Lack of Questioning Leads to Atheism?

[Vera_Ljuba]

Again, you’re begging the question.

A definition is NOT question begging.

Do you know of any atheistic legends?

 

[Abba]

Do you know of any atheistic legends?

• God doesn’t exist.
• We are just as smart or smarter if He does exists.
• If there is a God, He is not better than me and I do not need to vow to Him.
• Being the marvelously brilliant person that I am, pure genius, I am the one to set the terms to come to know Him - not Him.
• If God exists, He is cruel, take a look at the OT and the great injustice in the world today. The last thing He is - is Love itself.
• This God you speak of is a narcissistic monster who created creatures so they can praise Him eternally.
• etc., etc., etc.

Merry Christmas!

 

[PRmerger]

A definition is NOT question begging.

But what you’re including in the definition is an example of question begging.

Do you know of any atheistic legends?

Well, to use the definition you provided, anything that you believe that occurred in history which you have not verified is a legend.

So…Hannibal crossing the Alps
Caesar crossing the Rubicon
Genghis Khan uniting the Mongols…

heck, even your getting on a plane, without verification that your pilot has actually passed her pilot’s license…is an example of your accepting a legend.

(Unless you want to profess here that you verify with the airline each time you fly on a plane that your pilot is licensed?

No, no you’ve never done that…so, QED)

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This is not an argument but a huge erroneous assumption that would need to be proved but, cannot and will not as it is not true. I seriously cannot think of a book or collection of writings that hold more wisdom than the Old Testament (and New) but the old is ‘ancient’ and full of wisdom. As for the material side of things, unfortunately, we have lost a lot of their knowledge but the ancients knew a lot of remedies and had great knowledge about many things.Unfortunately, a lot of their knowledge has been lost. Consider, for instance, the construction of the pyramids. One thing that I will always find interesting is that the ancients knew of a deadly microscopic germ that if deprived of oxygen, for even thousands of years, will become dormant and revive when provided with oxygen (the curse of Tutankhamen).

I mean, you are a modern day human with access to modern day education, information and transportation. But you, quite sincerely, just criticized my view that the ancients were a gullible and superstitious lot by citing the curse of Tutankhamen. This, despite the facts that:

1. King Tut’s tomb was not deprived of oxygen.
2. The people who opened the tomb did not become infected or encounter any weaponized diseases.
3. There wasn’t even a curse inscribed in or on King Tut’s tomb in the first place.

So perhaps your intent was to prove to me that modern humans are just as gullible and superstitious as ancient humans by demonstrating those qualities. But my point all along has been that we now know that demanding objective epistemic methods are how we escape from this gullibility and superstition; not that all modern humans share this view.

No doubt ancient thinkers and writers have their merits. The problems we humans face, and our weaknesses, haven’t changed that much over the years, so it is no big surprise to find messages from the ancients that still resonate. But we’re not talking about resonance here, we’re talking about ability to serve as empirical evidence for claims.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But what you’re including in the definition is an example of question begging.

Nope, it is a straightforward definition, nothing else.

Well, to use the definition you provided, anything that you believe that occurred in history which you have not verified is a legend.

Nope, it has nothing to do with personal verification.

So…Hannibal crossing the Alps
Caesar crossing the Rubicon
Genghis Khan uniting the Mongols…

Even if these are legends, they have nothing to do with atheism. I specifically asked for atheistic legends.

A better example would be to say that “Alea iacta est” is a legend, because there is no evidence that Caesar actually uttered these words. The crossing of the Rubicon is rather well established, though not 100% proven.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope, it is a straightforward definition, nothing else.

Oh, I don’t disagree with your *definition *of a legend.

I disagree with your question begging.

Nope, it has nothing to do with personal verification.

LOL!

That’s funny.

Even if these are legends, they have nothing to do with atheism. I specifically asked for atheistic legends.

They are legends which you accept.

If you go back to the conversation, you might remember that the point of my argument was that even if I putatively accept a legend, and reject others, ***so do you.

---

That is, I offered my tu quoque: You “are able to dismiss other people’s legends as nonsense, but when it comes to -]their/-] your own legends,-] they/-] you lose -]their /-] your objectivity and skepticism.”

A better example would be to say that “Alea iacta est” is a legend, because there is no evidence that Caesar actually uttered these words. The crossing of the Rubicon is rather well established, though not 100% proven.

Oh, wait, now you’re changing the goalposts.

You said that a legend wasn’t verifiable.

Now you’re saying a legend is something where there’s no evidence.

So if that’s the case, and we’re talking about things that are “rather well established”, well, no thinking person would deny that Christianity is “well established”.

You can’t have it both ways, Vera. You can’t reserve for yourself what you object to in others.

“I get to believe things which are rather well established and there’s evidence for it, but not 100% proof, but Catholics can’t do this. You guys have to have 100% proof. Oh, and yeah, I can believe that we can ‘reside in a sub-space of a much larger universe, with more spatial and temporal dimensions’, despite not even an iota of evidence for this!”

 

[PRmerger]

The crossing of the Rubicon is rather well established, though not 100% proven.

So can you show me how to verify Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I disagree with your question begging.

There is none. It is just a simple definition.

They are legends which you accept.

Sure there are. The irrelevant ones.

You said that a legend wasn’t verifiable.

Now you’re saying a legend is something where there’s no evidence.

Just read the quoted definition. Some historical events are well established, others are not. It all boils down to the number of independent accounts, the veracity of the authors.

So if that’s the case, and we’re talking about things that are “rather well established”, well, no thinking person would deny that Christianity is “well established”.

Well, then I am not a “thinking person”, along with all the atheists and all the believers of different religions.

“I get to believe things which are rather well established and there’s evidence for it, but not 100% proof, but Catholics can’t do this. You guys have to have 100% proof. Oh, and yeah, I can believe that we can ‘reside in a sub-space of a much larger universe, with more spatial and temporal dimensions’, despite not even an iota of evidence for this!”

Is Christianity merely a thought experiment?

 

[PRmerger]

The irrelevant ones.

Ah.

So just so we’re clear: you are ok with accepting legends, yes?

As long as they have no relevance to one’s life?

 

[PRmerger]

Some historical events are well established, others are not. It all boils down to the number of independent accounts, the veracity of the authors.

Yes, we are agreed here.

So getting back to Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, what independent accounts verify this, and how have you authenticated the authenticity of the authors?

Well, then I am not a “thinking person”, along with all the atheists and all the believers of different religions.

You don’t think Christianity is well established?

I am truly astonished to see this.

Maybe we should step back and identify what you mean by “well established” because I suspect you’re using “true” as a substitute for “well established”.

What I mean is simply this: it’s been around a long time.

Can we agree on that?

Christianity is well established in that it’s been around a long time.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So just so we’re clear: you are ok with accepting legends, yes?

As long as they have no relevance to one’s life?

You are most welcome to accept any legends you feel like. Just don’t think that your acceptance somehow makes the claim better “established”.

So getting back to Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, what independent accounts verify this, and how have you authenticated the authenticity of the authors?

I did not, because it is unimportant.

You don’t think Christianity is well established?

I don’t think that the central claims of Christianity, namely the miracles around Jesus, resurrection, virgin births, etc… are established AT ALL.

 

[PRmerger]

I did not, because it is unimportant.

So here’s the egregious double standard rearing its obscenely ugly head again.

sigh.

Please remember this each and every time you claim Catholics believe in a legend which “can’t be verified”.

It turns out that you, in fact, have lived your life quite comfortable believing in legends which “can’t be verified”.

In fact, you have come here claiming that Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon can be verified, but now, when asked to put some money where your mouth is, can’t do this.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think that the central claims of Christianity, namely the miracles around Jesus, resurrection, virgin births, etc… are established AT ALL.

Yet Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon is?

Well established.

 

[jmcrae]

You are most welcome to accept any legends you feel like. Just don’t think that your acceptance somehow makes the claim better “established”.

I did not, because it is unimportant.

I don’t think that the central claims of Christianity, namely the miracles around Jesus, resurrection, virgin births, etc… are established AT ALL.

Despite five thousand witnesses who died at the hand of Nero rather that say they never really happened, and despite the written accounts of contemporary unbelievers trying to come with ways to explain His apparent rising from the dead?

 

[Bradski]

Despite five thousand witnesses who died at the hand of Nero rather that say they never really happened, and despite the written accounts of contemporary unbelievers trying to come with ways to explain His apparent rising from the dead?

Where on earth do these proposed facts come from?

 

[Aloysium]

Where on earth do these proposed facts come from?

Where do any “facts” come from, but the interface between our imaginations and the record, the remains of what once was, in the present, as it has been moulded and presented to us by society and its politics. In this case also through our acceptance of graces bestowed on us by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bradski]

Where do any “facts” come from, but the interface between our imaginations and the record, the remains of what once was, in the present, as it has been moulded and presented to us by society and its politics. In this case also through our acceptance of graces bestowed on us by the Holy Spirit.

Why is the word ‘facts’ in scare quotes?

If jmcrae wants to claim something happened, I’d appreciate him giving us some evidence for it.

 

[Aloysium]

Why is the word ‘facts’ in scare quotes?

If jmcrae wants to claim something happened, I’d appreciate him giving us some evidence for it.

Scientific facts differ from those that are historic or legal. One person’s undeniable facts can be, like pain, entirely in the other person’s imagination, to accept or decline - a matter of faith. The evidence is out there, but unable to get through the filter of your skepticism.

 

[jmcrae]

Scientific facts differ from those that are historic or legal. One person’s undeniable facts can be, like pain, entirely in the other person’s imagination, to accept or decline - a matter of faith. The evidence is out there, but unable to get through the filter of your skepticism.

The Roman Martyrs. Josephus. Fairly well known, I thought.

 

[Bradski]

The Roman Martyrs. Josephus. Fairly well known, I thought.

Do you mean witnesses to anything specific?