Page
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by ballyboneman:
3) it's True
Duh, you appear to have gotten your logic all wrong. Again. Here's a reminder: A => B does not imply B => A Or, in English, the fact that someone believes something to be true has exactly zero bearing on the truth of that proposition.
--------------------
If you feel like you're always in the dark - switch the lights on!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors: quote: Originally posted by ballyboneman:
3) it's True
Duh, you appear to have gotten your logic all wrong. Again. Here's a reminder: A => B does not imply B => A Or, in English, the fact that someone believes something to be true has exactly zero bearing on the truth of that proposition.
And if something is true it has a greater than zero bearing on whether someone believes it or not.  
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ballyboneman: And if something is true it has a greater than zero bearing on whether someone believes it or not.
No it doesn't. What bearing did the truth or otherwise of the heliocentric model have on the level of belief in the model?
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ballyboneman: quote: Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors: quote: Originally posted by ballyboneman:
3) it's True
Duh, you appear to have gotten your logic all wrong. Again. Here's a reminder: A => B does not imply B => A Or, in English, the fact that someone believes something to be true has exactly zero bearing on the truth of that proposition.
And if something is true it has a greater than zero bearing on whether someone believes it or not.
In fact, this is not so. And you'll be glad to know there are scientifically measurable tests that show it! quote:
Several psychological studies [9-11] appear to support Spinoza's conjecture [12] that the mere comprehension of a statement entails the tacit acceptance of its being true, whereas disbelief requires a subsequent process of rejection... We seem to accept appearances as reality until they prove otherwise. Our behavioral data supports this hypothesis, in so far as subjects judged statements to be "true" more quickly than they judged them to be "false" or "undecidable".
--------------------
If you feel like you're always in the dark - switch the lights on!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ballyboneman: quote: Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors: quote: Originally posted by ballyboneman:
3) it's True
Duh, you appear to have gotten your logic all wrong. Again. Here's a reminder: A => B does not imply B => A Or, in English, the fact that someone believes something to be true has exactly zero bearing on the truth of that proposition.
And if something is true it has a greater than zero bearing on whether someone believes it or not.
In fact, this is not so. And you'll be glad to know there are scientifically measurable tests that show it! As but a single example, the recently published "Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief and Uncertainty" (Harris et al) quote:
Several psychological studies [9-11] appear to support Spinoza's conjecture [12] that the mere comprehension of a statement entails the tacit acceptance of its being true, whereas disbelief requires a subsequent process of rejection... We seem to accept appearances as reality until they prove otherwise. Our behavioral data supports this hypothesis, in so far as subjects judged statements to be "true" more quickly than they judged them to be "false" or "undecidable".
--------------------
If you feel like you're always in the dark - switch the lights on!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
|
| |
|
|
Greenjack: Your quote: firstly they may not have had this choice then but they still choose to be jewish KNOWING that their religion has suffered persecution for hundreds of years. My response Sorry? 'chose' to be Jewish??? I thought Jews were Jews because they were BORN Jewish. No? Your quote: And if this is not a good enough example, then the zealots that commited suicide at massada certainly is. My response: You think that's a good example do you? I would ask yourself why the zealots committed suicide - wasn't it to do with not wanting to submit to Roman rule (nationalism)? Wasn't it to do with killing themselves rather than giving the Romans the pleasure? (it was only a matter of time before the Romans got to them) Your quote: And you haven't commented on the cathars, some of who were said to have welcomed the flames because of their heretical beliefs. My response: And the cathars have flourished ever since into a massive worldwide movement....hmmm. Go back to my Gamaliel quote. Again, the origins of this movement do not connect with the eye witness accounts of Christ. They were not defending what they had seen, only what the community in which they were brought up were telling them to believe. Your quote: As for the dead sea scrolls, you should research a little further & you may find that they are starting to show that the gospels may have an alternative message that suggests jesus wasn't the son of god literally and that the miracles were not as we percieve them. check out Barbara Theirings "The Book that Jesus Wrote". My response The vast majority of this book is following a questionable technique called the "Pesher Technique". "Pesher" is an interpretation written by an Essene priest to explain certain passages of the Old Testament. Here's a review of the book that highlights the errors of this book. http://www.amazon.com/review/RRNR0SXODO6LR/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RRNR0SXODO6LRStrange how you immediately jump to something highly questionable like this to defend your views isn't it? |
| |
|
|
Smoke and Mirrors
Your quote:
Sorry, I'm failing to see the relevance of any of that. Taking a banal text and copying it accurately doesn't make it any less banal.
Response
I agree. But what I think we were discussing was simply whether or not the masoretic texts reflected the old testament writings accurately or whether they were 'revamped' versions. You scoffed at the dates of the masoretic writings, I showed you that the writings overwhelmingly matched copies of the old testament written 1000 years previously.
|
| |
|
|
Heselbine:
Your quote
...and the difference between 'cults' and 'Christianity' is...?
My response:
Well here's a few:
Cults - adherents shut away 24/7 from all outside influences.
Christianity - 99% of worldwide adherents spend average 3 or 4 hours a week max in church groups
Cults - adherents forced to accept a strict interpretation of the religious texts
Christianity - 99% of worldwide adherents free to make up their own mind about how to interpret Bible
Cults - a commune where a single (normally male) person has autonomous control over all aspects of adherents life
Christianity - church normally has a leadership team where decisions about church activities are made, these are then brought to the church meeting for agreement/rejection. Adherents are free to carry on personal lives as they wish.
Your quote:
No-one's going to die for something they think it's false, obviously. Either
1) what they saw did convince them - but that doesn't mean it's true as written, or 2) it's all just an embellished story
So literally hundreds of people saw something they were willing to die for, but conveniently it's not what has been recorded in the gospels. Ah well. And your proof of this is.....your own opinions.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by thetruthsetsyoufree:
Ah well. And your proof of this is.....your own opinions.
Heselbine is merely re-stating that what you have offered is a logical fallacy. In other words, the conclusion is not supported by the premises and the intervening steps. Perhaps you can see that the truth is unrelated to the number of people believing it by pondering upon the notion that there is a fact as yet undiscovered about the world that will be hit upon at some point in the future. Currently no-one believes it to be true, however it is nonetheless true.
--------------------
If you feel like you're always in the dark - switch the lights on!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by thetruthsetsyoufree: Greenjack: Your quote: firstly they may not have had this choice then but they still choose to be jewish KNOWING that their religion has suffered persecution for hundreds of years. My response Sorry? 'chose' to be Jewish??? I thought Jews were Jews because they were BORN Jewish. No? but they don't have to stay jewish. my grandfather was born jewish and CHOSE to convertYour quote: And if this is not a good enough example, then the zealots that commited suicide at massada certainly is. My response: You think that's a good example do you? I would ask yourself why the zealots committed suicide - wasn't it to do with not wanting to submit to Roman rule (nationalism)? Wasn't it to do with killing themselves rather than giving the Romans the pleasure? (it was only a matter of time before the Romans got to them) still missing the point, they were dying for their beliefs!Your quote: And you haven't commented on the cathars, some of who were said to have welcomed the flames because of their heretical beliefs. My response: And the cathars have flourished ever since into a massive worldwide movement....hmmm. Go back to my Gamaliel quote. Again, the origins of this movement do not connect with the eye witness accounts of Christ. They were not defending what they had seen, only what the community in which they were brought up were telling them to believe. again missing the point, they died for their beliefs. and if there are none left now it's thanks to the roman churches extermination who obviously felt there was something to fear by not eradicating them. if they were so harmless to the church why did they spend 30 years hunting them downYour quote: As for the dead sea scrolls, you should research a little further & you may find that they are starting to show that the gospels may have an alternative message that suggests jesus wasn't the son of god literally and that the miracles were not as we percieve them. check out Barbara Theirings "The Book that Jesus Wrote". she is only one example. her books refer to others, go buy it & seeMy response The vast majority of this book is following a questionable technique called the "Pesher Technique". "Pesher" is an interpretation written by an Essene priest to explain certain passages of the Old Testament. Here's a review of the book that highlights the errors of this book. http://www.amazon.com/review/RRNR0SXODO6LR/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RRNR0SXODO6LRStrange how you immediately jump to something highly questionable like this to defend your views isn't it?
strange? why? there is nothing more questionable than the bible IMO yet you would readily jump to it
Cheers
GJ
|
| |
|
|
Ok guys; I have a question for all of you, who currently don't believe:
If ABSOLUTE evidence was found for the existence of God - it was obvious and absolutley proven; you were stupid not to believe as everything proved it! How would your life change?
Think a little while, and then post a reply!
|
| |
|
|
Wouldn't it be better to start a new thread with this question? I don't quite follow the posit. Is the "you were stupid not to believe as everything proved it" just a dig, or do you mean that us 'stupid' atheists continue not to believe? If it is just a bit of gratuitous rudeness then I don't think I can be bothered to answer.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
|
|
quote: If ABSOLUTE evidence was found for the existence of God - it was obvious and absolutley proven; you were stupid not to believe as everything proved it! How would your life change?
Anyone with any rationality would of course accept the existence of God in the presence of absolute proof[i] and even consider the existence of God as a credible hypothesis even if there was a [i]sliver of evidence. What makes you think any otherwise? But of course hypothesising the existence of evidence is utterly meaningless. For example, please answer this: If ABSOLUTE evidence was found for the existence of faries - it was obvious and absolutley proven; you were stupid not to believe as everything proved it! How would your life change? Outside of hypothesis the reality is that in 2000 years of Christianity there is not one single shred of evidence for the existence of God, and, of equal import, there is no longer any reason to hypothesise God's existence; absolutely everything that theology once attempted to ascribe to a divine presence is now better explained through science. There's only one good, simple reason for the lack of evidence in something that after all is claimed to all powerful, ever present and all important to existence. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Veleng: quote: If ABSOLUTE evidence was found for the existence of God - it was obvious and absolutley proven; you were stupid not to believe as everything proved it! How would your life change?
Anyone with any rationality would of course accept the existence of God in the presence of absolute proof and even consider the existence of God as a credible hypothesis even if there was a sliver of evidence. What makes you think any otherwise? But of course hypothesising the existence of evidence is utterly meaningless. For example, please answer this: If ABSOLUTE evidence was found for the existence of faries - it was obvious and absolutley proven; you were stupid not to believe as everything proved it! How would your life change? Outside of hypothesis the reality is that in 2000 years of Christianity there is not one single shred of evidence for the existence of God, and, of equal import, there is no longer any reason to hypothesise God's existence; absolutely everything that theology once attempted to ascribe to a divine presence is now better explained through science. There's only one good, simple reason for the lack of evidence in something that after all is claimed to all powerful, ever present and all important to existence.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Veleng: quote: Originally posted by Veleng: quote: If ABSOLUTE evidence was found for the existence of God - it was obvious and absolutley proven; you were stupid not to believe as everything proved it! How would your life change?
Anyone with any rationality would of course accept the existence of God in the presence of absolute proof and even consider the existence of God as a credible hypothesis even if there was a sliver of evidence. What makes you think any otherwise? But of course hypothesising the existence of evidence is utterly meaningless. For example, please answer this: If ABSOLUTE evidence was found for the existence of fairies - it was obvious and absolutley proven; you were stupid not to believe as everything proved it! How would your life change? Outside of hypothesis the reality is that in 2000 years of Christianity there is not one single shred of evidence for the existence of God, and, of equal import, there is no longer any reason to hypothesise God's existence; absolutely everything that theology once attempted to ascribe to a divine presence is now better explained through science. There's only one good, simple reason for the lack of evidence in something that after all is claimed to all powerful, ever present and all important to existence.
|
| |
|
|
... whoops, having a blonde moment re. the editing function.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedJooles:
Ok guys; I have a question for all of you, who currently don't believe:
If ABSOLUTE evidence was found for the existence of God - it was obvious and absolutley proven; you were stupid not to believe as everything proved it! How would your life change?
Think a little while, and then post a reply!
assuming that evidence also indicated which religion had got it right, I would then decide if I liked what that religion/god had to offer. For example, if it was proven that the christian god existed, I would probably take my chances with old nick 
Cheers
GJ
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by thetruthsetsyoufree: The vast majority of this book is following a questionable technique called the "Pesher Technique". "Pesher" is an interpretation written by an Essene priest to explain certain passages of the Old Testament. Here's a review of the book that highlights the errors of this book. http://www.amazon.com/review/RRNR0SXODO6LR/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RRNR0SXODO6LRStrange how you immediately jump to something highly questionable like this to defend your views isn't it?
TTSYF Have been looking into "Thiering" and concede that her method is not widely accepted among accademics. And while I may also not place much value on a reviewer that apears to prefer the likes of tony robinson, I do take notice of the likes of Geza Vermes on this subject. I will continue to read the book nevertheless but point taken.
Cheers
GJ
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by free_thinker:
Wouldn't it be better to start a new thread with this question?
I don't quite follow the posit.
Is the "you were stupid not to believe as everything proved it" just a dig, or do you mean that us 'stupid' atheists continue not to believe?
If it is just a bit of gratuitous rudeness then I don't think I can be bothered to answer.
It is just a question and not a dig. The 'stupid' bit, is put in there as an example of how you refer to us who believe - just trying to flip it around. Feel free not to answer, but there is a relevance to the content on this page! |
| |
|
|
quote: The 'stupid' bit, is put in there as an example of how you refer to us who believe - just trying to flip it around.
Well you can't assume people are stupid when your question is based on an assumption of how people would behave in an alternative reality that exist only in your own head. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RedJooles:
It is just a question and not a dig. The 'stupid' bit, is put in there as an example of how you refer to us who believe - just trying to flip it around.
So, you are calling atheists stupid and telling us that is not a dig. Not exactly christian of you is it? For the record I do not think christians are stupid per see. I think they are misguided, delusional victims of brain-washing, conditioning and a parental mind virus. (This is not a dig  ). If you wanted to 'just' ask a question, why didn't you just ask a question. There may be some relevance to this thread, but it is a new topic. Start a thread, and just ask your question.
Atheism - a non-prophet organisation
|
| |
| |
