(August 17, 2016 at 5:40 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(August 17, 2016 at 5:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: Show me how any of my arguments for the NT could be applied to the gnostic or other "gospels".

I'm not a NT or other gospel scholar. Just saying, they were written around the same time, in the same manor (second hand) about the same subject(s). Other than the NT gospels being canonized years later, how do they differ in origin? Couldn't  all the arguments you've given for the NT gospels also be applied for the acceptance/belief for the other gospels?

Written around the same time? No, they were not. So, the authors were certainly not eyewitnesses nor knew any eyewitnesses. Also, the content of the gnostic and later "gospels" contain a different theme and message than the period canonical books and were refuted by contemporaries and people immediately following these much later authors.

(August 17, 2016 at 1:19 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It means that I don't think you are justified in making these arguments against one thing, and then denying them when the same principles can be applied to science, that I rely on other's for knowledge of.

I'm not building an argument against anything, RR. That's not my responsibility. I am simply pointing out the lack of sufficient corroborating evidence to support your truth claims.

Quote:However if you haven't seen for yourself, then you are relying on the same faith and reason, as in other categories for knowledge.

Nope. Equivocating again. Faith is meaningless within the realm of science, RR. Faith is required for religious beliefs precisely because there IS no evidence to foster confidence in the truth of its claims. If you want to say skeptics have developed an..."earned trust" in the scientific method, I might be okay with that. But this is NOT the same thing as faith.

If you hold a pencil up above your head and let it go, what happens? Did you need "faith" to observe the effects of gravity on the pencil? Also, in 2016 there is a robust database of original scientific research on almost every subject imaginable available for you to read with your very own eyes. Tangible, graspable, observable evidence at your fingertips. No "faith" necessary.

(August 18, 2016 at 9:12 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 17, 2016 at 1:19 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It means that I don't think you are justified in making these arguments against one thing, and then denying them when the same principles can be applied to science, that I rely on other's for knowledge of.

I'm not building an argument against anything, RR.  That's not my responsibility.  I am simply pointing out the lack of sufficient corroborating evidence to support your truth claims.  

So then you are not taking a position of true or false then?

And I didn't make any truth claim here; I was just discussing the validity of witness testimony as evidence and the flat denial of testimony without qualification or any critical thinking.

Quote:

Quote:However if you haven't seen for yourself, then you are relying on the same faith and reason, as in other categories for knowledge.

Nope.  Equivocating again.  Faith is meaningless within the realm of science, RR.  Faith is required for religious beliefs precisely because there IS no evidence to foster confidence in the truth of its claims.  If you want to say skeptics have developed an..."earned trust" in the scientific method, I might be okay with that.  But this is NOT the same thing as faith.  

If you hold a pencil up above your head and let it go, what happens?  Did you need "faith" to observe the effects of gravity on the pencil? Also, in 2016 there is a robust database of original scientific research on almost every subject imaginable available for you to read with your very own eyes.  Tangible, graspable, observable evidence at your fingertips.  No "faith" necessary.  

I think that what you are doing here is called illegitimate totalian transfer. Trust is one of the meanings of "faith" and there is a reason, that the qualifier "earned" or "blind" is affixed to the word.
Other fallacies that may be present here, include straw man, and begging the question.

For instance, where I came into the discussion, was the unqualified rejection of witness testimony as evidence. It was said, that what was testified about in a book, was not evidence. My assumption about our conversation so far, was that you where making this argument as well. And yet here, you give an example from science calling that which is written in a database.... evidence. Now if you are saying, that what the writers of scripture claimed to have seen is not evidence, but this database is; please explain why. What is the difference?

(August 18, 2016 at 11:40 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 18, 2016 at 10:37 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I didn't make any truth claim here;  I was just discussing the validity of witness testimony as evidence and the flat denial of testimony without qualification or any critical thinking.

First, Just to be clear:  I am not making the claim, "there is no God."  Theists make the claim, "there IS a god."  My position is I withhold belief that this claim is true, or likely to be true, until sufficient evidence for the claim can be demonstrated.  

A quibble: the theist affirms, "I believe there is a god." They can still be agnostic, i.e., not make a knowledge claim.

(August 18, 2016 at 11:48 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(August 18, 2016 at 11:40 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: First, Just to be clear:  I am not making the claim, "there is no God."  Theists make the claim, "there IS a god."  My position is I withhold belief that this claim is true, or likely to be true, until sufficient evidence for the claim can be demonstrated.  

A quibble: the theist affirms, "I believe there is a god." They can still be agnostic, i.e., not make a knowledge claim.

Yes, you're right!  Thank you for the proof read.  ?

(August 18, 2016 at 11:50 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 18, 2016 at 11:48 am)Crossless1 Wrote: A quibble: the theist affirms, "I believe there is a god." They can still be agnostic, i.e., not make a knowledge claim.

Yes, you're right!  Thank you for the proof read.  ?

I may not be good for much, but I can do pedantic.