Is Religion a Scam?

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

*I am willing to believe anything for which there is sufficient evidence to justify believing in it. That applies to claims about a god or gods. *

What do you mean by sufficient evidence? Why do I have the feeling that if God appeared to you in person as proof that He exists, you would say you have had a delusional episode?

 

[grannymh]

What do you mean there are two methods of objective reasoning?

Ultimately, when considering claims about reality, the best way to determine whether or not claims are true is by evaluating the evidence. We cannot make claims about reality without any evidence, and beliefs about reality are only justified to the degree that there is sufficient evidence to justify such belief.

Evidence based inquiry, of which science is a subset, is limited to testing things that manifest themselves in a detectable way. That is usually what we mean when we say that something exists. If the supernatural did not manifest in some detectable way in this world, we would have no way of knowing it exists.

I’ve never heard a person object to the supernatural because it can’t be observed under a microscope. Rather, I do object to believing in the existence of something that does not manifest itself in this world in some way.

Which one of those could and would verify the existence of the “supernatural”.

I’m in the midst of a granny project so can’t respond as I would like. Read something interesting on another thread – something about the universe being intelligible. Please don’t confuse this with “Intelligent Design”. The idea of the universe being intelligible struck my mind. Any thoughts while I am trying to organize my granny mind to get this project done?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

What do you mean by sufficient evidence?

By “sufficient evidence”, I mean evidence that is of sufficient quality to show that the claim being made is probably true.

If you’re asking what that would be for a god, it would depend how that god is defined. Although it’s hard to determine exactly what would qualify as sufficient evidence to justify belief in something, I can list several things that would be sufficient evidence and would not be sufficient evidence. For instance, you’d probably find it difficult to determine exactly what evidence would convince you that extra-terrestrials are abducting people, especially considering that there are many honest first hand accounts of these. Since I don’t want to spend all day telling you everything that I think would, and everything that would not, be sufficient evidence to justify belief in a god, I’ll direct you to a thread that I started that is related to this, and I’ll list a few things that would convince me that there is a god that I pulled from the following site:

ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html

A rigorous methodology must be used to verify these things, or else they wouldn’t count:
-Verified, specific prophesies that could not have been contrived and could not have been a self-fulfilling prophesy.
-Scientific knowledge in a holy book that couldn’t have been known at that time.
-occurrence that were obviously miraculous, that were obviously the action of a particular god.
-A direct manifestation of the divine that I witness (which wouldn’t apply if there was any reasonable possibility that I was in a highly emotional state, or hallucinating).

Why do I have the feeling that if God appeared to you in person as proof that He exists, you would say you have had a delusional episode?

I suspect that you get that feeling as a defense mechanism.

As I noted above, if I did experience a direct manifestation of the divine, and there was no reasonable possibility that I was hallucinating due to being in a highly emotional state (or for some other reason), that would convince me. The reason why I say, “That I witness,” is because if I take other people’s words as confirmation of what they seem to honestly think they’ve experienced, then I would need to accept claims of alien abduction if I were to subject such claims to the same standards of evidence.

I’m not going to list every possible scenario, but if you’d like to tell me about some particular piece of evidence that you think aught to convince me, I could give you my reasons for not accepting it as sufficient evidence (unless you present me with something that convinces me).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

As I noted above, if I did experience a direct manifestation of the divine, and there was no reasonable possibility that I was hallucinating due to being in a highly emotional state (or for some other reason), that would convince me.

Exactly. Even if you experienced the divine One in person, you would find a “reasonable possibility” that you were hallucinating. So there really isn’t any way to “show” you God if the evidence that would be most convincing was explained away as delusional.

As to scientific evidence about Creation in a holy book that couldn’t have been known at the time.

“Let there be light!” Genesis 1,000 B.C.

Three thousand years later:

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[grannymh]

What do you mean there are two methods of objective reasoning?

Ultimately, when considering claims about reality, the best way to determine whether or not claims are true is by evaluating the evidence. We cannot make claims about reality without any evidence, and beliefs about reality are only justified to the degree that there is sufficient evidence to justify such belief.

Normally, I would say that objective reasoning is for both material and non-material realities. I would consider experience of dishonesty, the experience of poetry, or for me, the experience of color as being non-material reality. But since these experiences are connected to things in space and time, one can use objective reasoning regarding the dishonest person, the words of the poem, and the reaction to color in nature or on the living room wall.

But what about experiences of the non-material which is commonly called spiritual? The dishonest person has a material anatomy, the poem has paper and ink, and color needs something physical in the eye in order to be seen. However, spiritual, as in God being a Pure Spirit, means a spirituality without the restrictions of matter or energy. In other words, spiritual in the unrestricted sense is supernatural or transcendent Whom we call God. In my humble opinion, the second method of objective reasoning would be geared to the supernatural which can be evaluated by the tools of reason. Round peg for round hole using round hammer.

Regarding your question as to which of the tools of reason could verify the existence of the "supernatural’, I would reply – any or all plus gut instinct and intuitions

Evidence based inquiry, of which science is a subset, is limited to testing things that manifest themselves in a detectable way. That is usually what we mean when we say that something exists. If the supernatural did not manifest in some detectable way in this world, we would have no way of knowing it exists.​

I’ve never heard a person object to the supernatural because it can’t be observed under a microscope. Rather, I do object to believing in the existence of something that does not manifest itself in this world in some way.

The proverbial natural science microscope is an older phrase referring to all the technology available to science. It is the symbol of evidence based inquiry. It is also the symbol of objections to the supernatural. Or in your words. “I do object to believing in the existence of something that does not manifest itself in this world in some way.”

To wrap this up. I believe that the supernatural exists because it is intelligible.
(Do not confuse with Intelligent Design) I don’t believe that the Catholic religion is a scam. You may laugh, but I find Catholicism very logical when it comes to the supernatural.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 1

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

By “sufficient evidence”, I mean evidence that is of sufficient quality to show that the claim being made is probably true.

Since you seem fond of links, I’ll provide some. I hope they help.

shroud.com/
amazon.com/History-Church-Constantine-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140445358

amazon.com/Lives-Saints-Every-Day-Year/dp/0899428703/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300307141&sr=1-2

Virgin mary appears on camera in egypt:
youtube.com/watch?v=CUeW5cS3My4

Can’t find link but:
Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)
Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)
Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)
Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
Lucian (mid-2nd century)
Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3)
Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

fatima miracle (“worthy of belief” but not required to believe as a Catholic):
youtube.com/watch?v=hyIpE1_qIFM

amazon.com/Autobiography-St-Teresa-Avila-Jesus/dp/0895556030/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1300307605&sr=8-2

D’souza refutes “modern atheism movements” nonsense:
amazon.com/Whats-So-Great-about-Christianity/dp/1414326017/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300307737&sr=1-3

amazon.com/Life-After-Death-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/1596980990/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300307737&sr=1-4

And finally, if you wish to read about your final destination if you reject the evidence provided here and the plethora of evidence not mentioned here, I recommend this classic work:

amazon.com/Divine-Comedy-Inferno-Penguin-Classics/dp/0142437220/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300307638&sr=1-1

Have a great day. I hope you end up in paradise after death.

 

[tonyrey]

Part 1/3

Your posts have become little more than you reversing the BOP.

A person who lacks belief in something does not have the burden of proof. I don’t know why you don’t seem to understand that.I don’t why you don’t seem to understand that lack of belief presupposes that you have an alternative explanation if the belief is concerned with moral values, historical events and the interpretation of their significance.

You are ignoring the creative aspect of the quest for truth.

Regardless of how creative a person is, no claim about the world is justified without evidence.True! That is why **any **claim you make has to be justified - even when it is a negative claim.

In other words you accept the truth of those ideas but believe the Apostles who communicated the teaching of Jesus were mistaken even though that is the basis of those ideas.

Correction: I don’t see enough evidence to justify belief that the apostles existed in the manner presented in the Bible and correctly preached that Jesus was a god made man. I starting to bang my head against a wall due to you not being able to understand these differences.Then to whom do you attribute the origin of the account of His life and teaching? An appeal to ignorance is not an adequate alternative.

You have evaded my question. Other things being equal, do you believe the beliefs of a small number of people are more significant and likely to be true than those of several billion?

I didn’t evade your question, rather I said that the popularity of a truth claim does not necessarily mean that it’s more likely to be true. If the only differentiating actors between two or more competing claims is their difference in their popularity, than those claims are equally likely to be true. If, however, a claim is popular because it is supported by sufficient evidence, than that claim is probably true due to the evidence, not popularity. If Christianity was truly popular because it’s supported by sufficient evidence, it would be easy to convince me to be a Christian, rather than go through all this trouble to reverse the burden of proof.
How do you prove that Christianity is not truly popular because it’s supported by sufficient evidence? Why is it not only popular but the most cogent explanation of our capacity for unselfish love and self-determination?

[/QUOTE]

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker

As I noted above, if I did experience a direct manifestation of the divine, and there was no reasonable possibility that I was hallucinating due to being in a highly emotional state (or for some other reason), that would convince me.

Exactly. Even if you experienced the divine One in person, you would find a “reasonable possibility” that you were hallucinating.

You’re making an assumption.

As to scientific evidence about Creation in a holy book that couldn’t have been known at the time.

“Let there be light!” Genesis 1,000 B.C.

Three thousand years later:

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Is this a joke? Genesis does not indicate that the big bang happened. To say it did is an extreme stretch. God created the heaven and earth two verses before he said “Let their be light.”

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Normally, I would say that objective reasoning is for both material and non-material realities. I would consider experience of dishonesty, the experience of poetry, or for me, the experience of color as being non-material reality. . . .]

But what about experiences of the non-material which is commonly called spiritual?

First, abstract ideas like dishonesty aren’t really “things” that “exist” in the world. To treat them as such would be to commit the fallacy of reification (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy ).

Second, experiences in one’s mind aren’t claims about the world outside the mind.

In my humble opinion, the second method of objective reasoning would be geared to the supernatural which can be evaluated by the tools of reason.

This doesn’t really tell me what the second method, that you are proposing, is.

Regarding your question as to which of the tools of reason could verify the existence of the "supernatural’, I would reply – any or all plus gut instinct and intuitions

Instinct and intuitions are terrible ways for determining whether or not something exists in reality.

To wrap this up. I believe that the supernatural exists because it is intelligible.

To say that X is intelligible is to say that it can be comprehended. There are a lot of things that I can comprehend that don’t exist.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Since you seem fond of links, I’ll provide some. I hope they help.

When I provide a link to something, it’s usually to either prove that I’m not just making a fact up, or to provide information about a specific logical fallacy. I do not want this thread to become all about pulling things from other sites, which is what you’re doing, and I’m not.

Anyways, I’m familiar with all of the miracles you gave links to. In the end, they didn’t impress me after I learned more about them.

Can’t find link but:
Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)
Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)
Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)
Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
Lucian (mid-2nd century)
Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3)
Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

The earliest of these was written 6 decades after Jesus allegedly rose from the dead! Is that supposed to be sufficient evidence to justify belief in a god-made-man?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

*Is this a joke? Genesis does not indicate that the big bang happened. To say it did is an extreme stretch. God created the heaven and earth two verses before he said “Let their be light.” *

But He said “Let there be light” twelves verses before He created the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Then God said: "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years,

15
and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened:
16
God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night; and he made the stars.

Where did the first light come from since there was no other light yet in the universe? It came from the same place cosmology today says it came from: the Big Bang.

No joke.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 1/3

TruthSeeker60;7650972:

Your posts have become little more than you reversing the BOP.

I could say exactly the same about you but I won’t!

Comments like this, in the context of our discussion, tell me that you don’t understand the burden of proof. If a person, or a group of persons, makes a claim, they have the burden of proof regardless of how popular the claim is.

In other words, if a biologists claims that the theory of evolution is true, it is on him to provide sufficient evidence to back up that claim, even though well over 99% of biologists would agree with him. That fact that the theory of evolution is popular in the scientific community does not reverse the BOP.

TruthSeeker60;7650972:

tonyrey;7646805:

TruthSeeker60;7646098:

tonyrey;7645647:

Rejection of an interpretation of reality implies that a person has an alternative interpretation that has to be justified. It is impossible to be uncommitted.

THIS IS VERY WRONG. I want to be loud and clear with this point because it is elementary, yet fundamental.

A person most definitely does not have to prove an alternative in order to not believe what is being proposed.

If you told me that you were abducted by an extra-terrestrial, I do not need to provide an alternative explanation to not believe that you actually were abducted. Rather, the burden of proof is on you and anyone else who thinks you were abducted by extra-terrestrials to prove it.

You have ignored my point (read Sartre) that it is impossible to be uncommitted. Even the rejection of a belief is a form of commitment.

So according to you, a person who doesn’t know whether or not the San Francisco 49ers won Super Bowl V has a form of “commitment”. That’s silly.

It’s certainly silly to compare commitment to a belief (or an absence of belief) to ignorance of the result of a game.

I’ll explain why my comparison, as imperfect as it is, destroys your assertion. Earlier, you were trying to assert that I must provide an alternative explanation to not accept a particular popular explanation. In the absence of evidence (ignorance), one aught not jump to conclusions. That is true for both who won Super Bowl V and even more so when it comes to the claim that a god-made-man existed. This is most certainly not a “commitment” as you assert.

There is insufficient evidence that there is insufficient evidence - until you provide it!

Finding an lack of evidence where one would expect the evidence to be if the evidence did exist, is evidence of the lack of evidence.

What’s more intellectually honest: Admitting that you’re not sure about something, or believing something without sufficient evidence?

Not to believe and not to act is a form of commitment. Your notion of belief (and non-belief) is unrealistic.

I find it very telling that you evaded actually saying whether it’s more intellectually honest to admit uncertainty or believe something without sufficient evidence. I’m starting to think that you’re the type of person who would believe something completely without justification rather than be uncertain.

Precisely! You live as if you are an atheist…

FYI, the term “a-theist” refers to anyone who does not believe in a god, not necessarily those who claim a god doesn’t exist.

TruthSeeker60;7650972:

Wow! After reading this I think you actually don’t understand the difference between claiming that something is not so, and saying that you don’t believe something is so. The former is a negative claim, that does entail a BOP, while the latter is lack of acceptance of a positive claim.

That is just wordplay.

Since you think that that’s only word play, I can see you don’t understand the difference between claiming a negative and not accepting a positive.

You need to justify** any** view you hold if you are reasonable.

Yes. If one makes a positive or negative claim about something, one holds a view that needs to be justified. If one does not accept any claim, and thus has not formulated a view, all the justification he needs for not formulating a view is not being presented, by those who do accept a claim (and thus have the BOP), with sufficient evidence.

TruthSeeker60;7650972:

What evidence do you have that these teachings originated with Jesus, and how would that be evidence for things such as the resurrection?

Their beauty, wisdom, coherence, originality and correspondence to historical facts.

“Their beauty, wisdom, coherence, [and] originality” have little to do with whether or not those teachings originated with Jesus. Various historical facts may, but I’m suspecting that those are lacking.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 2/3

What are your criteria of sufficient evidence?

Since I already addressed this in a previous post on this thread, I’ll just copy the relevent portion of that post to save time:

By “sufficient evidence”, I mean evidence that is of sufficient quality to show that the claim being made is probably true.

If you’re asking what that would be for a god, it would depend how that god is defined. Although it’s hard to determine exactly what would qualify as sufficient evidence to justify belief in something, I can list several things that would be sufficient evidence and would not be sufficient evidence. For instance, you’d probably find it difficult to determine exactly what evidence would convince you that extra-terrestrials are abducting people, especially considering that there are many honest first hand accounts of these. Since I don’t want to spend all day telling you everything that I think would, and everything that would not, be sufficient evidence to justify belief in a god, I’ll direct you to a thread that I started that is related to this, and I’ll list a few things that would convince me that there is a god that I pulled from the following site:

ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html

A rigorous methodology must be used to verify these things, or else they wouldn’t count:
-Verified, specific prophesies that could not have been contrived and could not have been a self-fulfilling prophesy.
-Scientific knowledge in a holy book that couldn’t have been known at that time.
-occurrence that were obviously miraculous, that were obviously the action of a particular god.
-A direct manifestation of the divine that I witness (which wouldn’t apply if there was any reasonable possibility that I was in a highly emotional state, or hallucinating).

You must be confused because you are contradicting yourself. One minute you state that without evidence for something you treat it, for practical purposes, as if there is about a** 0% chance of being true** and then you state that “I think that them being wrong is a possibility” !

Treating something as having a 0% chance of being true for practical purposes while not knowing with absolute certainty that it’s false is not a contradiction. Presumably, you don’t have absolute certainty that the claim made by Pastafarians, that dressing up as a pirate helps reduce global warming, is false. Yet, for practical purposes, you’ll treat it as if it had a 0% chance of being true.

The impact a belief has on the world does not

reverse the burden of proof!

You believe a consensus of belief in science or any other subject is totally insignificant!

A consensus of belief is significant, but it does not reverse the BOP. If a belief is popular because there is sufficient evidence to justify that belief, then that belief is justified by the evidence, not popularity.

In science as well as in life “by their fruits you shall know them”.

Going from “person X was a great moral teacher” to “the claims that person X was a god who did many magical thing is true” is most definitely not scientific.

I don’t why you don’t seem to understand that lack of belief presupposes that you have an alternative explanation if the belief is concerned with moral values, historical events and the interpretation of their significance.

It doesn’t! Lets say that you claimed that Christopher Columbus was a Muslim. We have good evidence that he was a Christian. However, even if I were unaware that there was evidence that he was a Christian, I could still not accept your claim that he was a Muslim if you don’t provide evidence.

Do you seriously think that if someone makes a claim about morality or history, that a person must automatically accept that claim unless they can prove an alternative?

True! That is why **any **claim you make has to be justified - even when it is a negative claim.

Yes! But one thing that I don’t think you’ve understood is that there is a difference between making a negative claim, and not accepting a positive claim that’s being made. For example, a person may lack belief in the multiverse “theory” without needing to justify his/her lack of belief by evidence, but if he/she makes the negative claim that the multiverse “theory” is wrong, he/she has to justify that with evidence that disproves it.

Presumably, you don’t accept the multiverse “theory”, yet aren’t able to disprove it.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 3/3

TruthSeeker60;7650972:

Correction: I don’t see enough evidence to justify belief that the apostles existed in the manner presented in the Bible and correctly preached that Jesus was a god made man. I starting to bang my head against a wall due to you not being able to understand these differences.

Then to whom do you attribute the origin of the account of His life and teaching? An appeal to ignorance is not an adequate alternative.

Saying “I don’t know” is an acceptable reply in the absence of evidence.

In the absence of evidence, would it be better to say “I don’t know” or to make a claim that isn’t backed up by evidence?

TruthSeeker60;7650972:

I didn’t evade your question, rather I said that the popularity of a truth claim does not necessarily mean that it’s more likely to be true. If the only differentiating actors between two or more competing claims is their difference in their popularity, than those claims are equally likely to be true. If, however, a claim is popular because it is supported by sufficient evidence

, than that claim is probably true due to the evidence, not popularity. If Christianity was truly popular because it’s supported by sufficient evidence, it would be easy to convince me to be a Christian, rather than go through all this trouble to reverse the burden of proof.

How do you prove that Christianity is not truly popular because it’s supported by sufficient evidence?

The onus is on Christians to show that their religion is popular because it’s supported by sufficient evidence, not on me to prove that their religion isn’t justified by evidence. Stop trying to reverse the burden of proof!

Why is it not only popular but the most cogent explanation of our capacity for unselfish love and self-determination?

Not only are you reversing the burden of proof, but you are also using mere assertions as evidence for your religion. Instead of going on a rant about how natural selection provides some good explanations for why most humans have quite a capacity for unselfish love and self-determination, I’ll just end by pointing out the fact that you keep trying to reverse the burden of proof indicates that there probably is not sufficient evidence to justify your beliefs.

 

[Pieman333272]

The earliest of these was written 6 decades after Jesus allegedly rose from the dead! Is that supposed to be sufficient evidence to justify belief in a god-made-man?

If you mean Jesus’ divinity, then no, but it can lead there.

IF, however, you mean Jesus’ existence, than they most certainly are sufficient evidence - no person, in the context of ancient history, can honstly say that 6 decades is too long for Josephus to be reliable, without having to apply the same radical skepticism to Tiberius, Socrates, Zoroaster, Alexander the Great (archeological evidence cannot apply to these without proper historical reference because it could have been forged or made by other means), and quite a few more redialy accepted historical people from the ancint times.

Also, besides your professor, name a real-deal historian or scholar who doesn’t believe in Socrates. A singular person amongst a relativley large field isn’t enough to take your point - your professor, no offence intended, could be (and probably is, judging by some things you make him say) a fringe scholar.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

The onus is on Christians to show that their religion is popular because it’s supported by sufficient evidence, not on me to prove that their religion isn’t justified by evidence. Stop trying to reverse the burden of proof!

So if someone came along and said the popular theory of evolution is bogus, you wouldn’t require that he prove his claim?

How is that different from the theist demanding that the atheist prove his claim?

 

[Pieman333272]

In the absence of evidence, would it be better to say “I don’t know” or to make a claim that isn’t backed up by evidence?

Well, if there is no evidence against the claim, and accepting the claim can’t harm you but can offer infinite reward, I would accept the claim, and probably also look harder for evidence.

BTW, this is called “Pascal’s Wager”, and there is another thread here devoted to that topic. I only posted there once or twice but if you want to see a more depth debate on this idea I advise going there rather than spinning a debate with me.

 

[tonyrey]

]If a person, or a group of persons, makes a claim, they have the burden of proof regardless of how popular the claim is.

If a claim is denied the person who denies it also has a burden of proof regardless of how popular the claim is. Otherwise you could go through life without making any positive assertions whatsoever! There has to be a reason for the denial, doesn’t there?

In other words, if a biologist claims that the theory of evolution is true, it is on him to provide sufficient evidence to back up that claim, even though well over 99% of biologists would agree with him. That fact that the theory of evolution is popular in the scientific community does not reverse the BOP.

It does if we are to judge by the number of materialists on this forum who resort to the magic word “evolution”! You haven’t specified what you regard as “sufficient evidence”.

BTW There is more than one theory of evolution. One of them is evolution by Design…

A person most definitely does not have to prove an alternative in order to not believe what is being proposed

.
Not in every case but he does when it concerns an interpretation of reality, the origin of a worldwide religion and the source of moral values accepted by every civilised person…

If you told me that you were abducted by an extra-terrestrial, I do not need to provide an alternative explanation to not believe that you actually were abducted. Rather, the burden of proof is on you and anyone else who thinks you were abducted by extra-terrestrials to prove it.

One individual’s claim as opposed to that of billions of people for two thousand years!

I’ll explain why my comparison, as imperfect as it is, destroys your assertion. Earlier, you were trying to assert that I must provide an alternative explanation to not accept a particular popular explanation. In the absence of evidence (ignorance), one aught not jump to conclusions. That is true for both who won Super Bowl V and even more so when it comes to the claim that a god-made-man existed. This is most certainly not a “commitment” as you assert.

The result of a game does not entail any form of commitment comparable to that of an interpretation of reality - even if you are a punter.

There is insufficient evidence that there is insufficient evidence - until you provide it!
Finding a lack of evidence where one would expect the evidence to be if the evidence did exist, is evidence of the lack of evidence.

Expectations are not restricted to one point of view!

What’s more intellectually honest: Admitting that you’re not sure about something, or believing something without sufficient evidence?

Not to believe and not to act is a form of commitment. Your notion of belief (and non-belief) is unrealistic.

I find it very telling that you evaded actually saying whether it’s more intellectually honest to admit uncertainty or believe something without sufficient evidence. I’m starting to think that you’re the type of person who would believe something completely without justification rather than be uncertain.

I’m starting to think you’re the type of person who would claim - without justification -
to believe nothing rather than admit the probability that you are mistaken.

Precisely! You live as if you are an atheist…

FYI, the term “a-theist” refers to anyone who does not believe in a god, not necessarily those who claim a god doesn’t exist.

Keeping your mouth closed doesn’t alter the facts! Belief or non-belief is not just a matter of the intellect but also a matter of commitment - as Sartre demonstrated.

Since you think that that’s only word play, I can see you don’t understand the difference between claiming a negative and not accepting a positive.

What practical difference does it make whether you claim Christianity is false or not true?

You need to justify any view you hold if you are reasonable.

Yes. If one makes a positive or negative claim about something, one holds a view that needs to be justified. If one does not accept any claim, and thus has not formulated a view, all the justification he needs for not formulating a view is not being presented, by those who do accept a claim (and thus have the BOP), with sufficient evidence

.

If you are reasonable it is impossible to reject a claim without having any idea of why it is not true. At the very least you need to explain why it is not true - which implies that you already have some criteria by which to assess whether it is true or false.

Their beauty, wisdom, coherence, originality and correspondence to historical facts.

“Their beauty, wisdom, coherence, [and] originality” have little to do with whether or not those teachings originated with Jesus. Various historical facts may, but I’m suspecting that those are lacking.

Your suspicion is unfounded given the wealth of both Christian and non-Christian sources and archeological evidence supporting the accounts in the Gospels. You also have to deny the beauty, wisdom, coherence and originality of Christ’s teaching (and justify your view) or provide an alternative explanation of their origin. What you cannot do - if your position is to be intellectually respectable - is to grunt “No evidence!”

 

[grannymh]

First, abstract ideas like dishonesty aren’t really “things” that “exist” in the world. To treat them as such would be to commit the fallacy of reification (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy ).

Second, experiences in one’s mind aren’t claims about the world outside the mind.

This doesn’t really tell me what the second method, that you are proposing, is.

Instinct and intuitions are terrible ways for determining whether or not something exists in reality.

To say that X is intelligible is to say that it can be comprehended. There are a lot of things that I can comprehend that don’t exist.

It is obvious that our concepts of realities are way different.

Of course dishonesty isn’t a thing – that is my point. I am not sure what you mean about “experiences in one’s mind” but I am not going to go there because it will lead to subjective reasoning which gets very complicated. Likewise for “instincts and intuitions”.

Since for you, there isn’t a non-material or spiritual reality, there is no point of discussing or rather developing a second objective method for dealing with the spiritual for example a pure spiritual being which is God.

A sincere thank you for the opportunity to put some of my ideas on paper. I appreciate your feedback and will include it as I go along.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

IF, however, you mean Jesus’ existence, than they most certainly are sufficient evidence - no person, in the context of ancient history, can honstly say that 6 decades is too long for Josephus to be reliable, without having to apply the same radical skepticism to Tiberius, Socrates, Zoroaster, Alexander the Great (archeological evidence cannot apply to these without proper historical reference because it could have been forged or made by other means), and quite a few more redialy accepted historical people from the ancint times.

I’m not sure if the existence of Zoroaster and Socrates are taken as fact by all historians.

I do not contest the fact that a person who Jesus is based on did exist similarly to how a person who King Arthur is loosely based on did exist. However, I did want to correct some things. For Socrates and Zoroaster, I’m certainly willing to admit that they may or may not have existed (for Socrates, whether he existed is of little consequence to me). For Zoroaster, I may be willing to concede the existence of a person who Zoroaster is loosely based on, like I am with King Arthur or Jesus.

By spending just a few minutes researching on the internet, I found that we do have writings about Tiberius and Alexander the Great that are less than 6 decades removed from his death. For Alexander the Great, we have contemporary accounts of his life from multiple writers, including some of his own generals. For Tiberius, we have tons of archeological evidence such as a bust of his first wife as well as historical evidence such as Pliny the Elder (who died less than 6 decades later) calling him tristissimus hominum, “the gloomiest of men.”

Also, archeological evidence should be considered supporting evidence. Almost every piece of evidence for something in the past could have been forged, but historians try to determine the likelihood of it being forged.