The real religion?

[brewer]

[edit]

2b. What negatives are there in NT Christianity? All the list you have come up with are a result of institutional decisions and people's opinions. The only thing that makes a Christian a Christian are those things contained in the NT--so that is common denominator for all places and all times.

[edit]

bold mine

You're kidding right? Or just cherry picking again.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. (just said OT counts)
Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death:
Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: Fear him, who after he has killed has power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Luke 12:47 And that servant, who knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Acts 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

There are more.

[LadyForCamus]

That does not follow. Why would personal testimony of a relationship with a supernatural being (by definition beyond nature) land you on a naturalistic examination table?

I think you are the one not following... Answer: Because you are making an objective truth claim about the experience, Steve. I don't know how else to explain it to you. Personal testimony sucks. I mentioned the Mandela Effect earlier. What have you to say to that? Lots of people believe it's true that a parallel universe slipped into ours and changed "Sex in the City" to "Sex AND the City."

So...because a lot of people believe that it happened; that they experienced it personally, then it must be objectively true, right?

I am asking why a person's (or a billion people's) testimony isn't evidence of something being true? If I end up in court, my testimony is evidence of things I witnessed. If someone else testifies they witnessed the same thing, we start to work toward "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". No science involved.

Again...eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and by itself, NEVER indisputable evidence for anything. You know why? Because the human mind is fallible and incredibly vulnerable to subconscious influences, making "personal experience" a terribly unreliable source of objective truth. Not to mention, people LIE. Eye witness testimony alone is usually not enough for any type of conviction in a court of law these days. Just look at any rape case EVER. Most prosecutors feel much more confident if they've got scientific, forensic evidence to corroborate a person's testimony.

There are other ways to arrive at knowledge than just science. There are metaphysical truths, there are moral truths, there are mathematical truths. In fact science rests on many philosophical assumptions that it cannot operate without.

*bold mine*

Sure, but philosophy without science is literally just day dreaming. [emoji6]

I am saying that a person can have a properly basic belief (having good internal reasons without requiring outside proof) about a relationship with God and therefore is rational/justified in that belief.

I disagree. Such a belief without evidence is neither rational nor justified. But your personal, private requirements of evidence for your belief are not even the issue here. It's when you start trying to convince others to believe that same extraordinary thing for the same crappy reasons that you get the kick-back, man.

[LadyForCamus]

WLC is a fraud as you demonstrated nicely in your KCA debate a few months back.

[Simon Moon]

Billions of people have CLAIMED to have entered a relationship with 'God', many gods actually.

If 1.5 billion Muslims clam to have a personal relationship with their god, is that 'empirical evidence' that Allah exists?

You are guilty of the fallacy of special pleading. Not too impressive.

I doubt whether you know what the term 'empirical evidence' means.

Do you believe that every Christian that claims to have entered a 'personal relationship with God' has actually done so, or is there some percentage of Christians that are delusional, or fooling themselves, or misinterpreting some other feeling as a 'personal relationship with God'?

1. Sure. But the doctrine of salvation in Christianity is unique. No other religion describes a personal relationship with God. 

ALL religions have unique aspects. Christianity's unique aspects make it different than other religions, just as the other religions unique aspects make them different that Christianity.  

That tells us nothing about the truth of one over another, or the truth of any of them.

2. Muslims do not attempt to have a relationship with God. They specifically believe that is not possible. 

Book 97, Hadith 34 seems to be describing some sort of relationship. Maybe not the same as the one Christians claim.

3. Since there are no comparable religions to Christianity (specifically the doctrine of salvation), there is no special pleading.

Your claimed uniqueness of Christianity does not excuse your special pleading.

4. Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

The word "verifiable" in the above definition negates your use of the word.

If a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Sikh, etc all do an experiment to measure the speed of light, they will all get the same results. That is empirical.

When a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Sikh, etc all claim that their experiences are evidence for their gods, and there is no way to verify them, as in the measurement of the speed of light, that is not empirical.

5. No. I don't believe everyone who claims to be a Christian has experienced the event of 'salvation' and the effect of regeneration as described in the NT. Does that really change anything?

Yes, it changes things.

How are you able to tell the difference between a real 'personal experience' and a delusional or mistaken one? I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that absolutely believe, with extreme sincerity, their 'personal experience' is real, yet they are mistaken or delusional.

It is entirely possible, that a Christian that claims to have had 'personal experience', but did not, has not only fooled themselves, but has fooled you too.

And here I am, sitting outside your Christian (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc) belief bubble, and they ALL look like they are mistaken or delusional to me. How am I supposed to tell the difference?

Moderator Notice
Quote tags fixed by robvalue.

[SteveII]

That does not follow. Why would personal testimony of a relationship with a supernatural being (by definition beyond nature) land you on a naturalistic examination table?

I think you are the one not following...  Answer:  Because you are making an objective truth claim about the experience, Steve.  I don't know how else to explain it to you.  Personal testimony sucks.  I mentioned the Mandela Effect earlier.  What have you to say to that?  Lots of people believe it's true that a parallel universe slipped into ours and changed "Sex in the City" to "Sex AND the City."  

So...because a lot of people believe that it happened; that they experienced it personally, then it must be objectively true, right?  

You did not address how you can examine a supernatural claim with natural science--nevermind, just be definition, it cannot be done. You are equating 'truth' with 'scientific truth'. That is scientism and is a very tenuous (at best) worldview that does not hold up to scrutiny. There are many other truths that science cannot and does not comment one. 

I am asking why a person's (or a billion people's) testimony isn't evidence of something being true? If I end up in court, my testimony is evidence of things I witnessed. If someone else testifies they witnessed the same thing, we start to work toward "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". No science involved.

Again...eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and by itself, NEVER indisputable evidence for anything.  You know why?  Because the human mind is fallible and incredibly vulnerable to subconscious influences, making "personal experience" a terribly unreliable source of objective truth.  Not to mention, people LIE.  Eye witness testimony alone is usually not enough for any type of conviction in a court of law these days.  Just look at any rape case EVER.  Most prosecutors feel much more confident if they've got scientific, forensic evidence to corroborate a person's testimony.

So, you say we cannot know anything for sure if it is comes from the human mind. I don't think you live that way, you just want to use that in your argument because you don't like the conclusion. This version of the "eyewitnesses aren't reliable" argument against the existence of God has all the same flaws as the original. 

There are other ways to arrive at knowledge than just science. There are metaphysical truths, there are moral truths, there are mathematical truths. In fact science rests on many philosophical assumptions that it cannot operate without.

*bold mine*

Sure, but philosophy without science is literally just day dreaming. [emoji6]

Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

=a poor worldview that is self-refuting. 

I am saying that a person can have a properly basic belief (having good internal reasons without requiring outside proof) about a relationship with God and therefore is rational/justified in that belief.

I disagree.  Such a belief without evidence is neither rational nor justified.  But your personal, private requirements of evidence for your belief are not even the issue here.  It's when you start trying to convince others to believe that same extraordinary thing for the same crappy reasons that you get the kick-back, man.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are thousands (if not more) cases where people become Christians based on reading the NT alone. No convincing there. No outside pressure. No ulterior motives. How do you account for those conversions? And who said anything about no evidence. There is plenty of evidence contained in the NT alone. You might not find it convincing or have beliefs about it's truth claims, but it will always be evidence.

[brewer]

There are thousands (if not more) cases where people become Christians based on reading the NT alone. [edit]

Doubtful. More likely that they are being force fed the cherry picked nicey nicey and never reading. Giving them the sugar coated version.

[SteveII]

[edit]

2b. What negatives are there in NT Christianity? All the list you have come up with are a result of institutional decisions and people's opinions. The only thing that makes a Christian a Christian are those things contained in the NT--so that is common denominator for all places and all times.

[edit]

bold mine

You're kidding right? Or just cherry picking again.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. (just said OT counts)
Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death:
Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: Fear him, who after he has killed has power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Luke 12:47 And that servant, who knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Acts 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

There are more.

First, we were very specifically talking about positive and negative changes in the life of a person. You have listed out of context verses that don't have any bearing on the subject. From your post...

...And I notice you only discuss positive changes, no negative, that's not very honest.

[brewer]

bold mine

You're kidding right? Or just cherry picking again.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. (just said OT counts)
Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death:
Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: Fear him, who after he has killed has power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Luke 12:47 And that servant, who knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Acts 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

There are more.

First, we were very specifically talking about positive and negative changes in the life of a person. You have listed out of context verses that don't have any bearing on the subject. From your post...

...And I notice you only discuss positive changes, no negative, that's not very honest.

They have bearing. You asked "What negatives are there in NT Christianity?" This is what is in the NT. They are negative. To pick only the nicey verses is, let's see, maybe in your terms, to bear false witness.

[Crossless2.0]

1) You did not address how you can examine a supernatural claim with natural science--nevermind, just be definition, it cannot be done. You are equating 'truth' with 'scientific truth'. That is scientism and is a very tenuous (at best) worldview that does not hold up to scrutiny. There are many other truths that science cannot and does not comment one.


2) So, you say we cannot know anything for sure if it is comes from the human mind. I don't think you live that way, you just want to use that in your argument because you don't like the conclusion. This version of the "eyewitnesses aren't reliable" argument against the existence of God has all the same flaws as the original. 


3) Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

=a poor worldview that is self-refuting. 


4) There are thousands (if not more) cases where people become Christians based on reading the NT alone. No convincing there. No outside pressure. No ulterior motives. How do you account for those conversions? And who said anything about no evidence. There is plenty of evidence contained in the NT alone. You might not find it convincing or have beliefs about it's truth claims, but it will always be evidence.

I took the liberty of removing LFC's remarks you were quoting and to number your responses to her post for ease of reference.

(1) I rather doubt that LFC is actually a 'scientism-ist' (just to increase the clumsy ugliness of your pet word), no matter how desperately you wish to paint her that way. Your claim isn't exclusively supernatural. After all, you (Steve II) are not supernatural, but verifiably natural and fallible. And you, natural and fallible man, are claiming to have had an encounter with a supernatural being in this world, not in some supernatural realm. Oh, and not just any supernatural being, but a specific one who is claimed in your holy book to have done much more than simply encounter believers "in their minds somehow" but to have actually walked the Earth, eaten a meal with a guy, etc. It isn't unreasonable to suppose that such a being might occasionally verifiably affect things in the world by its 'presence' in such a way that these effects could be observed and studied. So far, all you're giving us is, "I just know that this was a supernatural experience!" and when pressed to provide evidence of such an experience you point to the 'a lot of believers who have similar experiences are less dickish than they used to be' gambit.

And you still haven't done a thing to dispel the notion that you believers are indulging in wish fulfillment, errors in discerning the causes for powerful emotional experiences, etc. You seem fairly convinced that the religious experiences of people outside your faith tradition are less reliable but you haven't given us any good reason not to lump you in with them.

(2) No, we don't normally live our lives disbelieving every eye witness report we hear. Most of us assign a degree of significance to what is being claimed. You tell me you saw your neighbor eating sausage for breakfast? I have no good reason to disbelieve you and don't really care. You tell me you have had a personal encounter with the supernatural creator of the universe, you are going to get a different standard of scrutiny -- WLC notwithstanding. In a court of law, where 'reasonable doubt' is the gold standard, we don't uncritically accept eye witness testimony. Why on earth would you expect us to accept a lesser standard when it comes to such claims as you're making -- self-serving claims at that, since I imagine it would be devastating to most believers if they were to learn definitively that their most cherished experiences are based on error and falsehood.

(3) Who, aside from the logical positivists from bygone days, can you name who actually matches this characterization?

(4) What's to account for? So some people convert based on reading the NT. Big fucking deal. People also convert to Islam based on reading the Koran. I'm sure you're about as impressed by that as good evidence for the truth of Islam as I am by people converting to Christianity after reading the NT as being good evidence for the truth of your faith. People come to ridiculous conclusions about all manner of things for bad reasons every single day.

[SteveII]

WLC is a fraud as you demonstrated nicely in your KCA debate a few months back.

That would be an ad hominem rebuttal. 

Additionally, your conclusion is utterly ridiculous. Someone that writes articles and books for 40 years and debated many of the top atheists in he world all over the world and get invited to Oxford to speak regularly cannot be labeled a fraud. I am not surprised at the statement from someone with a scientism worldview and says philosophy without science is literally day dreaming in the last post. 

If you care about the truth and not just about opinions you glean from the great minds of AF, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-l...blications

Unless of course you want to point out precise fraudulent activity of WLC and prove your point...