Why be good?

[robvalue]

I clearly stated, what seems like hundreds years ago now in the other topic, that I instantly disbelieve my own wife as soon as she mentions anything supernatural. I trust her more than I trust anyone in the world, and I can ask her questions about her experience. I believe she believes, but I don't believe her beliefs are accurate. Given that perfectly reasonable (I would say) stance of me rejecting eye witness testimony from an incredibly reliable, trustworthy source who I really believe is not lying to me... why the living fuck would I take at face value even more ridiculous claims by people I know nothing about? You can add into that another ten people I trust who were also there and give the same account as my wife. Sorry, still don't believe it, for the same reasons. I have no evidence to examine, and I have extraordinary claims being made. The only logical thing to do is reject the claims until such time as evidence can be provided. Now, if my wife makes a mundane claim, I will almost certainly believe her unless I have a reason not to. That is the difference.

Of course, this was not addressed. I just got more of why they were reliable, which is already more than covered in my example. This continued ridiculous false equivocation between fairly mundane claims that can be investigated and unverifiable wild claims is doing us atheists a great service to show the level of dishonesty needed to even justify the beliefs to the believer themself.

Does Randy even believe what he is saying anymore? This is what happens when you have the conclusion pre-drawn, instead of starting at the beginning and working up. "My argument must be valid because the conclusion must be valid."

[abaris]

I didn't actually scroll down through the list...I was merely illustrating a point to another poster that in about 60 seconds, I came up with a list of names that he could easily research for himself. He had asked me for a list of names, and i showed him how to do his own homework. Get it?

That member obviously being me asking you for proving your claim that "countless famous" former atheists converted after studying the bible. So you had to do some searching, however short, to prove a claim you pulled out of your ass obviously.

But there are countless examples of people who were atheists for most of their adult lives...famous atheists even...who came to a theist or deist point of view. Some of them did so after specifically setting out to prove that the Bible is not true or reliable, etc.

And let's just add that 18 wayward names doesn't equal "countless famous" in my books.

Keep tap dancing.

[pocaracas]

So much reading that I had to just to catch up with this thread! Can't you people just stay put on Sundays?!

Luke 1 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Gee, Luke was aware of lots of accounts of Jesus. It appears that He got more press than some in this forum care to admit.

Anyway, as I read this, I was reminded of another book... care to guess which from the quote below?

Prologue

1
Concerning Hobbits

This book is largely concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history. Further information will also be found in the selection from the Red Book of Westmarch that has already been published, under the title of The Hobbit. That story was derived from the earlier chapters of the Red Book, composed by Bilbo himself, the first Hobbit to become famous in the world at large, and called by him There and Back Again, since they told of his journey into the East and his return: an adventure which later involved all the Hobbits in the great events of that Age that are here related.
Many, however, may wish to know more about this remarkable people from the outset, while some may not possess the earlier book. For such readers a few notes on the more important points are here collected from Hobbit-lore, and the first adventure is briefly recalled.

It seems, we should believe Tolkien, as he's basing his retelling of the story on the authoritative telling by Bilbo. Sadly, the red book has been lost forever. Had it not been for Tolkien, we'd never know that Hobbits and elves had ever existed on this planet.

[Longhorn]

So much reading that I had to just to catch up with this thread! Can't you people just stay put on Sundays?!

Why? Poca's in church Sundays?

[pocaracas]

So much reading that I had to just to catch up with this thread! Can't you people just stay put on Sundays?!

Why? Poca's in church Sundays?

No.. damn kids took over my computer to have a LAN party with minecraft.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure. That's why there are all those Temples to these gods on the street corners of most major cities...because everyone appreciates all that validation. 

Theres a temple to a god every few blocks where I'm from.  /shrugs  In any case, I think that it may be callous for a catholic to poke fun at the dearth of other gods temples.  Y'all had a had in that, a rather bloody hand, you know? Often enough -your catholic temples- ARE the pagan temples. Just food for thought. I wonder whether your head would explode if you left your comfy corner of the world and went to a place like India? Would you suddenly need to reassess your faith and come to terms with hinduism? Doubtful.

[Esquilax]

But what I'm driving at is this: we DO believe people all the time based upon our inclination to accept what people say at face value unless we have some reason to doubt them.

Hey Randy? Supernatural claims are a reason to doubt somebody.

"I had lunch with my wife yesterday."

"I had lunch with Tom Hanks yesterday."

"I had lunch with the entire cast of the Avengers yesterday."

"I had lunch with a dragon yesterday."

Four claims. Please point to the claim on that list that is, as far as all the evidence you have shows, impossible. Now, let's take a step back: please point to the claim on that list for which you would require additional evidence before believing out of hand.

It's the dragon claim, right? You probably wouldn't even fully accept the Tom Hanks claim until you got a little bit extra, because I don't know Tom Hanks personally. I doubt you'd accept the third claim, because it has a lot more possible, yet unlikely, details in it. And the thing is, those claims that you'd, rightfully, be skeptical of, they are at least fully possible, in that all the people involved exist, and lunch is a thing that people do.

When the claim is impossible, the rational option is not to believe it. Resurrections, miracles... all impossible, according to the evidence at our disposal. At the very least, you'd require more evidence than a firsthand account, and with the bible you don't even have that, because you cannot confirm authorship, nor the firsthand nature of it. This is an important distinction.

Fair enough. But it was pretty obvious that not only you three but Stimbo and others were getting pissed that I asked if you would be willing to testify in court, etc. CD was very insulted and said so - if memory serves. The consensus of the group was, "Who the hell are you to question...". And no, that is not a quote...just my impression of the sentiment of the group earlier in the thread. 

Context is important: that part of the conversation came following a hugely presumptuous, insulting outburst from you, that you insisted was true even after we got mad. What you got was carry-over anger.

Parkers, I think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would say they HAD documented their accounts pretty well. Luke is pretty emphatic about having researched the whole thing carefully, for example.

Which is a claim that you cannot confirm, that itself purports to confirm things that are supernatural. Therein lies the problem. [/quote]

I clearly stated, what seems like hundreds years ago now in the other topic, that I instantly disbelieve my own wife as soon as she mentions anything supernatural. I trust her more than I trust anyone in the world, and I can ask her questions about her experience. I believe she believes, but I don't believe her beliefs are accurate.

Same with my wife and ghosts- she's an atheist but she has this weird potential blind spot when it comes to ghosts. She tells me her firsthand account, I don't believe it. It's just too much of a claim to swallow on no evidence, no matter how generally trustworthy and intelligent I find her to be.

[Jackalope]

Fair enough. But it was pretty obvious that not only you three but Stimbo and others were getting pissed that I asked if you would be willing to testify in court, etc. CD was very insulted and said so - if memory serves. The consensus of the group was, "Who the hell are you to question...". And no, that is not a quote...just my impression of the sentiment of the group earlier in the thread. 

If you think that's why I found your line insulting, your reading comprehension is even worse then I thought - and that's the most charitable explanation I can come up with.

[downbeatplumb]

I clearly stated, what seems like hundreds years ago now in the other topic, that I instantly disbelieve my own wife as soon as she mentions anything supernatural. I trust her more than I trust anyone in the world, and I can ask her questions about her experience. I believe she believes, but I don't believe her beliefs are accurate. Given that perfectly reasonable (I would say) stance of me rejecting eye witness testimony from an incredibly reliable, trustworthy source who I really believe is not lying to me... why the living fuck would I take at face value even more ridiculous claims by people I know nothing about? You can add into that another ten people I trust who were also there and give the same account as my wife. Sorry, still don't believe it, for the same reasons. I have no evidence to examine, and I have extraordinary claims being made. The only logical thing to do is reject the claims until such time as evidence can be provided. Now, if my wife makes a mundane claim, I will almost certainly believe her unless I have a reason not to. That is the difference.

Of course, this was not addressed. I just got more of why they were reliable, which is already more than covered in my example. This continued ridiculous false equivocation between fairly mundane claims that can be investigated and unverifiable wild claims is doing us atheists a great service to show the level of dishonesty needed to even justify the beliefs to the believer themself.

Does Randy even believe what he is saying anymore? This is what happens when you have the conclusion pre-drawn, instead of starting at the beginning and working up. "My argument must be valid because the conclusion must be valid."

We seem to have very similar wives. Mine is a spiritualist who even channels spirits down the "temple" or in "circle".

[robvalue]

Hehe Mine is mainly into ghosts and paranormal stuff like that. She doesn't make a big deal about it in our relationship, which is why it isn't a problem. She accepts I just don't believe in things like that, and I leave her to think/say whatever she wants about it. She's not on my case trying to make me believe it too, I couldn't be with someone like that. I think she gets it from her parents, they're a bit "woo". I could probably straighten it all out with a bit of a lesson in critical thinking, but I think she kind of wants to believe in these things so I leave it be.