Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A prophet does not make the claims that Jesus made.

What relevance do you think making claims has to the truthfulness of those claims?

A prophet does not work miracles.

You’ve yet to provide sound reasoning to justify the claim “miracles”.

A prophet does not forgive sins.

What makes you think that someone claiming to “forgive sins” tells you something about their (supposed) divine status?

A prophet does not rise from the dead.

You’ve yet to provide sound reasoning to justify the claim “rose from the dead”.

I am quite confident that I am worshipping the one true God who made Himself known to us in the human form of Jesus Christ.

No doubt you are – just as confident as the countless other people who decided that they were right to worship countless different gods entirely.

So?

[Nearly Sane]

Cos Alan's contact lens


https://youtu.be/IZeWPScnolo

[Alan Burns]

How do you know Jesus actually make the claims though? That he actually work miracles? That he did he rise from the dead?

If these things did not happen, Christianity would have faded out long, long ago.  And I would not be posting about them over 2000 years later.

[Alan Burns]

No doubt you are – just as confident as the countless other people who decided that they were right to worship countless different gods entirely.

and are you as confident in denying the reality of your own free will in order to justify your belief that you have no soul?

[Sebastian Toe]

A prophet does not make the claims that Jesus made.
A prophet does not work miracles.
A prophet does not forgive sins.
A prophet does not rise from the dead.

I am quite confident that I am worshipping the one true God who made Himself known to us in the human form of Jesus Christ.

The risk though, which you have allegedly assessed, is - if the Qur'an is correct - then none of your given statements above can also be correct
Regardless of what you believe or how confident you are

[Dicky Underpants]

If these things did not happen, Christianity would have faded out long, long ago.  And I would not be posting about them over 2000 years later.

I think you'll find that Krishna was supposed to have been around 3,228 years before that, and a fair number of miracles were attributed to him. Strangely, Hinduism is still going strong. And according to your argument, Hinduism is also true.

[torridon]

If these things did not happen, Christianity would have faded out long, long ago.  And I would not be posting about them over 2000 years later.

Not nessarily.  Longevity is not a guide to truth, that doesn't follow.  In terms of longevity, Amun-Ra, Isis Shiva, and Quetzalcoatl all enoyed a longer period of human worship than Jesus.

The reason why religious beliefs persist has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with the rise and fall of cultures and empires.

[Maeght]

If these things did not happen, Christianity would have faded out long, long ago.  And I would not be posting about them over 2000 years later.

Not at all. Belief in those things happening is why Christianity has not faded out - plus becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire of course. Lots of people believing something doesn't mean it is true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, just for your purposes. If you want your various religious claims to be taken seriously and you think epistemology to be not up to that job, then it’s up to you find another approach.   

No it isn’t for the reasons that have been explained to you often here and that you routinely either fail to grasp or just ignore. The analogy (another concept you’ve never understood either by the way) is that two different sets of competing claims (NT vs Quran, pixies vs leprechauns, whatever) cannot be said to be more or less likely than each other when they have equivalent epistemic status – ie, unqualified guesses are just unqualified guesses no matter what their objects.

Try to understand this.   

You’ve never managed to find an example of me making a category error here (including this time), so why bother lying about that?

Do you also think “a good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack” is a category error because men and needles are different categories of object?

Why not?   

Behind every "ology" there's "Osophy" and it's name happens to be Phil.
Epistemology doesn't "tell" us that we cannot know God, it presents us with schools of thought on what can be known. Yours, driven as it is by scientism argues you can't....mine, aided by demonstrations of obvious Goddodging in the world, suggests you can.

Since there are other more useful comparative analogies, your resort to Leprechauns is obvious ridicule and desire for an audience IMHO.

[Gordon]

If these things did not happen, Christianity would have faded out long, long ago.  And I would not be posting about them over 2000 years later.

Not so: look up survivorship bias, and also consider how Christianity has for centuries being part of political power arrangement, though thankfully this is waning in the UK/Scotland at least.

These 'things' you mention may well be mistakes dating from more credulous times and/or overt propaganda, especially  given the ridiculously fantastical nature of some of he claims (like a dead man not staying dead) - but due to the lack of provenance you have no way to assess these risks, so to conclude that these stories are true is just mindless gullibility.

It is possible that you are taking seriously what is contrived fiction, and I yet to hear the likes of yourself acknowledge that doubting the veracity of certain aspects of the Jesus story is a reasonable position to hold. For example, every time I've heard a cleric of Christian say "Jesus said" they should be adding in 'allegedly' - but they don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not so: look up survivorship bias, and also consider how Christianity has for centuries being part of political power arrangement, though thankfully this is waning in the UK/Scotland at least.

These 'things' you mention may well be mistakes dating from more credulous times and/or overt propaganda, especially  given the ridiculously fantastical nature of some of he claims (like a dead man not staying dead) - but due to the lack of provenance you have no way to assess these risks, so to conclude that these stories are true is just mindless gullibility.

It is possible that you are taking seriously what is contrived fiction, and I yet to hear the likes of yourself acknowledge that doubting the veracity of certain aspects of the Jesus story is a reasonable position to hold. For example, every time I've heard a cleric of Chrstian say "Jesus said" they should be adding in 'allegedly' - but they don't.

Survivorship bias is an idea based as much on not surviving I would have thought. Philosophies do not though tend to die out or dissolve. A mostly culturally based religion might die out since all cultures tend to be temporary but the major religions tend to survive beyond cultural demise. That is perhaps why in the wikipedia article on Survivorship bias religion doesn't feature much if at all.

Why has atheism persisted? Survivorship bias?

[Gordon]

Survivorship bias is an idea based as much on not surviving I would have thought. Philosophies do not though tend to die out or dissolve. A mostly culturally based religion might die out since all cultures tend to be temporary but the major religions tend to survive beyond cultural demise. That is perhaps why in the wikipedia article on Survivorship bias religion doesn't feature much if at all.

Typical - you've avoided the issues of provenance and the problems of mistakes and lies.

Why has atheism persisted? Survivorship bias?

Category error, Vlad: religions are structured belief systems, and atheism isn't.

[Maeght]

Survivorship bias is an idea based as much on not surviving I would have thought. Philosophies do not though tend to die out or dissolve. A mostly culturally based religion might die out since all cultures tend to be temporary but the major religions tend to survive beyond cultural demise. That is perhaps why in the wikipedia article on Survivorship bias religion doesn't feature much if at all.

Why has atheism persisted? Survivorship bias?

Atheism has persisted because people aren't convinced by the evidence presented.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Typical - you've avoided the issues of provenance and the problems of mistakes and lies.

Category error, Vlad: religions are structured belief systems, and atheism isn't.

You seem to be equating Survivorship bias with structured belief system here and as has been pointed out to you structured belief systems don't get much of a look in in the Wikipedia article on survivorship bias.

It seems then atheism is as subject to survivorship bias as anything else in your questionable use of "survivorship bias".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheism has persisted because people aren't convinced by the evidence presented.

That presupposes that empiricism was something of a thing prior to when we know empiricism was a thing.
I'm looking at survivorship bias being a pretty useless tool in the analysis of philosophical and theological positions.

It's some people Maeght.

[Alan Burns]

I think you'll find that Krishna was supposed to have been around 3,228 years before that, and a fair number of miracles were attributed to him. Strangely, Hinduism is still going strong. And according to your argument, Hinduism is also true.

The different belief systems (including atheism) cannot all be true.  There is only one truth.  We have just one lifetime to discern the truth.

[Gordon]

The different belief systems (including atheism) cannot all be true.  There is only one truth.  We have just one lifetime to discern the truth.

Atheism isn't a belief system: it's simply an absence of certain beliefs.

[Outrider]

The different belief systems (including atheism) cannot all be true.  There is only one truth.  We have just one lifetime to discern the truth.

Depends on which Big Boys Book of Bedtime Stories you arbitrarily accept as true - some of them say you get infinite reruns.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Atheism isn't a belief system: it's simply an absence of certain beliefs.

If you do not believe in a deity, you would have to believe that everything came into existence without the need for conscious intent.  That is a belief system.
The profound opening of John's gospel, (in the beginning was the word), implies that conscious intent was there from the start.

[Outrider]

If you do not believe in a deity, you would have to believe that everything came into existence without the need for conscious intent.

That sounds suspiciously like a false dichotomy, to me.

That is a belief system.

Arguably; it could, rather, be seen as a conclusion from the available evidence and therefore a provisional realisation without any need for a faith position at all.

The profound opening of John's gospel, (in the beginning was the word), implies that conscious intent was there from the start.

"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose in the Mountains of Mist. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning."

See, that expressly says that there was no start, and it's a much, much better book than yours (although the TV series of both were terrible).

O.

[Gordon]

If you do not believe in a deity, you would have to believe that everything came into existence without the need for conscious intent.  That is a belief system.

That's a non sequitur par excellence: stop telling me what I 'have' to believe. You'll need to demonstrate to me that there was 'conscious intent' before there was 'everything', and I think you'll struggle with that challenge - though no doubt you'll resort to a mindless soundbyte. I'll settle for 'I don't know' for now.

The profound opening of John's gospel, (in the beginning was the word), implies that conscious intent was there from the start.

Sure enough you have: what astonishes me is that you regard this mindless soundbyte as being seriously authoritative, and that's yet another fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If these things did not happen, Christianity would have faded out long, long ago.  And I would not be posting about them over 2000 years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

and are you as confident in denying the reality of your own free will in order to justify your belief that you have no soul?

Are you confident in denying the reality of leprechauns in order to justify your belief that you won’t find gold at the ends of rainbows?

Just asserting your subjective belief to be “the reality” is yet another fallacy – called begging the question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Behind every "ology" there's "Osophy" and it's name happens to be Phil.
Epistemology doesn't "tell" us that we cannot know God,…

Yet another straw man. No-one suggested that it could “tell” us that.

…it presents us with schools of thought on what can be known.

Yes, which is why your dumb guessing on faith matters fails any such “schools”.

Yours, driven as it is by scientism…

Why do you continually resort to lying about this?

…argues you can't....

Yet another straw man – and you’re shifting the burden of proof here too.

…mine,

You have no “mine” – just dumb guessing.

…aided by demonstrations of obvious Goddodging in the world, suggests you can.

The accusation of “goddodging” is idiotically wrong for the reasons that have been explained to you many times and that you always run away from.

Since there are other more useful comparative analogies, your resort to Leprechauns is obvious ridicule and desire for an audience IMHO.

Then, as ever, your HO is worthlessly wrong. The analogy with leprechauns is fine for the reasons I gave you and that you’ve also run away from. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

 
Vlad,

Survivorship bias is an idea based as much on not surviving I would have thought.

Wrong.

Philosophies do not though tend to die out or dissolve.

Yes they do.

A mostly culturally based religion might die out since all cultures tend to be temporary but the major religions tend to survive beyond cultural demise. That is perhaps why in the wikipedia article on Survivorship bias religion doesn't feature much if at all.

But other articles do, and whether or not Wiki uses religion(s) to illustrate the bias is neither here nor there. Some religions survived for a very long time and then died out, and some religions that started later are still with us – but may also die out in due course too. The point here though is that AB’s claim that if Christianity wasn’t true it would have died out by now is very bad reasoning. The religions we have now are still here because multiple factors applied – an emperor plucked one from obscurity to keep the uppity locals quiet, they were the most ruthless at persecuting new entrants to the market, various countries decided to make them “established” and thus gave them special privileges etc. 

Why has atheism persisted? Survivorship bias?

No. Atheism has persisted because reason has persisted, and reason has persisted because it’s the most successful approach we’ve yet found to distinguish truths from dumb guessing.