An athiest logical fallacy?

[RyanL]

What you call “natural law”, I would call product of evolution.

Meh - call it what you will as long as you recognize it.

All humans have this desire to explain their presence in the world, but early man had no way of understanding natural processes.

Yeah…we’re SO much smarter than those near-primates like Aristotle, Boethius and Protagoras, what with our Jerry Springer and all…

Modernity is so myopic.

Hence the seasons being explained through divine action as opposed to planetary rotation. Hence Jesus ascending into heaven (is he still ascending?). The later doctrine was formulated before our knowledge of space.

…yup…because positively no one would have thought that up could keep going, having never looked at the night sky and all.

Religion is just a way of explaining the world. We all try to explain the world.

True enough, but some ways are better than others. And so far, your way is a bit ridiculous. (No offense intended.)

We dont know the authors of the gospels.

Correction, YOU don’t know the authors of the gospels.

As for Paul’s letters, his status as a learned Jew would make him the perfect person to meld Greek thought and Hebrew legends.

Paul knew Greek thought and was well read.

And Peter? John? Luke? Mark? Matthew? The writer to the Hebrews? If Jesus taught one thing to folks, then Paul showed up and started teaching something completely (or even moderately) different…don’t you think someone might have said, “Yeah…Paul’s different,” or perhaps, “Paul completed the work Christ started.”? But, despite the tons of recorded writings from the period you don’t find that.

…Oh, that’s right. We’ve already established that folks at that time were too dumb to know things like the earth is round and stars are far away. How could they possibly know that Paul’s teaching was different than their beloved Master’s, whom they followed for three years and whose teachings they proclaimed to the point of martyrdom (remember Paul’s profession?).

How could we expect people who were willing to be martyred for their beliefs to (1) know what their beliefs were, (2) recognize when another belief set was different, and (3) object when an outsider came in with an entirely new set of beliefs?

Just read Exsurge Domine (you could check papalencyclicals.net , it dates from 1521 or 1520)

A closing line of that encyclical:
Exsurge Domine:

If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

I don’t see anything in there about burning. Are we reading the same document?

Also, since you’re throwing around theologically technical words like “infallible” and “doctrine”, you must be smart enough to show me where the requirements for an infallible statement are satisfied in the encyclical and perhaps clarify the difference between dogma and doctrine?

Well, I would say they are false.

And I would say you’re wrong.

That still doesn’t address the basis of why they’re false. Using reason and logic you can demonstrate something to be false. Using a “you came to believe X because…” chain of reasoning is fallacious, and cannot show X to be true or false. That’s my point.

It is interesting to note, however, that there are thousands of Churches all that claim to be Christ’s true church. It is also interesting to see how all those Churches got there.

You must not talk with Catholics often. This is a neat argument against Protestants, but doesn’t work so well against Catholics. We’re all about history and tracing succession back to the apostles. You might try a different tact.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

I don’t see anything in there about burning. Are we reading the same document?

Ahh…found it. You must be talking about error #33:

1. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

I didn’t see it on the first reading. My apologies. Here’s a full length article on precisely this topic. I’ll save the thread a recitation of it and commend it to reading at your leisure.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[phooney]

@RyanL

Just a couple quick points.

“And again, this is an example of the genetic fallacy – it doesn’t matter how we came to believe a thing; it only matters whether or not it’s true.”

Well, I disagree, I think that a rational process for forming beliefs is very important. It is all well and good to say that all that matters is whether a belief is true or not, but you haven’t described in what way you would ascertain the truth of that belief. Merely asserting it doesn’t make it so, of course.

It seems to me that evidence should come into it at the formation stage rather than starting with the conclusion.

“Correction, YOU don’t know the authors of the gospels.”

Correction, YOU don’t know the authors of the gospels either. You may have faith that the authors are those that have their name assigned to them, but the scholarly consensus at the moment indicates that the first gospel written was the one we now know as Mark, around 65ce or so (if I recall correctly), which was then used as at least one source for the gospels we know as Matthew and Luke, with the gospel we know as John coming much later. All of these were written by anonymous authors after decades of oral tradition. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus that is currently known to me.

 

[RyanL]

Well, I disagree, I think that a rational process for forming beliefs is very important. It is all well and good to say that all that matters is whether a belief is true or not, but you haven’t described in what way you would ascertain the truth of that belief.

Perhaps I overstated. It’s not completely unimportant how we form beliefs (as an academic matter, it’s quite interesting!), but it is absolutely irrelevant as to whether those beliefs are true.

…that’s why it’s called the genetic .fallacy

Merely asserting it doesn’t make it so, of course.

Quite right!

It seems to me that evidence should come into it at the formation stage rather than starting with the conclusion.

No harm there, depending on the type of evidence you’re expecting and the thing you’re determining.

Correction, YOU don’t know the authors of the gospels either.

Personally? You’re certainly right…

You may have faith that the authors are those that have their name assigned to them, but the scholarly consensus at the moment indicates that the first gospel written was the one we now know as Mark, around 65ce or so (if I recall correctly), which was then used as at least one source for the gospels we know as Matthew and Luke, with the gospel we know as John coming much later. All of these were written by anonymous authors after decades of oral tradition. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus that is currently known to me.

Contemporary evidence? Like what, exactly? Like a shroud? A sudarium? A nativity site / empty tomb easily debunkable to contemporaries yet never so much as alleged debunked? Various other archaeological contemporary evidence?

And decades of oral tradition (assuming you mean this somehow undermines their credibility)…oy vey. The epistles of Peter (when did he die again)? What about the epistles of Paul, referenced by Clement of Rome (who quoted Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James, was ordained by Peter and hence would have known 1 or 2 Peter to be forgeries and who died in the first century)? How about the martyrdoms of Peter, Paul and James (cerca 67AD)? Don’t you find it odd that there’s no mention of the martyrdoms of these great Biblical figures in the books allegedly written decades after their deaths, particularly the book of Acts (which records other martyrdoms and speaks primarily of the acts of Peter and Paul – a seemingly relevant fact)?, a book which almost everyone acknowledges is a “sequel” to the Gospel of Luke? Perhaps the Didache. Perhaps…

I could go on, but there’s other work to do. Maybe you should look into this a bit more on your own.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[phooney]

“Contemporary evidence? Like what, exactly? Like a shroud? A sudarium? A nativity site / empty tomb easily debunkable to contemporaries yet never so much as alleged debunked? Various other archaeological contemporary evidence?”

Well, I’m not getting into the shroud again. The only tests that were done on it confirmed, from three independent sources, that the shroud was a medieval forgery. Since then there have been some perfectly reasonable objections to the way the testing was done. However, the church has not allowed more testing, and their so called ‘restoration’ work has polluted any chance of further verification. The sudarium? I’ve not heard much about that, what tests have been done on it? Nativity site? Tell me more! What tests have been done to confirm it? An empty tomb is easy enough to forge if there’s no contemporary evidence for the existence of the person that was supposed to be in there in the first place. There’s a cave reasonably close to me that is empty as well.

“And decades of oral tradition (assuming you mean this somehow undermines their credibility)…oy vey.”

Perhaps you’ve heard of a game called telephone or chinese whispers? Deviations from original versions under these circumstances are practically unavoidable, and verification in regards to the original stories are also impossible, with the complete lack of archaeological evidence. Saying ‘various other archaeological contemporary evidence’ doesn’t mean you have thought it into existence. Good luck with that. To use stories that have been subject to said decades of oral tradition falls very much short of a reasonable standard of evidence to verify such extraordinary claims.

“The epistles of Peter (when did he die again)? What about the epistles of Paul, referenced by Clement of Rome (who quoted Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James, was ordained by Peter and hence would have known 1 or 2 Peter to be forgeries and who died in the first century)? How about the martyrdoms of Peter, Paul and James (cerca 67AD)?”

When did he die? I’m not sure. As far as I’m aware there’s the unconfirmed remains of Peter under the vatican, and Paul mentions him as well, so I don’t have much to go on. Paul never claimed to have met Jesus in real life either.

“Don’t you find it odd that there’s no mention of the martyrdoms of these great Biblical figures in the books allegedly written decades after their deaths, particularly the book of Acts (which records other martyrdoms and speaks primarily of the acts of Peter and Paul – a seemingly relevant fact)? Perhaps the Didache”

Not if the Authors were unaware of the martyrdoms or they were fictional accounts of course.

The Didache? Do you know what contemporary means? Regardless, you’ve got all your work ahead of you if you want to convince modern historians that the gospels are written by the apostles that have their names tacked to the front, as well as explaining why such things as the infancy gospel of Thomas aren’t reliable.

Congratulations on that other work you say you’ve got going on, I hope you’ve got your trump card of evidence still to play, because you don’t seem to bring anything new to the table except, ‘it’s true and that’s all that matters’ If you can’t explain how you’ve come to a conclusion then you don’t really understand it yourself.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Couched in logical form? What does that even mean?

If it means that a logical argument can be constructed supporting it, I agree that theism can produce a valid logical argument for the existence of God.

If it means it looks logical, but it’s not…it’s just pretending…well…I completely disagree.

It means exactly what it says. You can create a logical argument about many things, but if any of the premises is not true, then the argue, though logical in concept is not a logically true. Of course theism can construct a logical argument for God and it may in fact be persuasive to many, including myself, however, its premises are not necessarily true.

As for atheism, I have yet to see a valid logical argument come from the atheist camp regarding the non-existence of God. Most of their arguments either contain an unsupportable vagueness or have premises that are unwarranted – or are probabilities games and not “logical proofs”, properly speaking.

To the contrary. If there’s an assertion, there’s a burden to prove it. Agnostics don’t have a burden because they simply don’t know. (Strong) Atheists positively assert that there is no God, and therefore they have a burden to carry – as does the theist who proclaims that there is one.

Most arguments of atheists are simply showing the fallacy of certain premises of believers. I repeat, one is not required and cannot logically prove a negative. The burden of proof remains on the believer as it always has. The assertion is more properly made as “you have not proven that God exists.” Few atheists would fall into the illogical trap of stating “I affirm that God does not exist, since as I said negatives are incapable of being proven.”

I disagree. Read much Aquinas?

Sure, in fact a fair amount of it. I am persuaded that he makes a fine case, however I repeat, if it were an infallibly correct logical argument, then all intelligent beings would be convinced. Since that is not the case, all intelligent beings admit that it is not a perfect argument.

Never underestimate the human ability to deny the obvious.

This proves zero

There’s no journey to believe in a chair. Either it’s there or it’s not. The journey comes when you go to sit in it and trust that it will support your weight.

Same with God.

There’s no “journey” to believe in God. Either He’s there or He’s not. The journey comes when you go to trust Him and trust that He will support the weight of your sins. THAT is what faith is about…not simply “belief” (reread the book of James).

Of course you are correct. God exists or he does not. There is no journey and it would be rather silly to suggest that there was. It is illogical in the extreme. However, it is still called faith and that denotes belief, and belief denotes the final incapacity to prove. Our journey, which each of us is on, knowingly or not, is to come eever closer in understanding of deity, to blend ourselves ever closer to the ideal which we invision as God. Please refrain from telling me what to read, with such a superior attitude. I am quite familiar with the bible having read it daily for years and cover to cover six times, as well as haven taken courses in biblical exegesis and theology. Reread the definition of theology (faith seeking understanding.)

 

[Camron]

What you call “natural law”, I would call product of evolution.

No. Altruism is not explained by evolutionary pressures.

True altruism, which is derived from the Natural Moral Law of a universal sense of right and wrong, is ultimately fulfilled in the selfless giving of oneself to others with absolutely no secondary motives. There is no evolutionary advantage to this in accordance with the principles of the survival of the fittest. Mutation and natural selection certainly do not explain this.

And if you think that you have some all-encompassing answer (using only the scientific method) for how evolutionary pressures could produce this, I’m sure there are more than a few hundred thousand scientists from multiple disciplines all around the world who would love to hear this explanation.

 

[phooney]

Congratulations on finding the bold function. In evolutionary biology it is called reciprocal altruism. You are being quite dishonest to say that evolutionary pressures have nothing to say about such things. We certainly aren’t the only social animals on the planet either.

There are plenty of books about evolutionary morality.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

God exists or he does not. There is no journey and it would be rather silly to suggest that there was. It is illogical in the extreme. However, it is still called faith and that denotes belief, and belief denotes the final incapacity to prove.

Our journey, which each of us is on, knowingly or not, is to come ever closer in understanding of deity, to blend ourselves ever closer to the ideal which we invision as God.

Those who do not rely on revelation are trying to discover, from natural law as perceived by them, an understanding of deity which is (for those with modern communication devices) readily available FROM revelation from the Church.

The great “razor” is whether one believes in revelation, or not. If one does not, then the goal of “blending ourselves closer to the ideal of (what) God (says we should be a human persons)” must first be FOUND and only then STRIVED FOR.

The goal has been found, as per revelation from the Church, and those who believe that are actually striving for the goal, and not merely looking for it.

Please refrain from telling me what to read, with such a superior attitude. I am quite familiar with the bible having read it daily for years and cover to cover six times, as well as haven taken courses in biblical exegesis and theology. Reread the definition of theology (faith seeking understanding.)

Understanding of WHAT?

Theology is the search for why REVEALED TRUTH is true. It is NOT the search for that which IS true.

That which IS true is called “revelation”, and freely given by that which is authorized to give it, The Church.

Those in search of that which IS true will forever be without a true goal toward which to strive. That is the “tragedy” of isolated humanity, as they have only natural law from which to deduce the goals toward which they want to strive, should they WANT to strive for “good”.

It is even a greater tragedy that some non-isolated humanity CHOOSES to isolate themselves as if they were unreachable by their brothers who are right there telling them of God’s revelation.

Of course, these “self-isolated” folk (generally) live within a society BUILT on “revealed truth”, and while they profess to “do it all themselves” they are more than happy to benefit from that which was built by those they mock.

The atheist can deny that which built what he relies on, but (luckily for him) can’t have those benefits taken away from him because he denies that which built those benefits.

The atheist, who is never REALLY a full-blown atheist, is always and everywhere inherently a hypocrit.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Most arguments of atheists are simply showing the fallacy of certain premises of believers. I repeat, one is not required and cannot logically prove a negative.

The burden of proof remains on the believer as it always has. The assertion is more properly made as “you have not proven that God exists.”

And the reason that that can’t happen is that no person can prove to another what only God can prove to one who truly wants proof of Him.

The “burden” of the believer is simply to suggest to the unbeliever that it is possible to get proof from God about God, and that it’s a most wonderful thing to want and allow Him to prove Himself to him.

That is the best we can do, as believers. That so-called atheists want to be hand-fed that which they must get for themselves simply shows the so-called atheist to be “childishly narcissistic”.

Few atheists would fall into the illogical trap of stating “I affirm that God does not exist, since as I said negatives are incapable of being proven.”

Yet they do so so often, and anyone self-described as a so-called atheist will ALWAYS act precisely on his belief that “God does not exist” in practice.

Now, while the so-called atheist SAYS that “God is not God qua God”, he CAN’T fully believe that for the reasons SpiritMeadow has given, which is that it’s not possible to actually SAY that with conviction since it’s not a provable statement.

So, so-called atheists say what they don’t really believe, and believe that they can’t say what they do say.

No wonder they are constantly “fidgety”.

 

[phooney]

Is this an atheist you’ve constructed in your mind?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Is this an atheist you’ve constructed in your mind?

Actually, it’s the atheist that the atheist has created in his own mind.

…the rest of him is in moderate to extreme rebellion against this usurper “sub-ego” and it’s perverse thinking processes.

Thus, the typical “twitchy” so-called atheist.

 

[phooney]

Now you know what goes on in somebody else’s mind, you’ve got the drop on us twitchies

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Now you know what goes on in somebody else’s mind, you’ve got the drop on us twitchies

Well, I twitch too, but for other reasons!

And your sig is incorrect:
"Repeat after me: ‘Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, nothing more.’ "

…because I do also do not believe in a god.

God is not “a” God, but God, which the determiner “a” is not applicable to, as only the deterniner “the” is applicable to God.

Little “g” gods are demons, or weird composites of demons and angels.

 

[phooney]

Sure, if you are begging the question, god is God. However, my signature isn’t there to pander to your superstitious fantasies. Certainly, you can assert anything, but it still remains that all that is required for atheism is a lack of belief in a god. In that context all I mean by ‘a god’ is ‘a concept of God’.

However your panic over capitalisation doesn’t really matter to me, your attitude to ideas that conflict with your own and your labelling of them as ‘weird composites of demons and angels’ only serves to clearly illustrate how theistic belief has somewhat clouded your receptiveness to opposing ideas.

 

[Camron]

Congratulations on finding the bold function. In evolutionary biology it is called reciprocal altruism.

Which is not the same kind of altruism as the kind that I’m speaking of…

You are being quite dishonest to say that evolutionary pressures have nothing to say about such things.

You are being quite dishonest to say that reciprocal altruism has something to say about true altruism-- the selfless giving of oneself to others with absolutely no secondary motives.

See the bolded text above? Now pay closer attention to the bolded letters in this post and you might begin to grasp something important here.

For example, one potential example of reciprocal altruism being regularly cired is the blood-sharing in the vampire bat. These bats feed regurgitated blood to those who have not collected much blood themselves knowing that they themselves may someday benefit from this same donation; cheaters are remembered by the colony and ousted from this collaboration.

See how they know that they themselves may someday benefit from this same donation?

Now could you please explain to me how knowing that they themselves may someday benefit from this same donation somehow equals the selfless giving of oneself to others with absolutely no secondary motives?

See the two bolded sections I merged together in the one question I printed right above this question I’m currently typing?

We certainly aren’t the only social animals on the planet either.

But we certainly are the only social animals on the planet which are regularly and repeatedly known to enact the selfless giving of ourselves to others with absolutely no secondary motives.

See the bolded parts above?

There are plenty of books about evolutionary morality.

Yes. And they have nothing valid to say about true altruism. Nor have they been empirically verified via the scientific method in the same sense as the theory of evolution itself has been.

I’m sorry but evolutionary morality is just the latest fad which some have tried to wax into the fabric of the theory of evolution itself in order to give it more legitimacy, which it doesn’t. In fact, evolutionary morality insults the theory of evolution, just like Social Darwinism does, precisely because it claims to factually explain something specific about human behaviors by claiming that they have been empirically verified, which it has not.

So go ahead and quote your books phooney. I will again repeat this for your spiritual enrichment and edification-- There is no evolutionary advantage to the selfless giving of ourselves to others with absolutely no secondary motives in accordance with the principles of the survival of the fittest.

And if you have something significant to offer regarding this I would certainly be willing to listen, just like the few hundred thousand scientists from multiple disciplines all around the world who would love to hear this explanation too.

PS: See the bolded parts above for further clarification. :doh2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Sure, if you are begging the question, god is God. However, my signature isn’t there to pander to your superstitious fantasies. Certainly, you can assert anything, but it still remains that all that is required for atheism is a lack of belief in a god. In that context all I mean by ‘a god’ is ‘a concept of God’.

The purpose of forums such as this is to learn from each other. You consider my beliefs as “superstitious fantasy”, and I consider your beliefs as self-contradictory egomaniacal narcissism.

You don’t even HAVE a concept of that which you say you are talking about (though in truth you do while not admitting of such).

You are literally a conscious (though not unconscious) vaccuum speaking about nothing to no one, as no one can actually use your vaccuousness to form any conclusions about anything whatsoever.

However your panic over capitalisation doesn’t really matter to me, your attitude to ideas that conflict with your own and your labelling of them as ‘weird composites of demons and angels’ only serves to clearly illustrate how theistic belief has somewhat clouded your receptiveness to opposing ideas.

You’re not here to help us understand the “way of the (so-called) atheist”, but only to blither nonsense, as you never define your terms, about that which you are NOT talking about while pretending to talk about.

Your a marvelous example of what (supposedly) holding to atheistic thought produces. Bravo, and do hang around as you’re quite useful to us in showing the sense of belief in God, and the degraded condition of those who don’t.

 

[phooney]

@Camron

Truly, your mastery of the bold funcion knows no bounds

Unfortunately that seems to be where your mastery ends. Yes, yes, bold this and bold that, and I must admit your vampire bat example is an excellent one that I haven’t heard before, so thank you.

“Which is not the same kind of altruism as the kind that I’m speaking of…”

I must apologise. You are correct, perhaps evolutionary biology doesn’t have much to say about the kind of altruism you are talking about. Mind you, you have a lot of work ahead of you to argue that that kind of altruism exists. As a species that uses information as a commodity, it is pretty much impossible to perform an act in the spirit of your “true altruism” and then have somebody like you argue about it’s inexplicable and selfless nature. By the very fact that you know about it and promote how admirable it is, you nullify any semblance of selflessness it may have had about it. Bold all you want, it still doesn’t help your non-existent case. You’ve confidently bolded that we perform acts with absolutely no secondary motives, so do you have an example, especially in light of the above?

"But we certainly are the only social animals on the planet which are regularly and repeatedly known to enact the selfless giving of ourselves to others with absolutely no secondary motives.

See the bolded parts above?"

Wrong again, as far as I’m concerned. Let’s look at another social animal. What do we have to compare to to the humble worker-ant that doesn’t even have a chance to reproduce, and who is on the frontline of the ant clump when there is flooding? As far as selflessness is concerned, human examples usually pale in comparison, but not from the genetic level. From within the perspective of a species as defined by those with which one can reproduce, the benefit of another within one’s species is the benefit of 99+% of one’s active genome.

“I’m sorry but evolutionary morality is just the latest fad which some have tried to wax into the fabric of the theory of evolution itself in order to give it more legitimacy, which it doesn’t. In fact, evolutionary morality insults the theory of evolution, just like Social Darwinism does, precisely because it claims to factually explain something specific about human behaviors by claiming that they have been empirically verified, which it has not.”

I admit, I have a lot more to read about evolutionary morality, but if human morality is in any sense nature rather than nurture or even a tiny bit nature and mostly nurture, then the only current explanation that currently meshes with all available evidence is evolution.

By Social Darwinism, I guess you are talking about something like Eugenics? I agree that something like that insults the theory of evolution. It insults the theory of evolution by assuming an ultimate goal of evolution, which is not an intelligently guided process.

So… what is your empirical verification of any of the God concepts? Or is this some more special pleading?

“So go ahead and quote your books phooney.”

Thanks for your permission, and instruction

“I will again repeat this for your spiritual enrichment and edification-- There is no evolutionary advantage to the selfless giving of ourselves to others with absolutely no secondary motives in accordance with the principles of the survival of the fittest.”

Ah, repitition, thanks again. Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Again, given the fact that information is a transferable commodity in particular in our species, give me an example of a selfless act that you are unaware of as an admirable act and who also thought he or she wasn’t doing any good for anybody in the species. If you can do that then perhaps you have something more than a naked assertion.

Allow me to impart something to you for your flangelical enrichment, as you have done for my spiritual enrichment. OEOHFPPE. You can thank me or damn me in the next life, the two are currently indistinguishable to me.

“And if you have something significant to offer regarding this I would certainly be willing to listen, just like the few hundred thousand scientists from multiple disciplines all around the world who would love to hear this explanation too.”

So much bold text! Wow, with that much bold you must be right! As far as I am concerned, I probably don’t have anything truly new to offer to this debate, overall. However, I will try to point out that it seems many of your “few hundred thousand scientists from multiple disciplines” seem to subscribe to a kind of non-overlapping magisteria, which I view as incompatible with a god who has any effect on the observable universe. Also, it seems that the majority of the so called elite scientists lack a belief in a personal god. These are all arguments from popularity and arguments from authority anyway, so I put no particular stock in them. I just wanted to poke the most blatant holes in your bolded “few hundred thousand scientists” text.

ps bold bold bold. Maybe next time you should put some words in capitals as well and that will make your point of view true somehow.

 

[phooney]

@CatsAndDogs

“The purpose of forums such as this is to learn from each other. You consider my beliefs as “superstitious fantasy”, and I consider your beliefs as self-contradictory egomaniacal narcissism.”

So, do you consider your own beliefs to be antithetical to the purpose of forums such as this? I don’t think you even have a notion of what my beliefs are to make any claims about them. Unless you’ve researched what I’ve posted on these forums, all you know about me is what I’ve posted in this thread and that I’m an atheist. From the fact that I am an atheist all you can know is that I lack a belief in a god, you can’t know anything else about me. Sure you can say my beliefs are “self-contradictory egomaniacal narcissism” but anything but a lack of belief in god, as attributed by me and to me, are constructs of your own imagination. Perhaps that is the atheist you would most like to argue against. That is not me though.

“You don’t even HAVE a concept of that which you say you are talking about (though in truth you do while not admitting of such).”

So what are you even saying, you seem to contradict your self within a single sentence. This is a much more efficient contradiction rate than even theists normally accuse me of “You don’t, but you do” So,which is it?

I do obviously have a ‘concept’ of what I am talking about. As far as I know it isn’t anything that is too outlandish as far as concepts of ‘god’ are concerned.

“You are literally a conscious (though not unconscious) vaccuum speaking about nothing to no one, as no one can actually use your vaccuousness to form any conclusions about anything whatsoever.”

Are even you able to explain what you mean by this? I’m not trying to say that atheism has anything to say about much at all. All it is is a stance on one particular aspect of belief, nothing more. As per my signature.

“You’re not here to help us understand the “way of the (so-called) atheist”, but only to blither nonsense, as you never define your terms, about that which you are NOT talking about while pretending to talk about.”

There’s a “way of the (so-called) atheist”? News to me. I speak purely on my own behalf, there is no guiding dogma of atheism. There is only pure etymoloigcal and philosophical definition, as pertaining to atheism in the currently living language of english, which is the only language I am able to speak fluently. To be sure, this is dynamic, but there don’t seem to be any credible objections to ‘atheism’ as I use it, as per my signature, as per our modern context.

What particular terms would you want me to define? Are you willing, in turn, to give some concrete definitions of God that we could verify by experiment, if you think such definitions pertain to a real entity that has an observable effect in our universe?

“Your a marvelous example of what (supposedly) holding to atheistic thought produces. Bravo, and do hang around as you’re quite useful to us in showing the sense of belief in God, and the degraded condition of those who don’t.”

Thank you. Yet, by definition of what I propose atheism to be, it cannot be an actual influencing factor in my thought processes. It can only be a lack of a particular belief. Yes it is true that not holding to a particular presupposition will unavoidably affect the conclusions that I am able to reach, it does still allow my unforced formations of belief to be a direct result of the available evidence.

I am perfectly comfortable to be an example in this sense, I mean why not? As an atheist the only thing I must have in common with another atheist is that particular lack of belief. Anything I say or do is applicable only to myself.

 

[RyanL]

Well, I’m not getting into the shroud again.

Please point me to where you discussed it last and I’ll read what you had to say.

The only tests that were done on it confirmed, from three independent sources, that the shroud was a medieval forgery. Since then there have been some perfectly reasonable objections to the way the testing was done.

Then it wasn’t “confirmed” now, was it?

And I assume you’re only talking about the carbon dating and not about the manner of weaving, pollen samples, physiological structure and pathology, VP-8 image and likelihood of forgery, etc… is that correct?

However, the church has not allowed more testing, and their so called ‘restoration’ work has polluted any chance of further verification.

1. Why the heck should the Church allow a bunch of folks to put their grubby hands all over one of the most sacred relics we have, particularly after she’s already allowed it time and again, and the last time being so badly botched?
2. “So-called”? Do you have information proving it’s not an actual “restoration” or are you just foaming at the mouth?

The sudarium? I’ve not heard much about that, what tests have been done on it?

Look into it on your own, but for starters there are some 120 points of convergence between the Shroud and the Sudarium (not including other forensic evidence like blood type and composition) and the Sudarium can be verified as having been in Spain since the 600s (ruling out your “confirmed” medieval forgery idea).

Nativity site? Tell me more! What tests have been done to confirm it?

Why is it always about tests with you atheists? If you can’t put it in a beaker, you think it’s not true. How silly. I’m afraid that’s just not the way archeology works – and I think you know that.

Perhaps you’ve heard of a game called telephone or chinese whispers?

That’s assuming (apriori) that the books in the NT aren’t written by the people alleged or by people who knew them directly - a fact you DON’T know. I’m quite interested in which Biblical scholars you’ve read who claims this besides Christopher Dawkins. I’m going to hold my breath for those names.

To use stories that have been subject to said decades of oral tradition falls very much short of a reasonable standard of evidence to verify such extraordinary claims.

1. You haven’t proved “decades of oral tradition”. You’ve alleged it and haven’t cited a single person who agrees with you.
2. Decades aren’t enough time for *legends *to develop. Telephone game or not, someone would notice changing a detail like a guy rising from the dead or being God.
3. Decades after the crucifixion, there were still eyewitnesses present to correct these “oral traditions” on which people exclusively relied, rather than their own or even other eyewitness testimony.
4. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, the standard of evidence doesn’t change because of the claim. There’s not a higher standard because the claim subjectively seems less reasonable. The same evidence sufficient to prove the existence of Alexander the Great should suffice to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

When did he die? I’m not sure. As far as I’m aware there’s the unconfirmed remains of Peter under the vatican, and Paul mentions him as well, so I don’t have much to go on. Paul never claimed to have met Jesus in real life either.

1. Your skepticism is completely unfounded as a scientific matter.
2. I’m aware of Paul’s claims.

Not if the Authors were unaware of the martyrdoms or they were fictional accounts of course.

1. If they were fictional accounts, why were people being martyred?
2. If they were fictional or the authors were unaware of things, why so much congruence between the books, why the books referencing each other, why the leaders of Churches like Clement of Rome (he was ordained by Peter and was head of the Church at Rome, so I’d say he was likely aware of what happened to Peter) quoting these books approvingly to others, why no corrections from eyewitnesses, why were people being martyred, why were people converting, etc., etc.?

Your explanation is…well…rather lame. You should question your assumptions more.

The Didache? Do you know what contemporary means?

Jesus was only a public figure for the last three years of his life. How contemporaneous are you expecting?

Regardless, you’ve got all your work ahead of you if you want to convince modern historians that the gospels are written by the apostles that have their names tacked to the front, as well as explaining why such things as the infancy gospel of Thomas aren’t reliable.

Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus both said that Mark wrote Mark - and that’s fine by me.

Oh, and would you be so kind as to state the name of a “modern historian” specializing in Biblical history who doesn’t think that the Gospels were written by those alleged?

Congratulations on that other work you say you’ve got going on

Um…thanks? I’ve never been congratulated for having work to do before…

I hope you’ve got your trump card of evidence still to play, because you don’t seem to bring anything new to the table

If I had anything new to bring to the table I’d be publishing it and not speaking with you. I bring only the things which are old.

except, ‘it’s true and that’s all that matters’

Well yes, I do believe that truth is paramount - so if it’s true, that’s all that matters. There’s sufficient reason for believing it’s true of course, but again I’ll assert that the genetic fallacy is still a fallacy.

If you can’t explain how you’ve come to a conclusion then you don’t really understand it yourself.

Such sage words…

God Bless,
RyanL