V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
No, you don’t understand. “One size does NOT fit all”. Irrelevant and important claims do NOT get the same treatment. Savvy?
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
No one is saying irrelevant and important claims get the same treatment.
What we are saying is that YOU use the SAME methods Christians use to evaluate the truth of events which occurred in the past.
So, either object to your own methods, as you object to ours…
OR…
endorse our methods, as you endorse yours.
#consistency
B
Bradski
Guest
Or maybe not. If anyone else wants to chip in on where all these witnesses came from, feel free.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think an extra zero was added.
The NT testifies to 500 witnesses.
usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/15
Can you please answer what evidence you have for the multiverse, which you have asserted is possible?
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Now you changed the topic about alleged events that happened in the past. There are also different claims pertaining to the relevance. To say that there was a person called Jesus, who has been crucified would be an everyday “ho-hum” claim. The name “Jesus” was frequent and the method of crucifixion was (unfortunately) quite ordinary. Walking on water and raising the dead would have been extraordinary. But all you have is some “testimonial” written by unknown people, at unknown times.
Consistency indeed. Stop changing the goalposts.
P
PRmerger
Guest
We are talking about things you believe which you haven’t verified.
It turns out that you believe a whole lot o’ things yourself, which you haven’t bothered to verify. At all.
And the “sure, I’ll believe something just because I’m told it’s true is fine for me, because these things (like Caesar crossing the Rubicon) don’t really matter. For really important things I will definitely verify them” paradigm doesn’t ring true.
For I’m 100% certain that you’ve never, not even once, asked to see the license of the airline pilot who’s carrying you, in a metal can, thousands of feet, in a situation which could end very, very badly. (And even if you did ask, how would that be proof that this license is actually legit, right?)
You don’t check the math of the engineers who constructed the bridge you drive over every day to get to work. Not even once.
You don’t even look at the safety sheet posted on an elevator, every time you get in.
And we would be agreed that these are things that are of great import, yeah?
B
Bradski
Guest
And jmcrae testifies to 5,000. Who were killed for claiming it.
Kinda funny how these figures just seem to multiply.
Ah, but I see what might have happened. She is perhaps taking the persection of Christians by Nero and mixing it up with a single line in the bible which says that the risen Christ had been seen by, what was it…500 people?
So easy to do, isn’t it. Take one unsubstantiated figure, connect it to another unsubstantiated report and all of a sudden we have written confirmation of something for which there is zero evidence whatsoever.
But it must be true. It’s written down. All those people wouldn’t have died for a lie and why would anyone suggest that jmcrae is not telling the truth?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh, well, yeah. That’s something I don’t doubt.
Christian martyrs in the first centuries were in the multitudes.
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/martyrs.html
The blood of the martyrs was the seed for the Church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, here you are, along with Vera, having that peculiar double standard.
It’s…em…written down…that Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
Do you deny this happened?
But for some reason, that it was written down but it deals with Christian testimony…there’s this weird degree of evidence that isn’t demanded for any other realm of knowledge.
One has to wonder why this is…
B
Bradski
Guest
Again, see how easy it is to slide along from someone making a completely unsubstantiated claim (there was no group of 5,000 witnesses) to saying that it’s something that you don’t doubt.
So we have one person claiming it and now one person saying that there is no doubt it happened.
Chinese whispers. And this is about witnesses that are confmon the resurecction. Something, if it were true, would affect every single man woman and child on the planet. We’re not talking about some guy crossing a river (I could care less is he swam, rowed or couldn’t be bothered).
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Ok, so you are changing the subject again. (Par for the course…)
Fine by me.Indeed, there are many claims that I did not bother to verify personally. And these are important subjects, too. But there is another important facet for these claims. We are all aware of the whole system of verifications for the airline pilots, and the engineers who design bridges.
Every time you board on a plane or cross a bridge, you - personally - verify that the pilot DID have a valid license, and the designer WAS qualified to design / manufacture the bridge. This is millions and billions of verification processes, every day of the year. What kind of verification process can you offer for the veracity of the claim for walking on water or resurrecting the dead? None, whatsoever.
So, let’s look at the whole picture. One can accept irrelevant claims based upon simple testimonials. These belong to the “who the hell cares” category. Then one can accept claims which are verified continuously by the verification processes that are available to everyone who cares to examine them. No one does, of course, for the same reason that no one stops every mile and checks if the brakes in the car STILL work as they should.
You try to draw a parallel with the claims about the “supernatural”. And it simply does not work. There is not even one experiment which could be performed at will, if one is skeptical about the claim. Walking on water, or resurrecting the dead is based only on some hearsay testimony.
Accepting the testimony of others is not an epistemological method, it is an epistemological shortcut. At the end of each epistemological path there MUST be an actual experiment which needs no acceptance based upon “blind faith”, which can be performed by anyone who is willing to invest the time, the resources and the energy to verify the claim personally. And that is sorely missing from ALL your claims. You have no “end”, except “blind faith”. So, don’t bother. Your “blind faith” is not the same as the “reasonable expectation” of the skeptics, who do not waste time on personally verifying every claim.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Whut??
How is this any different than your belief that Caesar crossed the Rubicon?
From one person claiming it, and now you saying that it happened.
(Or are you going to say here on this forum that you doubt that Caesar actually did cross the Rubicon? That would, at least, be consistent. But then, of course, you’d have to be really consistent and say that you doubt everything that ever was documented in a history book that you haven’t verified…and I’m guessing you’re not willing to say this?)
P
PRmerger
Guest
Excellent.Ok, so you are changing the subject again. (Par for the course…)
Indeed, there are many claims that I did not bother to verify personally.
QED.
Just have the same standard, Vera.
That’s all we’re demanding from you here.
I am hopeful that in the future you won’t ever accuse Christians of belief without verification.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Whatever the number, it pales in comparison the billions who have witnessed Christ’s resurrection internally, who have been risen from the dead and found themselves children of God. It loses relevance actually; there is one person who knows.
As stated above, “irrelevant and important claims do not get the same treatment.” I don’t really care about the coding that went into the making of the software that drives this capacity to communicate. I care very much about what is existence, who I am, how I am and why. And I’ve chased it down for many decades to find out that it was He chasing me. Reality itself is the only suitable answer.
If one starts doing what we have to do, one will know God. All the intellectual protestations and Pagan expectations, just have people going in circles.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
We do NOT have the same standard. You remind me of a poster from very long time ago. He argued that the probability of hitting the jackpot was 50%… after all you either hit it or you don’t. He simply did not understand the point, just like you miss it.
The fact that there are many claims that we do not bother to verify personally does not put us into the same “camp”. The operating word here is bother. We do not bother to verify the irrelevant claims (like your gender or profession or the words “alea iacta est”). We do not bother to personally verify those claims, where we have an excellent system in place to do the dirty work for us. (The license of the airline pilot, or the qualifications of the engineers who design bridges.) Incidentally, it is called “science”, “technology”, “research and development” etc… where zillions of people jealously try to disprove the claims of others. But we do bother to demand evidence for outrageous claims, no matter who makes them. And if the evidence is “he said so”, then it is discarded, no matter who says it.
As long as you are willing to accept the most outrageous claims based upon hearsay, I will point out your inconsistency (which is NOT an accusation!). Because you do not have the same self-correcting system. It is all based upon hearsay. As they say in Texas, “it’s all hats and no cattle”.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Okey dokey.
So how are you going to verify the claim that Caesar crossed the Rubicon?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Heh.
And you remind me of the black dwarves in CS Lewis’ “The Last Battle”. In the chapter, “How the Dwarves Refused to be Taken In” they, with their arms folded and eyes closed, continually rebuff Lucy’s patient attempts to show them the truth. The dwarves are, in reality, standing in paradise, yet continue to claim they’re in a “poky old stable.” Lucy and the Narnians do their darndest to bring the dwarves to the beautiful truth. The Narnians show them flowers–see! you’re NOT stuck in a stinky old barn! The dwarves sourly respond: Blech! You’ve just given us manure!
Nothing the Narnians can do, despite their very best efforts, can convince these silly dwarves that they’re not being shown stable litter, but rather flowers and sun and sky.
So, it sounds like you’re saying, again, that, just like Christians do, it’s ok to trust others who have gone before us, yeah?
Really? There’s people zealously trying to disprove that your airline pilot actually passed her physics test without cheating? Or that she hasn’t down a bottle of vodka before she zips on her suit?
Sure. I agree with you that no one should believe outrageous claims without any evidence.
The objection I’m making is that you have a different standard for yourself than what you demand for Christians.
“I’ll believe things, even things that can impact my life significantly–possibly even leading to my death–based on the testimony of others, or sometimes even just on sheer faith–but when Christians do it, I cry, ‘Blind faith!’”
I’m just calling you out on this, Vera.
You should never again object to Christians on this point, without having a wee voice in the back of your head saying, “Oh, but wait, I do this too. Every single day.”
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
I thought we already agreed that it is rational to accept irrelevant claims without verification. Did you already forget? So soon?So how are you going to verify the claim that Caesar crossed the Rubicon?
You still don’t get it. Not trusting individuals, but trusting the system which is being verified continuously, every minute of every day. Every flight proves the system. Every bridge that does not collapse proves the system. As a matter of fact, it is you who sounds like those “dorfs” in Narnia. I keep on explaining to you the difference between trusting individuals and trusting the system. But you just put your finger into your ears, and keep on singing “la-la-la, I can’t hear you”.
The system is very rigorous in making sure that pilots do not cheat, nor do they smuggle vodka on board. A very good friend of mine is an airline pilot, so I am very much aware of the system they must follow.
The standard is the same. It is only the Christians who fail it, every day. We have a self-correcting system to weed out the false claims. You don’t. Case closed.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh. I thought you said that all beliefs should have some way to verify it.
No?
That’s not your position?
Some beliefs can be believed (because they’re irrelevant) without any way for you to verify this? Just because you read it somewhere? Yes?
I’d just like some clarification, please.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Ha ha -“self-correcting system”… that’s rich! What about all the corruption in this so called “System”? By the way, there have been plenty of cases of drunk airline pilots…
- Status