Christ's birthday

[LEDO]

So after 34 pages of discussion we could sum it up as "If Jesus did exist, most likely he wasn't born on Christmas."

[theVOID]

So after 34 pages of discussion we could sum it up as "If Jesus did exist, most likely he wasn't born on Christmas."

Come on LEDO, less than half the pages are on topic

[littlegrimlin1]

well.. if he did exist, there's a 1/365 chance he was born on christman

[Minimalist]

Hey... if I made a list of your arguments would you stop repeating them?

Only if you could demonstrate that you could control the flood of holy bullshitters who show up regularly to regurgitate their stupidity...and you can't.

[fr0d0]

Only if you could demonstrate that you could control the flood of holy bullshitters who show up regularly to regurgitate their stupidity...and you can't.

hmm... bullshit for bullshit huh

[Minimalist]

Probably time for you to quote Josh McDowell.

[chatpilot]

yeah! Christ wasn't born on Christmas. In fact he wasn't born at all except in the imagination of the anonymous writers of the gospels.

[Edwardo Piet]

Evidence is completely subjective. That which a scientist considers evidence is a far cry from the idiocy that the faithful accept as evidence.

Don't we discuss this enough? There is no absence of faith in belief... only degrees of faith a person needs to believe.

I make a distinction between 'trust', for instance, and 'faith' though...

If there is a lack of evidence then the belief is 'faith'. Just because evidence is, obviously, subjective, doesn't mean that 'faith' does not have the connotations of irrationality that it does.

The fact that evidence is subjective and, say, Science does not claim to know the absolute when it cannot, it doesn't mean that scientists beliefs are faith-based. The fact that doubt is left open does not mean that our belief is not based on evidence. To say that all belief requires a level of faith is, in my mind, claiming that no belief is based on evidence. Because, how I understand it, having faith = not having evidence.

I understand that there must be 'trust' or 'belief' in evidence... but that is different to faith. The words 'trust', and 'faith', for instance, are not identical by definition.

With or without evidence, there can be trust... but there, by definition (at least how I understand it), cannot be evidence if you "have faith", for faith is belief without evidence.

So, the claim that anyone can have faith in evidence, I understand to be an oxymoronic claim.

EvF So since faith is blind, then "blind faith" is just redundant right? Heard that in a couple places....

Exactly.

Unless the term is out of context, in which case it's perhaps better to specify the 'blind'. Since the term 'faith' has other meanings too of course... (like as in 'faithful').

EvF

[tackattack]

Evidence is completely subjective. That which a scientist considers evidence is a far cry from the idiocy that the faithful accept as evidence.

Don't we discuss this enough? There is no absence of faith in belief... only degrees of faith a person needs to believe.

I make a distinction between 'trust', for instance, and 'faith' though...

If there is a lack of evidence then the belief is 'faith'. Just because evidence is, obviously, subjective, doesn't mean that 'faith' does not have the connotations of irrationality that it does.

The fact that evidence is subjective and, say, Science does not claim to know the absolute when it cannot, it doesn't mean that scientists beliefs are faith-based. The fact that doubt is left open does not mean that our belief is not based on evidence. To say that all belief requires a level of faith is, in my mind, claiming that no belief is based on evidence. Because, how I understand it, having faith = not having evidence.

I understand that there must be 'trust' or 'belief' in evidence... but that is different to faith. The words 'trust', and 'faith', for instance, are not identical by definition.

With or without evidence, there can be trust... but there, by definition (at least how I understand it), cannot be evidence if you "have faith", for faith is belief without evidence.

So, the claim that anyone can have faith in evidence, I understand to be an oxymoronic claim.

If evidence is sujective, quantifiable, falsifiable adn repeatable what if from my pespective I have evidence that you can not percieve? If my "peers" in review see the same results what makes that evidence any different from yours? I see evidence in Faith but the leap of faith (better worded trust I agree) is much larger when you can not hope to understand the result of your hypothesis. I'm sure you'll all enjoy ripping this one to shreds.. it's not an attack though just a question.

[Minimalist]

If evidence is sujective, quantifiable, falsifiable

You have to be careful, here. I don't think you are using the word "evidence" correctly. For current purposes, "evidence" can be either written or an artifact. It is what it is. What gets subjective, etc., etc., is the interpretation of that evidence.

A simple example: a coin bearing the image of Alexander The Great is found in Libya or Tunisia by an archaeologist. We know that Alexander's empire did not extend west of Egypt. The discoverer writes that the coin is evidence of trade in the Alexandrian/post-Alexandrian period between the Greek-based entities in the East with the locals in Libya/Tunisia.

Another writer comes along and says that the coin is evidence of Greek military/political expansion into Libya/Tunisia. Such an interpretation is absurd but the original artifact remains the same.

With textual sources the problem becomes doubled. Every author has a point of view. The writings themselves ARE subjective. It was even worse in antiquity when literacy was generally restricted to the upper classes only. So you not only have to sort out the actual meaning of the words within the context and language of the time they were written you also have to ascertain what point-of-view the author was trying to promote. People lie. People exaggerate. People are simply mistaken. But that does not stop them from writing things down. However, the original document still exists and still can be read by scholars and they can dispute the meaning.