Why be good?

[Simon Moon]

---

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.

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.

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

---

Way to ignore the crux of the question, Randy.



It is not a standard argument of atheism, it is a standard argument of critical thinking, skepticism, rationality.

The best method to assure ones internal representation of reality maps as accurately as possible to external reality, one should always proportion the strength of ones beliefs to the strength of demonstrable evidence available. 

[Randy Carson]

That is a commonly repeated objection, and one that I have put on my list to cover in the future.

You're already a proven liar for your faith. Why should we believe anything you have to say about the extraordinary claims your faith makes?!?

Don't.

Test everything I say very carefully. Search the scriptures to see if I'm quoting out of context. Read good books by authors on both sides of the issue. Think objectively and logically for yourself.

Don't take my word on a single thing. 

[emjay]

@Randy

Given that there's already a thread here for insulting the Holy Spirit and in any case I'd guess that many atheists on this site have done it at one time or another, what's your take on that? I thought it was pretty clear that it was the unforgivable sin but only recently have I realised that there isn't quite as much consensus on that among Christians as I once thought. But if you do think it is an unforgivable sin, why are you preaching to the damned?

[Ravenshire]

[quote='SnakeOilWarrior' pid='961928' dateline='1433886681']

You're already a proven liar for your faith. Why should we believe anything you have to say about the extraordinary claims your faith makes?!?

Don't.

Test everything I say very carefully. Search the scriptures to see if I'm quoting out of context. Read good books by authors on both sides of the issue. Think objectively and logically for yourself.

Sorry, but I don't have to go past your claim of 18 converts. Proven to be a lie and all you could do is spin in an attempt to keep using it.

Don't take my word on a single thing. 

Believe me, I won't. It's proven bad.

[Esquilax]

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.

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.

[Whateverist]

.. Why should we believe anything you have to say about the extraordinary claims your faith makes?!?

.. 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.

[Simon Moon]

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.

Your initial question was pretty straightforward.

Which of the 4 claims were the most/least believable, and most importantly, why?

And Randy completely ignored it. He failed to answer, and instead talked about certainty, and ended his response with a facetious statement. As if how regularly the argument is used, is a problem.

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.

And of course, Randy uses the same method all the time, I'm sure. I'll bet he disbelieves all sorts of extraordinary claims (alien abductions, bigfoot, crystal healing, loch ness, etc, etc) for the same reasons we do; lack of supporting evidence and reasoned argument. 

[IATIA]

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.

[Randy Carson]

@Randy

Given that there's already a thread here for insulting the Holy Spirit and in any case I'd guess that many atheists on this site have done it at one time or another, what's your take on that? I thought it was pretty clear that it was the unforgivable sin but only recently have I realised that there isn't quite as much consensus on that among Christians as I once thought. But if you do think it is an unforgivable sin, why are you preaching to the damned?

emjay-

The unforgivable sin is not referring to "insulting the Holy Spirit". If that were the case, why would insulting Jesus or the Father be less sinful?

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?

They don't WANT to be forgiven, so they cannot be.


Here's a good article: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/UNFORGIV.HTM

[Whateverist]

They don't WANT to be forgiven, so they cannot be.

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