. So it's no surprise to me.
Again, what is the point in descending into character assassinations. I'm sure you could tell me what I'm like. Infact I'll even give you an opportunity to have a rant about it if you want. It's amazing how hot and bothered atheists seem to get when an alternative view is proposed.0 -
-
CerebralCortex wrote: »He's not though, that is just you exercising a prejudice about the atheist. I personally give a crap what you believe in your heart etc. what is worth giving a crap about is you coming in here claiming something to be the truth and then retreating to the supernatural when you're quite obviously wrong.
In fairness I'm not "obviously wrong". You just think I am wrong. There is a difference. I would even concede that I think that you are wrong, but I don't know that you are wrong, nor do I say that you are "obviously wrong".CerebralCortex wrote: »What else do you expect Jakkass? Some middle ground between atheists and theists about something? What?
Well, I think the tone of the discussion could be much different to the way it actually ends out in practice. For example, we don't need the kind of drama nonsense that has just been carried out by Sam Vimes. I do believe that atheists and theists can get on with a reasonable discussion without getting hot and bothered about it. Infact I've had many such discussions with friends without it getting like this. I think there is many areas that atheists and theists can find middle ground in, albeit not on the God debate. For example, myself and Sam Vimes are both pro-life as we've seen in other threads on abortion. I don't really know yet what I have in common with the rest of you. However, I will say this, I am human and there is more to my life than just my religion (even though Christianity is a big part of it obviously).0 -
I disagree that "they imagined it" is possible. How 11 people plus 500 witnesses could have all imagined Jesus Christ having raised from the dead is beyond me. How 11 people who had all known Jesus for 3 years could even be remotely mistaken is very unlikely in itself.Then we are to look at the idea that the disciples were all lying. You have to factor in 11 consciences, and more considering that Luke and others of the 70 went with them also. It might well be conceivable that a single person went on their own and managed to suppress their conscience, but to multiply this by more and more numbers surely would be a recipe for disaster. How could these people who knew they were working in the face of death for a lie keep going?
The same way mystics in Indian preform fake operations knowing full well they are tricking people. A lot more than 11 consciences involved. You also have the preachers who perform elaborate tv shows of healing people which have also been known to be faked. Again a lot more than 11 people involved. You also don't have 11 people saying the saw Jesus you have some books that aren't from the 11 people stating the story. Now you can argue that the 4 Gospels were written by 4 disciples within their possible life times but it is likely that these records were written by other people from verbal accounts. These records cannot be said to prove 500 hundred people saw Jesus just that story has said 500 people.It's these questions, that would phase me the most when people argue that the Resurrection couldn't have happened. You would need to explain it very very well through another means how the x in the sequence of events of the Resurrection I provided in a different thread could have linked through to spreading the Gospel across the world with conviction if they knew it was a lie. Sam Vimes attempted to do this earlier, and fair play to him, but he wasn't comparing like with like.
That is effectively right is might argument. Popularity of religion or ethos doesn't mean it is true just popular. Using the same logic that means the Koran is true. The people spreading this religion also believe with conviction. Many lies have been spread to further a belief and we have a word for it, propaganda. People involved quite often believe what they are saying or choose to spread the lies for what they see as a greater good. The churches have a history of covering up science and I don't know anybody who doesn't believe they have. Are you the first?By definition it was impossible to think that people could communicate with eachother over large distances via a system similar to the telephone, and via the internet. Surely you should have faith that science can eventually do this. There is no disproof of the Resurrection or of Christianity otherwise. If someone can disprove this Resurrection event systematically, that would be the end of my Christianity.
The big point is you haven't really got any proof for the resurrection and the whole thing deteriorates into the whole spaghetti monster logic which I offer to you to disprove.
Things I find hard to understand about your point of view are
1) People wouldn't lie about events when there is massive amount of events where exactly that has happened
2) People could be tricked about events when again there is plenty of evidence of similar been done
3) The mere fact your personal religion has spread makes it right but don't seem to afford the same belief to other religions that have spread
4) The claim God must exist and don't believe that is faith because I haven't seen you provide proof.
It generally feels like you are ignoring history and human nature but it seems you are doing so out of choice.0 -
In fairness I'm not "obviously wrong". You just think I am wrong. There is a difference. I would even concede that I think that you are wrong, but I don't know that you are wrong, nor do I say that you are "obviously wrong".
I don't know man you and your Christian brethen proclaim some pretty crazy **** all the time.Well, I think the tone of the discussion could be much different to the way it actually ends out in practice. For example, we don't need the kind of drama nonsense that has just been carried out by Sam Vimes.
You're just as guilty as he is man. In fact I think you come here for that very purpose but hey I could be wrong. I apologise if I am.I think there is many areas that atheists and theists can find middle ground in, albeit not on the God debate.
But yet that is all you come here for.However, I will say this, I am human and there is more to my life than just my religion (even though Christianity is a big part of it obviously).
How could there be going on what you claim about it? Christianity counts for everything the way you talk. Apparently you'd have no actual life without Christianity.0 -
Advertisement
-
Flamed Diving wrote: »Jakkass, what you are essentially saying is this.
[my rant]
You are simply being stubborn.As a muleFlamed Diving wrote: »I'm well aware what you are like, though. So it's no surprise to me.Again, what is the point in descending into character assassinations.
So, one minute you are agreeing with me and now you are indignant?
I'm not resorting to personal attacks. This is not ad hominem. It is directly related to the discussion. You simply won't allow the discussion to go anywhere because you keep shifting the goalposts, changing the subject, stating unreasonable claims, backed by little or no evidence, ignoring points that are crippling to your argument and when people call you on this charade of yours, you throw your hands up and start playing victim.
Pathetic.0 -
Sam: That's the point of miracles though. They are extremely rare. Irrespective of what previous points you may have made. It's due to their lack of frequency that they are even considered miracles.
MrP0 -
I disagree that "they imagined it" is possible. How 11 people plus 500 witnesses could have all imagined Jesus Christ having raised from the dead is beyond me. How 11 people who had all known Jesus for 3 years could even be remotely mistaken is very unlikely in itself.
At some point in all of this, each christian has to decide for themselves that it's impossible for an author, or his subsequent editors, to fib about a story in which everybody has a deep, vested interest.0 -
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 79125
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »pwnd!
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure whether to bother pointing it out :rolleyes:0 -
I disagree that "they imagined it" is possible. How 11 people plus 500 witnesses could have all imagined Jesus Christ having raised from the dead is beyond me.
This again gets back to the crux of the matter.
You are perfectly happy to reject explanations that seem implausible yet are perfectly natural and are known to occasionally happen (as I said people, including groups of people, have believed some very strange things and done very strange things based on these beliefs) yet embrace an explanation that requires the suspension of the laws of physics and the introduction of an omnipotent god in order to get it to work.
If you are prepared to consider and accept such an extreme explanation why are other, less supernatural, explanations beyond you?
This is where the issue of standards comes into play.
What standard of plausibility do you rule out as implausible all of them imagining this happened for what ever reason, yet allows for the introduction of a god that raises people from the dead.
To us here such compartmentalisation of standards of plausibility seems ridiculous.How 11 people who had all known Jesus for 3 years could even be remotely mistaken is very unlikely in itself.
If you are prepared to accept as plausible a supernatural explanation that involves a god suspending physical laws and bringing people back to life surely you should be equally open to other natural or supernatural explanations that don't require such an extreme position?
Given that 11 people who all knew Jesus for 3 years being mistaken is still in the realms of known human behaviour and known physical laws to me it would seem much more plausible than an explanation that only works if you introduce an omnipotent god who suspends the laws of nature?You would need to explain it very very well through another means
It has not been explained very well through the "God did it" explanation, why are you happy to except that explanation with out any ability to test or examine it in any detail?
Yet you expect a detailed, plausible, alternative to convince you otherwise?The disciples didn't commit suicide. Infact many of them saw death as being a detriment to the Gospel they were to minister for.Yes, I think it is reasonable that if God exists, that through the Holy Spirit Christ was raised from the dead. If God did not exist, then it would be impossible that Christ was raised from the dead. I'm quite capable of discerning that much. That's basically what it comes down to Wicknight.
But if you are happy to accept such an extreme explanation, introducing a god that suspends and alters natural law, as being plausible then on what grounds are you ruling out other explanations as being implausible? What standard are you using?
It seems to me that it is a case of you being prepared to accept one and only one supernatural explanation, the one that fits your religion, and all other explanations you fall back to a high level of scepticism. This seems rather illogical.
If we open the flood gates to supernatural explanations then how do we disregard some and not others, let alone rationalise only considering one specific one.
Can you honestly say you cannot think of a supernatural explanation to explain how these people would think they saw Jesus that doesn't involve a resurrection. There may be some trouble with the plausibility of natural explanations, but once you are prepared to accept supernatural explanations the world is your oyster. I can think of a dozen supernatural explanations of the top of my head.
So what is the rational for picking one supernatural explanation over any other one? How are we supposed to determine the likelihood of one over the other. How do we determine that God resurrected him is more or less plausible than time travelling aliens, or the Viking trickster god Loki having a laugh?
Again it is ridiculous to say on one hand that explanation X is implausible because of these natural rules (people tend not to die for a lie, groups of people tend not to see similar illusions etc) and then on the other hand throw natural law out the window and embrace a supernatural explanation.
If standards of adhering to nature don't apply for one explanation why are they expected to apply for others?Surely you should have faith that science can eventually do this.
How can you test something that doesn't adhere to any common rules or natural law? How do you determine anything about that thing if it is under no requirement to act or behave in any standard way?
God is a perfect example. Given that by definition there is no requirement for God to adhere to anything we can measure how does one test whether or not God has or has not done something?
Given that God can make him doing something look exactly like he didn't do something, and that we cannot determine God did something over any other supposed supernatural being, it becomes utterly impossible to test this.
Take the resurrection. How does one determine that it was actually God (the Abrahamic god) who resurrected Jesus. This seems to be just taken as a given by Christians (the justification seems to be simply that no one else was claiming otherwise, as if that some how means something), but it is impossible to determine this is actually the case if you are happy to accept the concept of super powerful beings might exist. There is no test, none what so ever, that can be applied to even begin to assess one scenario from the other.
An example I like to use is the Viking god Loki just having a laugh. There is absolutely no way to determine whether it was the Abrahamic god or Loki resurrecting Jesus if you are prepared to entertain the idea of a resurrection.
Religious people tend to be prepared to entertain only the explanation put forward by their religion (like I said Christians seem to accept God resurrecting Jesus simply because that was the only claim put forward), and are perfectly happy to disregard other possible supernatural explanations as being irrelevant, but I can see no justification for this at all beyond blind faith.
So how do you rule out the supernatural?There is no disproof of the Resurrection or of Christianity otherwise. If someone can disprove this Resurrection event systematically, that would be the end of my Christianity.
A good example of this type of challenge and the toothlessness of it is the way "God did it" is simply moved every time science comes up with a natural explanation for something (life, the earth, the sun).
Religious people are happy to do this because no one can ever demonstrate that God wasn't actually the ultimately the force behind something, even if that thing looks totally natural. "God did it" is currently resting just before the Big Bang. If scientists discover a natural explanation for the Big Bang (M-Theory say) "God did it" will simply shift to be the cause of that thing. Statements such as "prove God didn't create the Earth" as pointless because even with an overwhelming natural explanation "God did it" just moves some where so that believers can still say God ultimately created the Earth.
So how does one rule out a supernatural cause for something if people are prepared to accept this type of nonsense?
It is impossible given the nature of the supernatural. How would one prove that Jesus wasn't resurrected, even if we had the tools to examine that question (a time machine say).
Video evidence of the body taken down of the cross and thrown into a pile of other bodies where dogs eventually ate the dead body? It is very easy to see how believers would say that that is simply a detail that was wrong and Jesus still was resurrected. Prove he wasn't resurrected after he was eaten!!
Video evidence of a group of people claiming they are currently looking at Jesus, but the video shows they are staring at a blank wall? Prove that Jesus isn't appearing in the mind's eye of the men! Prove that the image of Jesus isn't hidden from the camera! (God doesn't like to be tested after all)
Just look at the Flood. The evidence that none of that happened is overwhelming, yet believers rationalise this in two different ways, believers like Wolfsbane choose to believe all the evidence is wrong, others choose to believe that the story is not literal. How many actually abandon their religion?0 -
www.shroud2000.com is owned by Russ Breault, a little more digging produced background for this guy.
It doesnt matter who owns the site , I didnt bother to look at who owns the site , more whether the information on it is correct. This information has been published in peer reviewed science publications , that just happened to be the first site with the correct info in a google search.
The point of the post is to show that the scientists involved in the original carbon dating have re-visited the data and the samples ( only 50% used in the carbon test so not all destroyed ) and have declared it invalid. They were all in the TV program , and all say so.
This does not of course mean its authentic , even if it did come in at 2000 years old in some future test all it says is how old it is , the point of the post was to illustrate how good science and scientists behave , there was a problem with the original sample , but instead of sticking to their guns like some rabid zealots , they publish the information and say so.0 -
Flamed Diving wrote: »I'm not resorting to personal attacks. This is not ad hominem. It is directly related to the discussion. You simply won't allow the discussion to go anywhere because you keep shifting the goalposts, changing the subject, stating unreasonable claims, backed by little or no evidence, ignoring points that are crippling to your argument and when people call you on this charade of yours, you throw your hands up and start playing victim.
Pathetic.
I'm very glad that other people can see this and it's not just me being a ranting lunatic. Although I'm sure there's a bit of ranting lunatic thrown in there too :P0 -
Advertisement
-
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »pwnd!
Plus his accusation of an argument from authority was directed at Russell's Teapot... as if we were accepting the concept because Ol' Bertrand said it rather than because it's self-bloody-evident.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement