What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[fr0d0]

<snip>

You asked very clearly and simply, "How do you know these things exist?" What I know and how I know it, whatever "it" happens to be in any particular case, is an epistemological issue. And given that you are asking for "some proof" of such "supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion," I detected the scent of a justified-true-belief epistemological model. I could tell you how I know God exists but that is NOT going to constitute proof of such a supernatural being for you. Why? Antithetical worldviews, Tegh: the claims of my worldview will not meet the criteria of your worldview, even at the most basic level of metaphysics ("true").

The existence of beings like God and angels is consistent with reality. That is the claim. And it immediately raises metaphysical issues: What is reality? What does it include? Or exclude? When is something real? Or existent? Or true? Can something be real but not true? Or exist but not be real? Such issues are the purview of metaphysics and occupy the basic levels of a worldview. If you do not have a definition of reality and a set of criteria to be met, then how on earth could you evaluate the claim? But if you do, then does that definition and set of criteria come from my worldview or somewhere else? If somewhere else, then why are you begging the very question (namely, the nature of reality and what is consistent with it)?

If you are content to simply assume the truth of your worldview, even when evaluating another, which is fallacious, then so be it. But stop expecting the claims of my worldview to comport with the criteria of yours. Spoiler alert: They won't.

<snip>

You seem to approach reality in an experiential kind of way. If your senses can perceive it, then it is real. (But this leaves unanswered some very crucial questions.) And I concede for the sake of argument that you have not experienced a supernatural being, such as God or an angel. But if you are defining what is real by your sensory apparatus, and if your senses can be deceived, and if you hold to something like a justified-true-belief epistemology, then how can any belief of yours be considered true, much less justified? That is, how can you claim to know anything? And if you can't, and insist that no one else can either, then you are being inconsistent every time you ask someone how they know X or prove Y. Moreover, is not everybody's beliefs fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes (the biochemical activity of one's brain following physical laws of nature)? If so, then nobody's beliefs are rationally inferred, including yours. And if they are not rationally inferred, then what meaningful difference is there between your claims and someone else's?

Awesome post that deserves setting in stone somewhere. (no slight on tegh or anyone else intended)

[Ryft]

Of course I read it. It's in plain English. You were using the "I'm sure" expression in a typical meaning of "I think it's like this, but don't know for sure."

Uh, no. Tough break on the mind-reading, sorry, but that wasn't how I was using it. Next time try rational discourse. It has a much higher success rate.

Are you wanting to entertain the idea that before Christ people would already be aware of the Christian God? And perhaps that they would already be aware of "biblical Christianity"?

Fail. That is not evidence supporting your claim that "back then they weren't aware of your Christian God." If you have none, then so be it. But admit it. I want to know if you are the type of atheist who thinks it is legitimate to make claims without a shred of evidence supporting it, so I know how to evaluate your stance when you respond to others who do the same thing. You're still somewhat new to me so I am still learning about you.

I am not a complete ignorant [sic] of the concept of God claimed by Christians.

Perhaps not. But then that is not the God we were speaking of, as the record clearly shows. You demonstrated and admitted ignorance about the God claimed by biblical Christianity, that is, the one revealed in Scripture through responsible exegesis of the texts. Your job will be a lot easier if you stick to superficial rhetoric, playing the claims of these Christians against those of other Christians. When the smoke clears I will be over here defending the one and only thing I ever defend around here, biblical Christianity, which remains largely ignored and completely unrefuted—at least according to the rules of rational discourse, since irrational twaddle and peanut gallery cackling never amounts to a refutation of anything

And no, I am not going to provide you a theological education. If you are ignorant about the God of biblical Christianity, the systematic theology of Scripture regarding the nature and character of God, then so be it. You are not alone in that ignorance. But it means you are incapable of mounting an intelligible and rational objection against any of it, and frankly that suits me just fine. Another atheist who cannot raise either an intelligible or rational objection against the very thing he presumes to reject.

Hence, my information about said God must be wrong or lacking ...

No, I am willing to wager that you were spot on accurate. I have heard a lot of Christians make those kind of claims about God. The problem is that you were addressing something other than the God at issue, who is not defined by what this Christian and that Christian happens to claim, like some Tim Burton inspired solipsistic nightmare. You want to attack the product of those claims? Go ahead. But don't pretend that's some kind of legitimate substitute for what Scripture claims about God.

(If they said their claims are derived from Scripture, then did you ask where exactly? Or did they offer where? If so, then where in Scripture was that? If not, then shame on you for being so credulous and uncritical.)

As long as I have a different concept from yours, I can't be expected to have a decent conversation.

Nor one that is rational or even intelligible. Your objections must remain hopeless twaddle. But then why are you trying to raise objections against something you are so terribly ignorant about? Young-earth creationists do that with respect to the age of the earth, for example; why would you engage in that sort of behavior? It's just embarrassing.

Like the claim that only your biblical Christianity "holds itself as not only true but necessarily true." What does that say about the others that you ignore?

I don't make boneheaded claims about the beliefs of those whose texts I am ignorant about, the way you did about biblical Christianity. When I describe this or that belief of Hindus I am very circumspect because my knowledge is limited, unlike you who did a running faceplant into a wall of wtf.

However, I do make claims about the truth value of their beliefs (be what they may), which is a very different thing. The particular belief hardly matters; it is part of a not-A worldview and thus necessarily false, given A being true. But maybe there is another worldview out there that also holds itself as necessarily true. I don't know of one. Do you? But it hardly matters; A and not-A cannot both be true, nor both be false. So which one is true? We evaluate each responsibly and see which one is left standing. Spoiler alert: It will always be biblical Christianity.

[Re: It is invalid to conclude that God can't pass a message straight to all of mankind from the fact that he hasn't.]

Hasn't he?

No. It has always been to a covenant representative, like Adam or Israel for example, but never all mankind.

Maybe he did ...

Yeah? There is a maybe about this issue? Okay, show me in Scripture where we can find that.

Or were you fabricating your own god again and trying to imagine it as mine? When you're done I'll be over here with the God you decided to not refute.

The only fact here is that there are many different religions in the world and some of them have been around since before Christianity, if we are to believe the records. Again, if we are to believe the records, well before the Hebrew God was believed there were already other religions.

Yes. And so ... what, exactly? There were religions around before Adam and Eve existed, too. What is your point?

Were these misinterpretations of the Hebrew God's message? Is the Hebrew God a misinterpretation of some other god?

That really depends on 'when' we are talking about, doesn't it? 127,000 years ago there was no message whatsoever from the God of biblical Christianity.

Please derp less. A lot less.

I can't, it's a second nature!

Ah well. Makes my job very, very easy. So be it.

Perhaps not indeed. I'm aiming to have one more fallacy with each reply. ;)

I guess this one counts as the "appeal to ridicule", no?

[yawn] ... No.

Yeah, I read your reply to Tegh. Typical believer stuff: "I believe because I believe and you, unbeliever, can't tackle this belief with your science, because it's in a 'position' where science can't touch it." Did my summary go too wide?

That is an adorable strawman, really. But hey, if that is the only thing you have any hope of defeating, well then, why should I deny you such satisfaction? Enjoy. As for me, I certainly appreciate all the proof that you provide to my claims. I just sit here and it gets handed to me. AND my claims and arguments are left untouched. Too easy.

The question was, "Why do you consider those things irrelevant and unnecessary?"

Um, because they are? Seriously. Describing the reasoning which produced this or that claim of mine has no relevance to the one and only thing that, if shown to be true, would disprove Christianity entirely for me.

Is this it? https://atheistforums.org/thread-1540-po...l#pid30243

It seems like it, but it's hard to tell because that lands us mid-conversation. I read all the way to the end and recognize there's some significant meat missing from that discussion. Either it is in preceding posts or another thread.

P.S. Are we done with the verbal point-and-laugh? Can we get to the rational and circumspect yet?

---

---

I think we do share some of the same basic views about reality.

Except we don't, Tegh. That is what you really need to recognize. It is like you are so hopelessly inured to your belief system that you are incapable of recognizing or even conceiving of any alternative view. No, we do not share in common any views about reality—not even what constitutes reality. The antithesis is fundamental. What we share in common is a skeptical attitude. We are not credulous and gullible. But skepticism is an heuristic device, not any sort of "view about reality."

It's just that religious people like yourself appear to be acting inconsistent with those views that you hold.

Except I don't, as we shall see.

Let's say I have a barn, and I bring you close to the barn and point to it and say, "On the inside there's an interstellar spaceship." Unless you're completely gullible, you wouldn't believe me unless you had some sort of empirical proof. ... [This example] shows how any properly educated adult in modern western civilization would respond ... I'm assuming it's similar to the process [that] you yourself would follow, too.

Of course. I am a skeptic.

But when it comes to existence of angels and demons and heaven and hell, you appear to not apply the same critical evaluation even though it's in the same category as claiming there's a spaceship in my barn ... What's the difference between claiming a spaceship is in my barn and claiming heaven exists? ... Why the inconsistency?

What inconsistency? You're right, I don't apply the same critical evaluation to both—because you're wrong, they are not in the same category. A spaceship is an empirical object, an angel is not. Demanding empirical evidence for a non-empirical object is a categorical error. You make that error. I do not.

So your worldview assumes the existence of heaven and angels ...

No, it does not assume that. Stop characterizing my worldview according to yours.

... but it doesn't assume the existence of the spaceship in my barn?

Why would it?

Why is it you can critically evaluate the existence of the spaceship in my barn but not angels? ... I expect you to be a full blown skeptic when it comes to spaceships in barns but with angels and heaven and hell, you seem to give those things a special pass.

Please do not ignore this question: How did you conclude that I don't critically evaluate the existence of angels? Anticipating that you did not conclude it but rather assumed it, please answer this follow-up question instead: If you assumed it, then why did you think that was a reasonable assumption to make about me?

I esteem logic and reason but I've only been studying it for at most a total of a year.

You will get decent practice at it if you answer the questions I ask you, instead of glossing over them to ask new ones of your own to me.

Then tell me, what constitutes proof to you of the existence of the supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion?

Scripture.

I don't see why we need to get into those issues.

Then you need to read what I invest time in writing because the answer was right in that paragraph: "If you do not have a definition of reality and a set of criteria to be met, then how on earth could you evaluate the claim" that God and angels are consistent with reality?

[pocaracas]

You demonstrated and admitted ignorance about the God claimed by biblical Christianity, that is, the one revealed in Scripture through responsible exegesis of the texts. Your job will be a lot easier if you stick to superficial rhetoric, playing the claims of these Christians against those of other Christians. When the smoke clears I will be over here defending the one and only thing I ever defend around here, biblical Christianity, which remains largely ignored and completely unrefuted—at least according to the rules of rational discourse, since irrational twaddle and peanut gallery cackling never amounts to a refutation of anything

And no, I am not going to provide you a theological education. If you are ignorant about the God of biblical Christianity, the systematic theology of Scripture regarding the nature and character of God, then so be it. You are not alone in that ignorance. But it means you are incapable of mounting an intelligible and rational objection against any of it, and frankly that suits me just fine. Another atheist who cannot raise either an intelligible or rational objection against the very thing he presumes to reject.

There is then no hope for me to have any discussion on the subject with you, for I am as much inclined to learn about your biblical god as I am to learn about the hindu, norse, egyptian and other gods.
It's just another personal god stemming from your interpretation of your special holy book.

One question though: what do those scriptures say about how they were written?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I think we do share some of the same basic views about reality.

Except we don't, Tegh. That is what you really need to recognize. It is like you are so hopelessly inured to your belief system that you are incapable of recognizing or even conceiving of any alternative view. No, we do not share in common any views about reality—not even what constitutes reality. The antithesis is fundamental. What we share in common is a skeptical attitude. We are not credulous and gullible. But skepticism is an heuristic device, not any sort of "view about reality."

For the sake of argument then, I will except it is this skeptical attitude. It does not appear to me that you have consistently applied this attitude.

But when it comes to existence of angels and demons and heaven and hell, you appear to not apply the same critical evaluation even though it's in the same category as claiming there's a spaceship in my barn ... What's the difference between claiming a spaceship is in my barn and claiming heaven exists? ... Why the inconsistency?

What inconsistency? You're right, I don't apply the same critical evaluation to both—because you're wrong, they are not in the same category. A spaceship is an empirical object, an angel is not. Demanding empirical evidence for a non-empirical object is a categorical error. You make that error. I do not.

According to what or whom? Why are angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc non-empirical objects? This seems like a completely arbitrary attribute designed only to avoid testing. I could just as easily claim the spaceship in my barn is a "non-empircal" object.

So your worldview assumes the existence of heaven and angels ...

No, it does not assume that. Stop characterizing my worldview according to yours.

I'm only guessing what your worldview might be and leading on with that because you've hardly been open and specific to what you exactly believe about these things.

... but it doesn't assume the existence of the spaceship in my barn?

Why would it?

Again I was going on a hunch illustrating what seems to me to be special standards to way you evaluate angels etc. And I still detect special standards only specifically this time with the whole "non-empircle" business.

Why is it you can critically evaluate the existence of the spaceship in my barn but not angels? ... I expect you to be a full blown skeptic when it comes to spaceships in barns but with angels and heaven and hell, you seem to give those things a special pass.

Please do not ignore this question: How did you conclude that I don't critically evaluate the existence of angels? Anticipating that you did not conclude it but rather assumed it, please answer this follow-up question instead: If you assumed it, then why did you think that was a reasonable assumption to make about me?

Again, I was acting on a hunch. You haven't demonstrated that you have critically evaluated this things in the scrutiny as any other extraordinary claim so I was acting on the possibility that haven't in the chance the discussion might go somewhere. You obviously think you have (and maybe you have) but there's still been nothing shown in this thread to support these "non-empircle" objects.

Then tell me, what constitutes proof to you of the existence of the supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion?

Scripture.

That is pretty vague. If somebody asks me why I believe in evolution, I could just reply "textbook" and be done with it? That's hardly a sufficient answer. I need specifics.

I don't see why we need to get into those issues.

Then you need to read what I invest time in writing because the answer was right in that paragraph: "If you do not have a definition of reality and a set of criteria to be met, then how on earth could you evaluate the claim" that God and angels are consistent with reality?
[/quote]

I still do not see why that's relevant. I'm questioning your commitment to consistently applying skepticism to your own worldview and asking you to demonstrate you have consistently applied your skepticism. This is what I've been trying basically get at all along.

[DeistPaladin]

Just to let you know, TEGH, Ryft is a breed of apologist that goes on the offensive.

The strategy is when you have no evidence to support your position, you put on a pompous demeanor, utilize an extensive vocabulary, dismissively insult your opponent, sprinkle in a few choice latin phrases and hope all this makes you look intelligent. You go on the offensive against the skeptics, keeping an eye out for any chinks in the armor to harp on, even when such issues are beside the point. Favored logical fallacies of this breed include ad hominem, ad hominem tu quoque, appeal to ridicule, poisoning the well and, most of all, red herring evasion.

The way to handle the pompous apologist is to not react to their insults or allow them to change the subject. Instead, firmly hold their feet to the fire. The burden of proof is on them and you'll need to make that point repeatedly clear. Keep bringing the subject back to their beliefs and how they justify them.

"Do tell, Ryft..." was an expression I often used when debating him.

Eventually, the pompous apologist breaks and you catch them in a lie. Then they lie about their lie. And then you win when they put you on "ignore" and search for an easier target.

[genkaus]

So you assert; but that is compelling only to the already convinced.

Or to anyone who has knowledge of how reality works.

That follows only on a correspondence theory of truth, which I do not hold—and the statement was mine. If the statement was yours, then it could be said that "true" was one of the criteria. Please attempt to remove your metaphysical blinders every now and then.

Nope. Read again. The statement covers both correspondence and coherence theories of truth.

So, what theory of truth do you subscribe to and how does it make that statement not equivalent to truth?

I do not presuppose the truth of my worldview when evaluating another; that is question-begging foolishness, a fact which escapes the notice of far too many here.

Including you, it seems - given on your insistence on Christianity being "true necessarily".

But obviously I presuppose the truth of my worldview when expressing and defending it. Not to put too fine a point on it but, "Duh." And this worldview holds itself as not only true but necessarily true.

Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Christianity might hold itself as "necessarily true", but without presupposing its truth how exactly did you judge that to be true?

That is why the "existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live" would disprove Christianity entirely for me, for such a thing should be impossible.

Given the existence of so many of them - from naturalism onwards - you should no longer be a Christian.

Ipse dixit ... [yawn]

Your fellow atheists who already agree with this are of course nodding in agreement. But just how satisfying can an echo chamber really be for you?

Maybe that's all you need: to be convincing for the already convinced. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Yes, my voice does seem to echo in your head - why might that be?

The fact that you consistently refuse to acknowledge known errors of your worldview proves your presupposition of it.

Wrong. I reject it because it is self-defeating (i.e., quite apart from my own worldview).

Really? Prove it.

[fr0d0]

I need specifics.

No, you do not. You need to understand the basic concept first. If you can't grasp the basic concept, breath is wasted on detail.

Ryft has laid out the basics for you. Address the problem. If, at step one, you object. There you must stay.

[Ryantology]

Scripture.

I'm sorry, he asked for 'proof' and you gave him 'faith'. It's a simple error, and you ought to double-check your work before you take such a condescending, smart-assed tone with people.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I need specifics.

No, you do not. You need to understand the basic concept first. If you can't grasp the basic concept, breath is wasted on detail.

Ryft has laid out the basics for you. Address the problem. If, at step one, you object. There you must stay.

The "problem" from what I can tell is irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm basically asking Ryft why he thinks angels etc exist. I've heard nothing from him unless one thinks a simple one word sentence "Scripture" constitutes a meaningful answer. Saying "Scripture" is an appeal to authority fallacy no different than saying evolution is true because Dawkins says so.

He claimed the Bible, a book that makes extraordinary claims, is consistent with reality. I would like to know why he believes the Bible's extraordinary claims are true so he can confidently claim the Bible is consistent with reality. He thinks heaven and hell, and angels, etc, are part of reality, so I'm wanting to know why he thinks those things are part of reality. I'm pretty sure he has an answer but he hasn't given one apart from an appeal to authority fallacy (see previous paragraph).

It's hypocritical for one to be skeptical about hidden spaceships, mind readers, prophecy, ghosts, etc., and then turn around and believe in heaven and hell, angels, demons, etc., because "the bible says so." This is what I suspect Ryft is guilty of. His classification of all the Bible's extraordinary claims into this "non-empirical" category seems arbitrary and sounds like an appeal to definition fallacy.

[fr0d0]

Yes tegh, you aren't addressing the problem. You just repeated what Ryft demonstrated was flawed thinking. ie you're failing to grasp what you say you want to grasp. Go back a step and address the problems squarely.

The problem you think irrelevant is the question you're asking for the answer to.