Atheists still can't explain the miracles of JESUS!

Since "truth is subjective" (to liars, at least) does pb believe the claims of Latter-Day Saint Joseph Smith that the angel Moroni showed him where to dig up some golden plates on which were written heretofore unknown books of the Bible? Why not?

Oh, I forgot, pb is afraid to argue with anyone who demands straight answers.

I don't know a single Christian who thinks that Matthew was the first Gospel penned. And, tell me, bubba, how do you KNOW which Gospel was written first?-pb

these statements are inconsistent. u imply that no christian thinks that matt was the first gospel written with one breath and then with the next u imply that no one knows which gospel was written first.

if it is tru as u imply it is that no one really knows which gospel was written first then would it not stand to reason that at least some christians would believe that matt was written first since matt is the first book of the new testament? but this is inconsistent with ur statement that no christian u know believes matt was the first book written.

it is very improbable that both of ur statements are true. given this, which of the two do u wish to revise?

-----------------------------------------

You have demonstrated the error of thinking that what you believe is fact when the fact is that you are as human as the rest of us are and you are as finite as the rest of us.-pb

its fairly well established that mark was the first nt book written. theres much evidence and scholarly consensus on this subject. its not and never will be absolutely certain but we are not talking about absolute certainty. we are only talking here about what we know.

----------------------------------------

President Obama makes all of his campaign speeches with an agenda. That doesn't mean that he's wrong when he states facts.-pb

i never said it did. what i said is that in the evaluation of evidence given by biased parties in regard to disputed claims the bias of the parties has to be accounted for. i expect rush l to say that the country is falling apart because it advances his agenda to say that. i would be surprised if obama didnt say that the country is on the right path because it advances his agenda to say that. if either guy says something contrary to what should be in his agenda's interest then we should pay attention because its a good sign that the guy really believes it is true and not just something he hopes is true.

u need to lose this idea that some magic bullet determines what is true. its a process. its a matter of evaluating evidence. a witness' objectivity or bias is just one part of the process. just as our own is.

---------------------------------------

Please try to separate what you want to be true from what you consider to be an established fact. This is a very serious problem for you. Read the Book of Acts. Read the posts of ff! The resurrection certainly was an issue.-pb

i didnt mean to imply that the resurrection is not an issue today or that it wasnt an issure several decades after jesus execution. i meant to say that jesus execution was just a small blip on the screen at the time it happned. no one in rome took any notice at all of it. no nonjesus movement jewish author writing at the time of jesus executuion mentions anything about jesus.

after a few decades it was no wonder that no one could locate jesus body since no one even knew where the burial site was. even today no one knows where jesus was laid to rest. to find a dead buried body it is kind of important to know where the grave is.

------------------------------------

Certainly not. Check the sources I cited above. I'll gladly engage you in discussion about what is known to be true and what the two of us believe to be true, but I'm not going to allow you to remain separated from reality. As the Book of Acts makes clear, the claim of the resurrection was taken very seriously by the leaders of the Jews.-pb

the book of acts was written by a christian, pb. u know that. direct me to the writings of jewish leaders of circa 30AD in which they take the resurrection of jesus seriously even mention the resurrection of jesus.

u need to get away from this notion that biased sources are absolutely reliable. they often r not. if u can cite the same claims but claims made by independent sources or sources hostile to ur point of view ur argument will be much stronger. as a historian u should already know that.

------------------------------------

How have I changed my standard when it comes to stories related to my faith?-pb

for one thing u cite the christian bible as if it is a fair and objective inquiry into the truth rather than propaganda for the christian faith. u dont do the same thing for the koran. u dont do the same thing for other religions books of faith. u have a more realistic objective view of them which is the reason that u can reject so much of what they claim.

-----------------------------------

I love it when people slip into the, "I'm just morally superior to you and that's why I'm right and you are wrong" argument. That's self-serving.-pb

i didnt say that. for the record i dont believe that im morally superior to u. i believe that morals r relative. by ur standards ur probably a very moral man. heck even by my standards ur probably a very moral man. i seldom question anyones morals. sometimes i do question their view of the truth though.

-----------------------------------

You, indy, are a very passionate believer in what you believe in. Your posts on this thread are proof of that. So, when you diminish people of faith, you are talking about yourself. Self-awareness, my friend. You and I are both believers.-pb

yes we are believers and sometimes we are knowers as well.

-------------------------------------

What we believe IN is vastly different, but we are believers nonetheless.-pb

this is because im more consistent in my belief structure than u r. we both reject islam and belief in witches by using much the same reasoning process. this same process leads me to reject christianity as well. u draw the line at applying this process to christianity for what seems to be arbitrary reasons.

--------------------------------------

What you don't do, it acknowledge your own subjectivity.-pb

i have acknowledged my own subjectivity. ive acknowledged it in regard to islam judaism hinduism the greek pantheon belief in witches monsters demons aliens from other planets and all sorts of other lightly or non evidenced beliefs. any of them may be true. but all of them need more evidence to be rationally believed to be true.

-----------------------------------------

Faith is your standard. You, as a matter of faith, have determined by no other standard than what you believe that all supernatural claims are false. You dismiss without considering the remote possiblity of their truthfulness.-pb

if i had to use 1 word to describe my standard for determining what is true i would use the word evidence.

ironically u believe the same thing except when it comes to ur articles of faith. its most notably there where u make an exception.

----------------------------------------

True, so long as you have the courage that you have chosen your standard of evidence from what you have determined a priori to be the truth that you will accept.-pb

we use similar standards of evidence. the only real difference is that i apply these standards in an area in which u r psychologically unable to do so.

------------------------------------------

Do you really think, having never met me that you can speculate on how I came to the manner in which I think? Based on what?-pb

based on the fact that u r an american who argues this kind of thing on an internet discussion board. few of us r actually as dissimilar in our thought processes etc to other people in our national and economic class as we might fancy ourselves being. ive read nothing from u that would lead me to believe that ur reasoning process is all that different from most other americans from ur same economic background. u believe the way most people believe. so do i. the difference in us is that u make exceptions in ur reasoning process for the outrageous claims made by ur faith. u do not make these same excptions for the outrageous claims made by other faiths.

that is inconsistent but totally predictable from a psychological standpoint.

------------------------------------

Are you really sam, writing under another moniker? I'm not sure anyone here has made this particular claim to omniscience here--except Newton Joseph, Ph. D. who's been gone for years and was much more offensive in his condescension than you are.-pb

thank u i think.

i hope i dont come across as condecsending at at all (see? i cant even spell the word). i certainly dont claim to be your moral or intellectual superiour. i just think i spot an inconsistency in ur beliefs. thats all. bfd. it happens. if u can live with that inconsistency then more power to you. most of us cant. usually what happens is that we just ignore it and pretend that it doesnt exist.

perhaps ur better off doing that to. it could be psychologically tramatic for u if u try to resolve it.

-----------------------------------

What in THIS particular case, is the evidence that convinces you that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?-pb

the same evidence that convinces me that those little statues of ganesha really didnt really drink the milk. iow, what convinces me that any extraordinary claim is probably false is that if it is not accompanied by extraordinary evidence. if it would be more extraordinary to disbelieve the claim than to believe it then i would believe it.

heres an extraordinary claim made by science. if one twin was shot off into space at near the speed of light and returned to earth years later his twin would be much older physiologically than the twin that was shot off into space. in my book thats an extraordinary claim. however if u understand what relativity says about the world in total then it actually becomes more extraordinary not to believe that claim than to believe it.

the same reasoning should apply to the resurrection or to the claim about the little ganesha statues. if evidence were presented which made it more extraordinary to not believe those claims than to believe them, then they should be beleived. it is plain as day that no such evidence has ever been presented.

----------------------------

You've already stated that you dismissed it out of hand without considering it possible just as you do with all supernatural claims.-pb

i dont think all the words in my posts are appearing on ur computer monitor. what u said i said is not what i actually said. what ive said is that supernatural claims like the resurrection of jesus ARE POSSIBLE but that they require extraordinary evidence to be believed to have actually happened.

u seem to be intent on offering everyday mundane evidence to document a supernatural event as if that everyday evidence is sufficient. u say an empty grave can have no other explantion except that the person who was in the grave came back to life and walked out of the grave! u say that because early promoters of christianity like paul say that they heard stories that jesus was a god we should believe them because u cant think of a good reason that they might be mistaken! u say that because someone none of us know says in a book promoting christianity that someone else might have stuck his hand into the wounds of jesus at some point that this somehow should be taken as evidence that jesus was resurrected!

its hard to believe anyone actually reads the above and objectively comes to the conclusion that jesus was physically resurrected.

and actually no one does. what happens is that some people become psychologically convinced that a god exists and then they begin to believe in the local diety. if u live in arabia that would be allah. if u live in india that would be the hindu pantheon. if u live in america that would be jesus (and an especially weird kind of jesus if you live in utah). you then put your critical reasoning process on hold and accept the myths surrounding that diety. once uve accepted those myths u then reactivate ur critical reasoning process to defend the belief that u first came to hold for psychological reasons.

sorry i missed this one:

Well, indy, I'm not sure I agree. When you begin with a closed mind, as you have openly admitted you do as far as the supernatural is concerned, then you are not accepting all evidence. You certainly are consistent. But, you are not open to truth.-pb

ive never said that i am not open to claims about the supernatural. i am open to them. what i am not open to is to give them a special break just because they are said to be supernatural claims.

i hold supernatural claims to the same standard of truth that i hold natural claims to. if they meet those standards then i believe them. if they dont meet them then i dont.

u seem to have no standards for truth when it comes to supernatural claims. if this is wrong and u do have one then what is it?

linc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since "truth is subjective" (to liars, at least)

No. For the gazillionth time, linc. "Subjectivity is truth."

Sorry. Somehow I lost a very detailed reply.

The bottom line, indy, is that you have created a strawman out of my beliefs and that your a priori rejection of the supernatural without seriously evaluating evidence for it is makes you a believer in what you believe in just like I'm a believer in what I believe in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2010 07:35PM by pb.

pb writes,

Quote
For the gazillionth time, linc. "Subjectivity is truth."

Translation: "Ignorance is strength."
-George Orwell

linc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pb writes,
>
>
>
> Translation: "Ignorance is strength."
> -George Orwell

Don't ever take a philosophy course, there, linc.

Pb's idea of philosophy:


`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty
said in rather a scornful tone, `it means
just what I choose it to mean --
neither more nor less.'

The bottom line, indy, is that you have created a strawman out of my beliefs and that your a priori rejection of the supernatural without seriously evaluating evidence for it is makes you a believer in what you believe in just like I'm a believer in what I believe in.-pb

i havent made a strawman of ur beliefs. ive only criticized the way in which u arrived at a few of ur beliefs.

u seem to beleive that u and i see the world in 2 totally different & incompatible ways but i dont believe we do. actually we see the world similarly for similar reasons. we both beleive that the earth is round that abraham lincoln is dead that there actually exists a country called france that barak obama is the current president of the us that the earth orbits the sun etc. we both came to believe these things for similar reasons & by using similar reasoning processes.

its mostly only the core beliefs of your religion that we disagree about and i think its because u did not arrive at those beliefs by using the same reasoning process that u used to come to the above beleifs. u made an arbitrary exception for them in ur reasoning process by labeling them supernatural as if that would exempt them from the need for evidence.

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bottom line, indy, is that you have created a
> strawman out of my beliefs and that your a priori
> rejection of the supernatural without seriously
> evaluating evidence for it is makes you a believer
> in what you believe in just like I'm a believer in
> what I believe in.-pb
>
> i havent made a strawman of ur beliefs. ive only
> criticized the way in which u arrived at a few of
> ur beliefs.

You mischaracterized them and simplified them to the point that they don't resemble what I believe. Perhaps you've done that unintentionally but I doubt it. You repeatedly dumb down the assertions of those who think differently than you do. Then you accuse those people of being psychologically unhealthy, praise yourself for your own psychological strength and dismiss what others believe.

>
> u seem to beleive that u and i see the world in 2
> totally different & incompatible ways but i dont
> believe we do. actually we see the world similarly
> for similar reasons. we both beleive that the
> earth is round that abraham lincoln is dead that
> there actually exists a country called france that
> barak obama is the current president of the us
> that the earth orbits the sun etc. we both came to
> believe these things for similar reasons & by
> using similar reasoning processes.
>
> its mostly only the core beliefs of your religion
> that we disagree about and i think its because u
> did not arrive at those beliefs by using the same
> reasoning process that u used to come to the above
> beleifs. u made an arbitrary exception for them in
> ur reasoning process by labeling them supernatural
> as if that would exempt them from the need for
> evidence.

I wish you well, indy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2010 04:34PM by pb.

You mischaracterized them and simplified them to the point that they don't resemble what I believe.-pb

ive characterized ur belief in the resurrection of jesus as being a belief in a physical bodily resurrection of jesus as contrasted primarily with the belief that the resurrection of jesus was metaphorical or only symbolic, only mythical. if this is not ur belief then pls characterize ur belief in words of ur own choosing.
----------------------------------

Perhaps you've done that unintentionally but I doubt it. You repeatedly dumb down the assertions of those who think differently than you do.-pb

can u give a couple of examples where ive done this?
---------------------------------

Then you accuse those people of being psychologically unhealthy, praise yourself for your own psychological strength and dismiss what others believe.-pb

now im afraid youve mischaracterized what i wrote. i never wrote that it was unhealthy to accept a belief for psychological reasons. i only pointed out that this is done, that this is a fact. beliefs sometimes R accepted for psychological reasons and not for rational reasons. i think this fact is so pervasive its practically inarguable.
------------------------------------

indy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You mischaracterized them and simplified them to
> the point that they don't resemble what I
> believe.-pb
>
> ive characterized ur belief in the resurrection of
> jesus as being a belief in a physical bodily
> resurrection of jesus as contrasted primarily with
> the belief that the resurrection of jesus was
> metaphorical or only symbolic, only mythical. if
> this is not ur belief then pls characterize ur
> belief in words of ur own choosing.

Wrong, ind.

You've dumbed down my reasons for believing in it. You've made it something a four year old probably wouldn't believe if his Sunday School teacher--who was his grandma--taught it to him.

It's convenient to dumbify the beliefs of others but it's disrepectful and it doesn't really help you, either.
> ----------------------------------
>
> Perhaps you've done that unintentionally but I
> doubt it. You repeatedly dumb down the assertions
> of those who think differently than you do.-pb
>
> can u give a couple of examples where ive done
> this?

Perhaps you might want to stop considering yourself psychologically more healthy than each and every one of the 2 1/2 billion Christians in the world. You probably are not as soundly put together as you want us to think you are and we ALL certainly are not as flawed as you make us out to be.
> ---------------------------------
>
> Then you accuse those people of being
> psychologically unhealthy, praise yourself for
> your own psychological strength and dismiss what
> others believe.-pb
>
> now im afraid youve mischaracterized what i wrote.
> i never wrote that it was unhealthy to accept a
> belief for psychological reasons. i only pointed
> out that this is done, that this is a fact.
> beliefs sometimes R accepted for psychological
> reasons and not for rational reasons. i think this
> fact is so pervasive its practically inarguable.

Perhaps you need to reread your posts.
> ------------------------------------

You've dumbed down my reasons for believing in it. You've made it something a four year old probably wouldn't believe if his Sunday School teacher--who was his grandma--taught it to him.-pb

then u agree with me that u were wrong when u said earlier that i mischaracterized ur beliefs. now u r only saying that i mischaracterized the reasons that u hold the beliefs related to ur religion. thats a different debate. if u do agree with this then we can debate whether ive actually mischaracterized the reasons that u hold the beliefs u hold.

to put a sharper point on this, saying that ive mischaracterized the reason that u hold a belief is not the same thing as saying that ive mischaracterized the belief that u hold, as u said earlier. so which is it? do you beleive that ive mischaracterized ur belief or do u believe that ive mischaracterized the reasons that u hold that belief?

again, ive characterized ur belief as being a beleif in a physical bodily resurrection of jesus. if this is a mischaracterization, then pls by all means correct it. if u cannot correct it then i can hardly be found at fault for characterizing a belief of urs which even u cannot characterize in a noneqivalent precise manner. im doing the best i can with what im given to work with here, pb.
------------------------

Perhaps you might want to stop considering yourself psychologically more healthy than each and every one of the 2 1/2 billion Christians in the world. You probably are not as soundly put together as you want us to think you are and we ALL certainly are not as flawed as you make us out to be.-pb

youve actually managed to combine two logical fallacies into one short argument. clap, clap. the argument isnt about whether im psychologically healthy or not. thats a red herring. it is about whether u hold a particular belief for psychological reasons and not rational reasons.

my psychological health whatever its status has nothing to do with the merits of the argument im making. to imply that it does is an ad hominem.

r u sure you have a degree in philosophy? u might take another look at the fine print on ur diploma. maybe it says physiology.

jk. that last was an ad hom on my part.
------------------------

Perhaps you need to reread your posts.-pb

too painful. if i wrote like u, sure id reread them all the time, itd be a pleasure. but i write like me with all the style of an eithgth grader.

I wish you well, indy.

Pb writes,

Quote
Perhaps you might want to stop considering yourself psychologically more healthy than each and every one of the 2 1/2 billion Christians in the world.

We don't; we just consider ourselves psychologically more healthy than pb, who should quit hiding behind Christians as though they all think like he.