Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there a reliable method which deals with the
> supernatural realm?-jun
>
> Yeah. Faith.-pb
>
> faith is a notoriously UNreliable method for
> knowing anything about anything.

You are the new and undisputed SS champ of the unjustified faith statement.
>
> faith "justifies" osamas 72 virgins or some branch
> davidians belief that david koresh was jesus or
> some mormons belief that jesus physically spent
> time on the north american continent or some
> hindus faith in reincarnation every bit as much as
> faith "justifies" your belief in the physical
> resurrection of jesus.

And, your belief in sciencism. We're all cut from the same cloth.

islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Yeah. It comes down to you just being better than
> the people who disagree with you, aint?
> Lucky for you that you're just, well, better than
> I."---pb
>
> You're inferiority complex is showing again.

Not as neckedly as your pc-sanctimony-driven SUperiority complex. It's a good dodge. And, you use it well. Not too often, just often enough.

"Any of the translations published in the last century, except. of course, the NEW KJV. Apparently, you've never heard of the Textus Receptus. That's okay."---pb

If you knew these passages can be found in Bibles (plural), why did you say that I made them up?

"It's just that, in all my years of theological study, I don't think that I've come across that statement."

Now you have. Are you still going to argue that after the Resurrection Jesus died again?

islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Any of the translations published in the last
> century, except. of course, the NEW KJV.
> Apparently, you've never heard of the Textus
> Receptus. That's okay."---pb
>
> If you knew these passages can be found in Bibles
> (plural), why did you say that I made them up?

I was making a joke. That's what the was all about.

But, you need to acknowledge that your reference, and I'll assume that you offered it sincerely, is not biblical.
>
> "It's just that, in all my years of theological
> study, I don't think that I've come across that
> statement."
>
> Now you have. Are you still going to argue that
> after the Resurrection Jesus died again?

No

> faith "justifies" osamas 72 virgins or some branch
> davidians belief that david koresh was jesus or
> some mormons belief that jesus physically spent
> time on the north american continent or some
> hindus faith in reincarnation every bit as much as
> faith "justifies" your belief in the physical
> resurrection of jesus. -indy

And, your belief in sciencism. We're all cut from the same cloth.-pb

islander seems to think you're more liar than ignoramus although hes too nice to use the word liar. i think you're more ignoramus. this latest from you here lends credibility to my assessment.

clearly im not talking about beleifs based on faith versus beliefs based on rational enquiry. with some reservations about particulars i agree generally with what you're saying about those two methods for knowing.

but what im talking about here is faith claims versus faith claims. what im asking is what makes one faith claim more likely to be true than some other faith claim.

i know what makes a claim based on say logical empiricism more likely to be true than some other similarly based claim and i presume that you are not so ignorant in these matters that you do too. what i dont know and what you need to explain is what makes any particular claim based largely or exclusively on faith more believeable than some other claim based on faith.

what makes osama faith based claim that there are 72 virgins awaiting him in heaven upon his death any less likely to be true or false than your own faith based claim that jesus was bodily resurrected after death? if the difference you cite is evidence then you will not affirm that faith is a legitimate reliable system to base belief on. instead you will be saying that rational enquiry is.

see the pickle you are in? you have no way to say that faith based claim A is more reliably true than faith based claim B is or faith based claim C is or etc is without falling back on evidence which is to fall back on rational inquiry.

what is actually happening here is that you use rational inquiry to support your beleifs just as much as the next guy until it points to something you just dont want to believe for emotional or psychological reasons. when that happens then and only then do you conveniently bring up faith as a legitimate reason to believe.

If Pb finds history inconvenient he simply pretends it is no better than myth, merely a matter of personal taste. Science, superstition-- all on the same level.

Nations that try to function on that kind of "faith" decline rapidly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2010 12:59PM by linc.

"but what im talking about here is faith claims versus faith claims. what im asking is what makes one faith claim more likely to be true than some other faith claim."---indy

I think pb and others who genuinely feel their religious beliefs are threatened by science really do understand just what you're saying, and that's precisely why they try so hard to try to make science, just another competing religion. I suspect this is why pb is so enamored with subjectivity. If you can convince yourself that truth, rather than being "that which conforms to reality", is instead, something subjective, and science is just a competing religion, then the belief that men can walk on water, for example, is just as likely to be true as the belief that men can't walk on water.

In the real world, they know people can't row a boat out to the middle of a deep lake, step out of the boat and walk back to shore on top of the water, and if they are knowledgeable in science, they know the scientific explanation as to why this is true.

But that scientific explanation as to why you sink into the water, since it's a religious belief, is no more likely to be true than their religious belief that men "can" walk on water. It's all matter of faith, therefore science can no more threaten their religious beliefs than can the beliefs of others...since they are all just beliefs... And that's fine with me as long as they don't start doing dangerous or harmful faith based things, like urging people to handle venomous snakes, or withholding life saving medical treatment from their child etc. In Miguel De Unamuno's masterpiece, "Tragic Sense Of Life", he describes this, what we all, to varying degrees, probably go through, as the "battle between the heart and the head".

islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "but what im talking about here is faith claims
> versus faith claims. what im asking is what makes
> one faith claim more likely to be true than some
> other faith claim."---indy
>
> I think pb and others who genuinely feel their
> religious beliefs are threatened by science really
> do understand just what you're saying,

My faith is not threatened by science. I'm a theist. I worship the One who created science.


> and that's precisely why they try so hard to try to make
> science, just another competing religion.

You, not I, are the one making a religion out of science.


> I suspect this is why pb is so enamored with
> subjectivity. If you can convince yourself that
> truth, rather than being "that which conforms to
> reality", is instead, something subjective,

Ho hum. I don't believe that truth is subjective. I believe in and use antibiotics. What I believe is that human being with flawed and finite minds, can only know truth in subjectivity. This conversation is as good an example of that as I can imagine. Here indy and you, isle, are expressing passion about something as cold as reality--what is--and are arguing that I have a distorted view of nothing other than what we see and touch and taste and smell and hear moment by moment.

indy,

I have never said that truth is subjective. I say often that subjectivity is truth and/or truth is subjectivity. i. e., human can and should live in reality with inner passion.

> and science is just a competing religion, then the
> belief that men can walk on water, for example, is
> just as likely to be true as the belief that men
> can't walk on water.
>
> In the real world, they know people can't row a
> boat out to the middle of a deep lake, step out of
> the boat and walk back to shore on top of the
> water, and if they are knowledgeable in science,
> they know the scientific explanation as to why
> this is true.
>
> But that scientific explanation as to why you sink
> into the water, since it's a religious belief, is
> no more likely to be true than their religious
> belief that men "can" walk on water. It's all
> matter of faith, therefore science can no more
> threaten their religious beliefs than can the
> beliefs of others...since they are all just
> beliefs... And that's fine with me as long as they
> don't start doing dangerous or harmful faith based
> things, like urging people to handle venomous
> snakes, or withholding life saving medical
> treatment from their child etc. In Miguel De
> Unamuno's masterpiece, "Tragic Sense Of Life", he
> describes this, what we all, to varying degrees,
> probably go through, as the "battle between the
> heart and the head".

"I don't believe that truth is subjective." -pb

Can we quote you on that... over the last few years? I seem to recall you proporting over and over something a teeny bit antithetical to that.

Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I don't believe that truth is subjective." -pb

pond,

Please do. I've probably tried to explain what I mean when I say subjectivity is truth two dozen times since I've been on this board.

I seem to recall you phrasing it that truth is subjective probably two hundred dozen times, but not that subjectivity is truth...

"You, not I, are the one making a religion out of science."---pb

I am? Why would I want to make science a religion? I know the difference between the two and I don't seem them as being the same thing at all. It's the religionists, not scientists, who are claiming that science is a religion.

"Here indy and you, isle, are expressing passion about something as cold as reality"

Passion? I have to admit that I do sometimes find your posts humorous! LOL! I guess you just have an unorthodox understanding of what passion really means. I believe water freezes at 32 F It's been demonstrated in scientific experiments with scientific instruments. Do you think I'm passionate about that belief? I really don't give a hoot about the fact that water freezes at 32 F, it could freeze at 28 or 35 and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me except for determining things like whether the roads are likely to be slippery, etc. Do you equate certainty with passion? In other words, if I'm fairly certain that using the scientific method, scientists have demonstrated that water does, indeed, freeze at 32 F...that, in your opinion, must be a passionately held belief???

Can you tell me how you differentiate between a passionate belief and a non-passionate belief?

Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seem to recall you phrasing it that truth is
> subjective probably two hundred dozen times, but
> not that subjectivity is truth...

I doubt it, pondy.

The expression "Subjectivity is truth" was my signature on SS for a long time. It's one of the key notions articulated by Soren Kierkegaard, one of my historical mentors. He is often described as making the assetion that subjectivity is truth but I read recently that he can't be quoted as actually saying that and that what he actually wrote was, "Truth is subjectivity."

Kierkegaard made the point that, while objective truth exists, humans can't know truth objectively, they can only know it as subjects, that is, they can only know it from their own personal perspective. He taught that we should live in subjectivity, or, that we should live out our existence authentically and honestly from our own passion.

Have you never read my explanations of this in the past?

I have often told other posters that I disagree with them but admire the subjectivity with which they hold on to their beliefs.

"I've probably tried to explain what I mean when I say subjectivity is truth two dozen times since I've been on this board."---pb

But truth and subjectivity have real meanings and they do not mean the same thing. You demonstrate perfectly why, "when words are imprecise, so is thought" !

islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "You, not I, are the one making a religion out of
> science."---pb
>
> I am? Why would I want to make science a religion?

I don't think you want to. But, it's what you do.

> I know the difference between the two and I don't
> seem them as being the same thing at all. It's the
> religionists, not scientists, who are claiming
> that science is a religion.

Everytime you tell us what is possible or impossible for the body of Jesus that breathed in Palestine about 2,000 years ago and define possibility and impossibility in scientific terms, you employ science as a religion.
>
> "Here indy and you, isle, are expressing passion
> about something as cold as reality"
>
> Passion? I have to admit that I do sometimes
> find your posts humorous! LOL! I guess you just
> have an unorthodox understanding of what passion
> really means.

How many of the about 300 posts on this thread are yours?

'Nough said.

De Nile ain't just a rivier, there, isle.

> I believe water freezes at 32 F

Hmmm.

Actually, it freezes many different temperatures. It's a misnomer to say that it freezes at 32 F. What it does uniformly is MELT at 32 F. Guess you didn't know that.


> It's been demonstrated in scientific experiments with
> scientific instruments. Do you think I'm
> passionate about that belief?

Enough so that you thought of mentioning it in this context.
> I really don't give a hoot about the fact that water freezes at 32 F,
> it could freeze at 28 or 35 and it wouldn't make a
> bit of difference to me except for determining
> things like whether the roads are likely to be
> slippery, etc. Do you equate certainty with
> passion?

> In other words, if I'm fairly certain
> that using the scientific method, scientists have
> demonstrated that water does, indeed, freeze melt at 32
> F...that, in your opinion, must be a passionately
> held belief???

How many posts did you enter on this thread?

You're cute when you are in denial.
>
> Can you tell me how you differentiate between a
> passionate belief and a non-passionate belief?

If it walks like a duck and quckacky like a duck, isle, it's a duck.