(June 9, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If I were trying to be completely sure, I would require additional proof for ALL of them. After all, you might be single and lying about a wife or about having lunch at all. How do I know? It's more common, of course, but people lie for all sorts of reasons.

Sure, but we don't often wait for certainty before we formulate our beliefs; reasonable probability is enough. You could, for example, accept the claim about my wife without looking like a complete lunatic; it's a mundane claim, it doesn't conflict with what we know about reality, and so on. Meanwhile, accepting the dragon claim at face value would make you look insane, because it's a fantastic claim that contradicts readily with what we currently understand about reality. Additional evidence is needed there.

The question is where one places the boundary, between claims that it's reasonable to entertain on their own, versus claims for which it is not reasonable to entertain at all, and frankly, you probably have a line in mind for every other claim bar your particular religious beliefs; you belong to one specific religion, after all, the supernatural claims of all the other religions somehow miss this "you should believe claims unless you have a good reason not to," schtick you've been pulling, so chances are their supernatural nature, from an entity you haven't presupposed to exist, is a good enough reason to reject those claims... it's just your specific god beliefs that get a pass, that are subject to far softer scrutiny than all other supernatural claims. That special pleading is the weakness of what you're talking about.

Quote:BTW-Is this a standard argument from an "Atheist-in-a-Box" kit or something? It's been posed about four times.

It's kind of an important distinction, dude. If you're going to have a conversation about the nature of claims, then discussion of the factors that go into how we accept claims is a big part of that. If you're getting a repeated theme, obviously it's something we find important.

The nature of the claims IS significant.

If you claim to have had lunch with your wife, and I know you are married, no biggie.
If you claim to have had lunch with Tom Hanks (or President Obama depending upon the version), I might believe you if I also know you work in the film industry.
If you claim to have had lunch with the Avengers, see point #2 above.
If you claim to have had lunch with a dragon, then I have to evaluate this based on other information. Have similar claims been made about dragons eating lunch with humans before (and not having them FOR lunch)? What about other creatures - are they known for sharing a meal with humans?

You may recall that I said we accept what reliable and knowledgeable people have said - in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Now, many in this forum have suggested that they would not believe their ten best friends or their wives, etc. if they were told about an extraordinary encounter with God. Well, I suppose skeptics do exist. Maybe they are all atheists.

But I think that there is a greater likelihood that someone could see Jesus than that they could have lunch with a dragon for the simple reason that seeing Jesus or hearing from God is a common claim. Having lunch with a dragon is not.

A common claim can still be mistaken...it is not proof of anything. But my own experience and that of people who I know well leads me to believe that "lunch with Jesus" is far more likely than lunch with the Avengers or a dragon.

(June 9, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: But I think that there is a greater likelihood that someone could see Jesus than that they could have lunch with a dragon for the simple reason that seeing Jesus or hearing from God is a common claim. Having lunch with a dragon is not.

Quote:... there is a greater likelihood that someone could claim to see Jesus than that they could claim to have lunch with a dragon for the simple reason that seeing Jesus or hearing from God is a common claim. Having lunch with a dragon is not.

Fixed that for you.

They cannot see jesus if he did not exist and they cannot see jesus if he did exist as he is dead. The dragon thing I am not so sure of. There is no proof against it existing. After all, Jackie Paper used to play with one and I am sure they had lunch together on occasion.

And I have three unimpeachable witnesses, Peter, Paul, and Mary. (two of them were apostles and one of them wrote gospels)

(June 9, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The nature of the claims IS significant.

You may recall that I said we accept what reliable and knowledgeable people have said - in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

How do you determine the reliability of these knowledgeable people?

If a person is otherwise extremely reliable and knowledgeable, but they disagree with your theistic beliefs, and have other theistic beliefs, does that impune  their reliability?

So, you believe some people (those that agree with your theistic beliefs) until evidence is provided to the contrary? I hope you never claimed to be a critical thinker.

Quote:Now, many in this forum have suggested that they would not believe their ten best friends or their wives, etc. if they were told about an extraordinary encounter with God. Well, I suppose skeptics do exist. Maybe they are all atheists.

Of course I would not believe them, unless they were able to provide more evidence than just their personal experience. There are way to many ways the human mind can fool someone into believing they experienced something they did not. Or misinterpret an real experience.

And it does not matter at all how reliable and knowledgeable my friends or wife are on any other subjects. 

Quote:But I think that there is a greater likelihood that someone could see Jesus than that they could have lunch with a dragon for the simple reason that seeing Jesus or hearing from God is a common claim. Having lunch with a dragon is not.

If the population of Muslims ever increases to outnumber Christians, will that make their claims any more true?

Quote:A common claim can still be mistaken...it is not proof of anything. But my own experience and that of people who I know well leads me to believe that "lunch with Jesus" is far more likely than lunch with the Avengers or a dragon.

What if one of the people you know that is now a Christian, converted to Islam (it does happen), do you now believe their new experiences? Why or why not?

(June 9, 2015 at 8:11 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: What if one of the people you know that is now a Christian, converted to Islam (it does happen), do you now believe their new experiences? Why or why not?

The problem there would not be with what I know of my friend but what I know of Islam.

(June 9, 2015 at 6:50 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: .. Search the scriptures to see if I'm quoting out of context.

Have you ever found even one atheist who was primarily concerned with the accuracy of scripture?  Weird.

Well, I am.  Were they an accurate reflection of reality, they would be critical to my primary goals-- to avoid suffering, specially my suffering.
It's just that I find the proposition that the scriptures are a collection of bronze age tribal histories and mythical tales of greatness much more plausible than the one where it contains distilled truth from some ultimate supernatural being.

(June 9, 2015 at 6:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The unforgivable sin refers to the obstinate refusal to accept the promptings of the Holy Spirit to seek forgiveness from God. If someone dies in that condition - unrepentant, defiant - then how would God forgive them without abusing their free will?

I don't see how one can refuse to accept the promptings of an omnipotent being.
Are the promptings not sincere?  Holy S. doesn't really mean them?
Or is It intentionally applying less than the necessary amount of convincing?
How can an omnipotent being get anything less than exactly what It wants?  

(June 9, 2015 at 9:01 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 8:11 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: What if one of the people you know that is now a Christian, converted to Islam (it does happen), do you now believe their new experiences? Why or why not?

The problem there would not be with what I know of my friend but what I know of Islam.

Ah...

More evidence that you are guilty of special pleading. 

Islam apologitics is just a unconvincing as Christian aplologetics.

You are able to see how unconvincing Islam aplogetics is, you are just are unable or unwilling to examine your own beliefs with the same level of scrutiny, and you proved it when you said, "I said we accept what reliable and knowledgeable people have said - in the absence of evidence to the contrary".

(June 9, 2015 at 6:50 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: .. Search the scriptures to see if I'm quoting out of context.

Have you ever found even one atheist who was primarily concerned with the accuracy of scripture?  Weird.

No, so you can be the first! 

If you wish to argue effectively against theism - and Christianity, in particular - then you must know our arguments and our scriptures better than we know them ourselves.

And if you think the scriptures are inaccurate, it will be invaluable to actually know them yourself rather than simply cutting and pasting from a few atheist websites. The reason is that once the Christian asks you something that is NOT covered by those sites, you will have nothing left to fall back on.

Make sense?

---

(June 9, 2015 at 5:57 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: To the contrary. As an amateur apologist, I am aware of the significant number of atheists who are swimming against the tide and finding their way back to belief in God

Which begs the question what you are hoping to achieve here. Last time I checked, apologists ranked pretty high on the laughing stock scale. You don't really fancy yourself a missionary, do you?

No. I think I said that I'm an amateur apologist. Yes, I'm sure I said that.

And, this is where you'd be wrong.

There is a rapidly growing awareness in the Christian community that know what we believe (the stuff of catechetics) must be supported with the why we believe it (which is the meat and potatoes of apologetics).

Apologetics websites, books, seminars, tapes, radio programs, etc. are exploding. We have money, time, talent, 2,000 years of experience and most of all, Truth on our side. 

Why are we doing this now?

We've decided to fight back. 

---

(June 9, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If I were trying to be completely sure, I would require additional proof for ALL of them. After all, you might be single and lying about a wife or about having lunch at all. How do I know? It's more common, of course, but people lie for all sorts of reasons.

Sure, but we don't often wait for certainty before we formulate our beliefs; reasonable probability is enough. You could, for example, accept the claim about my wife without looking like a complete lunatic; it's a mundane claim, it doesn't conflict with what we know about reality, and so on. Meanwhile, accepting the dragon claim at face value would make you look insane, because it's a fantastic claim that contradicts readily with what we currently understand about reality. Additional evidence is needed there.

The question is where one places the boundary, between claims that it's reasonable to entertain on their own, versus claims for which it is not reasonable to entertain at all, and frankly, you probably have a line in mind for every other claim bar your particular religious beliefs; you belong to one specific religion, after all, the supernatural claims of all the other religions somehow miss this "you should believe claims unless you have a good reason not to," schtick you've been pulling, so chances are their supernatural nature, from an entity you haven't presupposed to exist, is a good enough reason to reject those claims... it's just your specific god beliefs that get a pass, that are subject to far softer scrutiny than all other supernatural claims. That special pleading is the weakness of what you're talking about.

Quote:BTW-Is this a standard argument from an "Atheist-in-a-Box" kit or something? It's been posed about four times.

It's kind of an important distinction, dude. If you're going to have a conversation about the nature of claims, then discussion of the factors that go into how we accept claims is a big part of that. If you're getting a repeated theme, obviously it's something we find important.

I have made a note of this argument, and I will see if I can find an answer that is more satisfying...no, more complete. I'm not sure you'll be satisfied, but I suspect I will. 

Till then, you may have the last word.

---

(June 9, 2015 at 6:55 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If I were trying to be completely sure, I would require additional proof for ALL of them. After all, you might be single and lying about a wife or about having lunch at all. How do I know? It's more common, of course, but people lie for all sorts of reasons.

And that would be a very reasonable quest if that information was worth the time and effort.  The information could be found simply by checking the county records for a marriage certificate.  You could then verify the certificate itself.  Then you could check the restaurant where they ate.  However, as it is a mundane statement and the proof or disproof is probably of no value to you, it would be more than likely that you just accept it and move on.

Luke suggests that he did research just as you recommend. Right in the opening verses of his gospel.

---

(June 9, 2015 at 7:14 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 6:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: They don't WANT to be forgiven, so they cannot be.

No body cares what your secret friend will or won't forgive.

People who are seeking God's forgiveness do.

---

(June 9, 2015 at 7:48 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: But I think that there is a greater likelihood that someone could see Jesus than that they could have lunch with a dragon for the simple reason that seeing Jesus or hearing from God is a common claim. Having lunch with a dragon is not.

Quote:... there is a greater likelihood that someone could claim to see Jesus than that they could claim to have lunch with a dragon for the simple reason that seeing Jesus or hearing from God is a common claim. Having lunch with a dragon is not.

Fixed that for you.

They cannot see jesus if he did not exist and they cannot see jesus if he did exist as he is dead.  The dragon thing I am not so sure of.  There is no proof against it existing.  After all, Jackie Paper used to play with one and I am sure they had lunch together on occasion.

And I have three unimpeachable witnesses, Peter, Paul, and Mary.  (two of them were apostles and one of them wrote gospels)

Jesus is not dead. He was. But He is risen. 

---

(June 9, 2015 at 9:12 pm)JuliaL Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 6:50 pm)whateverist Wrote: Have you ever found even one atheist who was primarily concerned with the accuracy of scripture?  Weird.

Well, I am.  Were they an accurate reflection of reality, they would be critical to my primary goals-- to avoid suffering, specially my suffering.
It's just that I find the proposition that the scriptures are a collection of bronze age tribal histories and mythical tales of greatness much more plausible than the one where it contains distilled truth from some ultimate supernatural being.

Thank you, Julia. Many people find the ethical teaching of Jesus to be very inspiring...what are your thoughts on them?

Quote:

(June 9, 2015 at 6:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The unforgivable sin refers to the obstinate refusal to accept the promptings of the Holy Spirit to seek forgiveness from God. If someone dies in that condition - unrepentant, defiant - then how would God forgive them without abusing their free will?

I don't see how one can refuse to accept the promptings of an omnipotent being.
Are the promptings not sincere?  Holy S. doesn't really mean them?
Or is It intentionally applying less than the necessary amount of convincing?
How can an omnipotent being get anything less than exactly what It wants?  

This is what so many struggle with according to their own admission in these threads. They think God must appear as a 300-foot-tall being visible in the sky day and night from every spot on earth.

Instead, God's touch with most souls is light-as-a-feather.

Think of how gently you would hold a baby chick or a tiny kitten. The difference between God and us is even greater. He is a whisper most of the time, but He knows how to get our attention, too, when that is required.

---

(June 9, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 9:01 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The problem there would not be with what I know of my friend but what I know of Islam.

Ah...

More evidence that you are guilty of special pleading. 

Islam apologitics is just a unconvincing as Christian aplologetics.

You are able to see how unconvincing Islam aplogetics is, you are just are unable or unwilling to examine your own beliefs with the same level of scrutiny, and you proved it when you said, "I said we accept what reliable and knowledgeable people have said - in the absence of evidence to the contrary".

"In the absence of evidence to the contrary" refers to the reliability of the people...not the message or events they testify to.

IOW, if I know you to be a shady character, criminal past, drug use, etc...or you are shown to be lying under oath, etc., then that is evidence to the contrary that you are a reliable person.

OTOH, if I know you to be of sound character and reputable in other matters, I will have a tendency to believe you on the basis of your reliability.

Some questions for you:

What do you think about the pope? Do you agree him on everything or don't care? Something in between?


What do you consider yourself politically? Conservative? Liberal?


How do you deal with catholics who disagree with you on some issues?

(June 9, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 9, 2015 at 6:50 pm)whateverist Wrote: Have you ever found even one atheist who was primarily concerned with the accuracy of scripture?  Weird.

No, so you can be the first! 

If you wish to argue effectively against theism - and Christianity, in particular - then you must know our arguments and our scriptures better than we know them ourselves.

And if you think the scriptures are inaccurate, it will be invaluable to actually know them yourself rather than simply cutting and pasting from a few atheist websites. The reason is that once the Christian asks you something that is NOT covered by those sites, you will have nothing left to fall back on.

Make sense?

Not really.  The point that many of us have said over and over and over in one way or another is that no written or oral eyewitness account alone is sufficient to prove the supernatural.  Full stop, no more is necessary.  

However, some of us for one reason or another have read a lot scripture, not to mention theology.  And it doesn't take much looking to find contradictions, anachronisms, and portions that contradict what we do know about the Biblical period.

83 pages in, have you found any reasons to be good yet Randy? Did you find what you were looking for, or no?