14 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd, contrary to one of your earlier posts, THIS is the basis for all our disagreements.
If you cannot prove "Your mother loved you" then you cannot know if it is true.
If this is really your mindset, I feel sorry for you, not knowing if anyone who says they love you is telling the truth or not.
I say it is ENTIRELY possible to know the truth of something that cannot be proven.
And, as I said, THIS is the basis of all our arguments in this forum.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 May 15
Originally posted by Suzianne
Atheists are indeed numerous in (some of) the Humanities as well. Across all 'high-level' academia, the atheism level has to be >50%.
The ones whose root IS in Science (archaeology, psychology) have the most, to be sure. But atheists also abound in any field of study where the 'facts' are somewhat 'cut and dried'. Like History.
And again, don't you ...[text shortened]... could an 'up-and-coming' historian expect to go if he writes about Jesus being the 'Son of God'?
Across all 'high-level' academia, the atheism level has to be >50%.
I disagree, however what is relevant [in as much as it is relevant, which isn't much] is the level
of atheism in the relevant field. And studying the rise of Christianity has for some reason often
tended to attract Christians.
But atheists also abound in any field of study where the 'facts' are somewhat 'cut and dried'. Like History.
You think that 'the facts are cut and dried' in History????
Since when?
And again, don't you suppose that 'peer review' has an 'antiseptic' effect here, keeping out blatant religious opinion? Indeed, just how far could an 'up-and-coming' historian expect to go if he writes about Jesus being the 'Son of God'?
Why is this historian a 'he'?
It is indeed true that Journals [of any quality] do like their submitted papers to be factual.
It's not their/our/my fault that your religion is not factually true.
However, there are and have been many Christians who academically only argue for a historical Jesus,
while privately believing in a biblical one. And their beliefs have distorted their findings.
As it turns out, the tendency to bias is MUCH stronger on the Theists side of the argument.
As Richard Carrier has said [and many of us here have also said]. A historical Jesus doesn't actually effect
our world-view in the slightest. Just as a historical Mohammed doesn't make Islam any more plausible a religion.
Most, including Richard Carrier and myself, would have started off assuming that most of these religious figures
[Jesus, Moses, Abraham, ect] actually existed and that there were real people at the heart of the myths.
And that doesn't effect our view of the validity or truth of the religion one jot.
However, if these figures are myths and completely fictional, then that's a catastrophe for believers.
We don't need Jesus to be mythical. You do need him to be historical.
14 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeFor someone claiming that the truth DOES matter (which it does), you are remarkably bereft of the ability to know truth when you see it, by your own claim.
Ninja-Edit
For anyone who reads the Bible, or any sacred writing for that matter, at any level beyond the literal factual--which is after all the most primitive and least fruitful--for anyone who delves into sacred literature at the allegorical, poetical, moral, or mystical level, the question of its truth becomes moot.
Bull.
Ther ...[text shortened]... at the truth doesn't matter while providing precisely zero valid
justification for that claim.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneI have explained this to you before, and you ignored me then, so I really don't expect
And, contrary to one of your earlier posts, THIS is the basis for all our disagreements.
If this is really your mindset, I feel sorry for you, not knowing if anyone who says they love you is telling the truth or not.
I say it is ENTIRELY possible to know the truth of something that cannot be proven.
And, as I said, THIS is the basis of all our arguments in this forum.
you to pay attention this time either.
However...
Spare me your fake pity, it's utterly unnecessary.
As I said, you cannot KNOW anything that you cannot justifiably prove. This is Absolutely and definitionally true.
However, what I didn't say, was that you cannot justifiably claim [assuming it's actually true] to know somebody loves you.
Beyond that, people very often believe that people love them who evidently and demonstrably do not.
Given the obviously high failure rate in identifying people who really do love you, people should adopt a less
absolute binary view of who loves them or not. And instead hold gradated levels of belief about who does or does
not love them.
And, as I said, THIS is the basis of all our arguments in this forum
No, this is all about the difference between belief [or claims of knowledge] based on evidence or faith.
It's still exactly the same argument... just with an emotionally fraught and sappy overtone.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneThat is not at all what I did.
Comparing God to the lottery.
Now I've heard it all.
I compared believing based on faith to trying to earn a living by playing the lottery.
The subject of the faith based belief is irrelevant to the argument as it applies universally
to all faith based arguments.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneThe truth does matter.
For someone claiming that the truth DOES matter (which it does), you are remarkably bereft of the ability to know truth when you see it, by your own claim.
That is why faith is not a valid method for determining what is or is not true because it has a
[to date] effective zero percent success rate, and no means of improving.
There are countless [contradictory] faith based beliefs held by people all over the world.
Many if not most of which YOU agree are not true/valid.
And they are all ultimately justified 'by faith' because they are unsupported by evidence.
We had thousands of years where such beliefs dominated and held back progress.
When science in it's modern form finally surfaced, along with secular philosophies and thought
with the ongoing enlightenment, it did more to change and improve our world and did more
to uncover the nature and truths of it, than all the thousands of years of faith based beliefs for it
in just a couple of hundred years.
Faith does not work.
Science/reason does.
14 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeAsk the God of science 'Why the universe ?' and look! its absolutely bereft!
The truth does matter.
That is why faith is not a valid method for determining what is or is not true because it has a
[to date] effective zero percent success rate, and no means of improving.
There are countless [contradictory] faith based beliefs held by people all over the world.
Many if not most of which YOU agree are not true/valid.
And ...[text shortened]... iefs for it
in just a couple of hundred years.
Faith does not work.
Science/reason does.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 May 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is no god of science.
Ask the God of science 'Why the universe ?' and look! its absolutely bereft!
And if you don't know the answer to a question, the answer is "I don't know".
It's not, "I'm going to make up a fictional being to make myself feel better".
14 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeAs I suspected, absolutely bereft - no more questions, the God of science is evidently impotent.
There is no god of science.
And if you don't know the answer to a question, the answer is "I don't know".
It's not, "I'm going to make up a fictional being to make myself feel better".
17 May 15
mb: "... the truth of a claim is prior. I say meaning is prior. If you don’t know what something means, you don’t know what would be true if it were true;
fg: I say gibberish you speak, convey meaning you do not. "
It is necessary to know what a proposition means before its truth-value can be evaluated. That is elementary. That is why I say that meaning is prior to truth.
17 May 15
Originally posted by moonbusI believe he is the atheist that said that rather than worship a god like the one in the Bible, he would rather go to the hypothetical Hell of burning sulfur or something to that effect.
gf: I should like to know whether, hypothetically, you would embrace the Christian religion and accept Jesus as your Lord and savior if the Bayesian result were different. Suppose the Bayesian result were close to 1. Would that do it for you?
17 May 15
Originally posted by moonbusIf the Bayesian result of the evidence for the Christian religions claims being true were anything over 50% I would believe the claims of the religion (after double checking the claims to my satisfaction). Whether or not I would 'accept Jesus as my Lord and saviour' would depend on which claims were being discussed.
gf: I should like to know whether, hypothetically, you would embrace the Christian religion and accept Jesus as your Lord and savior if the Bayesian result were different. Suppose the Bayesian result were close to 1. Would that do it for you?
One factor to be careful of is that one claim by someone being more likely to be true than not does not make all claims by that person more likely to be true than not.
So even if you convinced me that a God probably exists, you would not automatically have convinced me that all your claims about said God are true.
What was discussed in this thread in relation to Beyesian results was merely the question of whether or not Jesus as a man actually existed. So if that was the question for which the result close to 1 was obtained, then no, I would not then 'accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior' nor even think he performed one single miracle. I would only think that he more likely than not, existed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 May 15
Originally posted by moonbusIf there were sufficient evidence to justify belief in the existence of the god of the bible,
gf: I should like to know whether, hypothetically, you would embrace the Christian religion and accept Jesus as your Lord and savior if the Bayesian result were different. Suppose the Bayesian result were close to 1. Would that do it for you?
and I was aware of such evidence etc...
Then I would no-longer be an atheist, in that I would believe that that god existed.
I would still be an anti-theist and iconoclast. I would not worship such a being [or any being].