God’s Love

[Nearly Sane]

They were sad, gullible and exploited souls, who one can only feel pity for them in their haplessness.

Off now to look at Pau O'Grady, and, "For the love of dogs."

So you cannot claim that dying for something gives it any validity

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

And you've, yet again, demonstrated you predilection for finding any contorted arguments to debunk Christian belief.

Not really. All I've done is to show that the argument(s) you attempted to validate your version of it are hopeless.

That says nothing though to whether "Christian belief" as a whole is hopeless, so trying to cloak yourself in it isn't helping you. For all I know someone somewhere will one day manage to make an argument for christianity that isn't fallacious, but your attempt at it fails. 

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Not really. All I've done is to show that the argument(s) you attempted to validate your version of it are hopeless.

That says nothing though to whether "Christian belief" as a whole is hopeless, so trying to cloak yourself in it isn't helping you. For all I know someone somewhere will one day manage to make an argument for christianity that isn't fallacious, but your attempt at it fails.

I do not have any pretensions about what I can prove; but it is arrogant of you to dismiss the arguments of many who are better equipped than you or I to make such arguments, with respect.

[Outrider]

I do not have any pretensions about what I can prove; but it is arrogant of you to dismiss the arguments of many who are better equipped than you or I to make such arguments, with respect.

It doesn't make much of  difference how 'equipped' they are, it only matters how strong their arguments are. That they are prepared to die is an argument for the strength of their belief, but that has at best a liberal relationship to the accuracy of their belief.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I do not have any pretensions about what I can prove; but it is arrogant of you to dismiss the arguments of many who are better equipped than you or I to make such arguments, with respect.

Again, all I did was to rebut (not "dismiss") the arguments for it that you made.

Now it happens that I've never heard a different argument for an objectively true Christian (or any other) god that I can't also rebut, but that's another discussion.

Rather than spit the dummy, why not say either:

1. "OK, my argument that people dying for a belief says anything to the truthfulness of that belief was a bit daft"; or

2. "Actually, there is a relationship between willingness to die for a belief and the truthfulness of that belief, and here it is..."?

Wouldn't either one of those be more honest at least? 

[NicholasMarks]

BA,

Again, all I did was to rebut (not "dismiss") the arguments for it that you made.

Now it happens that I've never heard a different argument for an objectively true Christian (or any other) god that I can't also rebut, but that's another discussion.

Rather than spit the dummy, why not say either:

1. "OK, my argument that people dying for a belief says anything to the truthfulness of that belief was a bit daft"; or

2. "Actually, there is a relationship between willingness to die for a belief and the truthfulness of that belief, and here it is..."?

Wouldn't either one of those be more honest at least?

What would make more sense is to admit that

1.   Admit that the world is going out of control just as the Holy Bible said it would.
2.   Admit that we have a proven track record that we are unfit to manage this planet.
3.   Admit that a higher loving authority has every right to be angry with us and demand our repentance.
4.   Admit that if we can't come round to a loving, upbuilding, repairing way of life then we shouldn't expect salvation.
5.   Admit that all philosophies and all government systems have lost their way  and welcome a system built on righteousness with open arms.

I could go on but I guess you aren't bothered anyway.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Again, all I did was to rebut (not "dismiss") the arguments for it that you made.

Now it happens that I've never heard a different argument for an objectively true Christian (or any other) god that I can't also rebut, but that's another discussion.

Rather than spit the dummy, why not say either:

1. "OK, my argument that people dying for a belief says anything to the truthfulness of that belief was a bit daft"; or

2. "Actually, there is a relationship between willingness to die for a belief and the truthfulness of that belief, and here it is..."?

Wouldn't either one of those be more honest at least?

Why should I say either?  My belief rests on the evidence of the New Testament, and the contemporary corroboration of it.  I have a faith, which you will certainly dismiss, but that merely means you cannot think outside the box, and do not appreciate others may do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Why should I say either?

Because having had your argument rebutted, they're the only two options available to you: either walk away from it, or explain why the rebuttal is wrong.

My belief rests on the evidence of the New Testament, and the contemporary corroboration of it.

Just as many others have different faiths entirely that also rest on "holy" texts that claim "contemporary corroboration". The point though was that you went further - you attempted to stitch together people's willingness to die for a belief and its truthfulness when there is no such relationship.

I have a faith, which you will certainly dismiss,...

I don't "dismiss" it at all if it gives you a subjective truth you find to be persuasive, but the moment you overreach by claiming that your personal faith also somehow provides objective truths for the rest of us then it's up to you to make an argument for it that isn't full of holes. It's called the burden of proof.

...but that merely means you cannot think outside the box, and do not appreciate others may do so.

I'm as capable of thinking outside the box as the next man thanks. The difference between us though is that I don't elide my conjectures into facts with no intervening argument to take me from one to the other.

[Outrider]

Why should I say either?

Because you made the claim, and an argument has been put forward which purports (accurately, in my estimation) to show that your claim is unjustified.

My belief rests on the evidence of the New Testament, and the contemporary corroboration of it.

Your broader belief in Jesus and God isn't the issue in this particular discussion, but rather what you think is the validation of the reliability of your source.

I have a faith, which you will certainly dismiss, but that merely means you cannot think outside the box, and do not appreciate others may do so.

Faith is, largely, meaningless in a quest for any sort of reason to accept a position. It's important to people in their daily lives, and therefore not without significance, but useless as a research tool.

That isn't a failure to think outside the box, it's a capacity to select appropriate tools for a task. You can think outside of the box all you like, which has its uses, but none of those uses are finding out about what's actually in the box.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Sorry guys:  faced with the choice of answering your posts, watching the end of the Cup replay, and the News: I plumped for the News.  Lest you accuse me of walking away (and no doubt, you will)  I have addressed these points over the years, all to no avail.  One does get a trifle tired of banging one's head on the wall.  Get a good book on Christian belief and theology; it will answer things better than I, though you won't be able to try and score points to send you to bed happy.

[Shaker]

Sorry guys:  faced with the choice of answering your posts, watching the end of the Cup replay, and the News: I plumped for the News.  Lest you accuse me of walking away (and no doubt, you will)  I have addressed these points over the years, all to no avail.  One does get a trifle tired of banging one's head on the wall.

Now you know how I felt around #99.

Get a good book on Christian belief and theology; it will answer things better than I, though you won't be able to try and score points to send you to bed happy.

What counts as a 'good' book in this regard?

[BashfulAnthony]

Now you know how I felt around #99.What counts as a 'good' book in this regard?

Have a look through the possibilities:  one that seems to answer what you are asking, I guess.   Lkie any book, we don't know it's" good,"  for our needs, till we've tried it.

[Shaker]

Have a look through the possibilities:  one that seems to answer what you are asking, I guess.   Lkie any book, we don't know it's" good,"  for our needs, till we've tried it.

That, to me, comes across as suspiciously like reading into a text what you had previously wanted to find in it anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Faith is, largely, meaningless in a quest for any sort of reason to accept a position. It's important to people in their daily lives, and therefore not without significance, but useless as a research tool.

Faith isn't really the issue since everybody has faith in something. The issue is commitment. Which is found in Christianity but not in any hedged materialism or humanism.

[BashfulAnthony]

That, to me, comes across as suspiciously like reading into a text what you had previously wanted to find in it anyway.

You don't know what's in a book till you read it.  If you do, why bother to read at all?

[BashfulAnthony]

Faith isn't really the issue since everybody has faith in something. The issue is commitment. Which is found in Christianity but not in any hedged materialism or humanism.

I think that's what provokes so much criticism, and bile, that is aimed at Christianity, and religion generally, around here.  The atheists have no faith in anything, consequently, no direction in life: and they both resent and are envious of those who do.

[Shaker]

You don't know what's in a book till you read it.  If you do, why bother to read at all?

Perfectly true; but as I say, a book that seems to, in your phrase, answer what you're asking comes across as confirmation bias.

[Shaker]

I think that's what provokes so much criticism, and bile, that is aimed at Christianity, and religion generally, around here.  The atheists have no faith in anything, consequently, no direction in life: and they both resent and are envious of those who do.

That course in psychology - ask for your money back.

I don't consider myself to have 'faith' as you understand it in anything. I have a justified and qualified trust - perhaps not even that; 'expectation' might serve better - based partly on past experience, which I know can be proved baseless (or rather, misplaced) at any time.

[BashfulAnthony]

Perfectly true; but as I say, a book that seems to, in your phrase, answer what you're asking comes across as confirmation bias.

But hopefully, you will choose a book that addresses your questions in as unbiased a way as possible.  If it doesn't, find another.  The usual way we choose our reading matter, in fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Sorry guys:  faced with the choice of answering your posts, watching the end of the Cup replay, and the News: I plumped for the News.  Lest you accuse me of walking away (and no doubt, you will)  I have addressed these points over the years, all to no avail.  One does get a trifle tired of banging one's head on the wall.  Get a good book on Christian belief and theology; it will answer things better than I, though you won't be able to try and score points to send you to bed happy.

In what way is vague hand waving toward "a good book on Christian belief and theology" not "walking away"?

If you seriously think there to be a logical path from people willing to die for a belief and the truthfulness of that belief (though only it seems the belief you happen to share) then why not just tell us what it is?

As we both know the there is no such path, why not just drop the line from your repertoire of fallacy top trumps and we'll all move on to something else?

[BashfulAnthony]

That course in psychology - ask for your money back.

I don't consider myself to have 'faith' as you understand it in anything. I have a justified and qualified trust - perhaps not even that; 'expectation' might serve better - based partly on past experience, which I know can be proved baseless (or rather, misplaced) at any time.

That is not far off what I would describe as faith.  So you see, you didn't understand what I mean by faith.

[Shaker]

Well, I was referring to real attributes of actual people based on direct experience, which doesn't comport with what I hear when religious people talk about faith. Indeed, the NT itself talks (quite wrongly, in fact literally non-sensically) about the substance of things not seen.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud,

Faith isn't really the issue since everybody has faith in something.

Not the religious meaning of it they don't - atheists for example.

The issue is commitment.

Why? What relationship do you think there to be between how "committed" you are to a belief and how likely it is to be true?

Which is found in Christianity...

Some versions of it certainly, which is one of its main weaknesses. What happens to that "commitment" when the evidence changes?

...but not in any hedged materialism or humanism.

The only "commitment" in these areas tends to be about the process - that reason and evidence are a better guide to probable truths than just guessing about stuff and calling it "faith" for example, whereas the religious "commitment" tends (in the absence of a method of any kind) to centre on the claims of fact, regardless of how poorly or inconsistently evidenced they may be.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I think that's what provokes so much criticism, and bile, that is aimed at Christianity, and religion generally, around here.

By and large it isn't: the criticism is of the hopelessness of the arguments for it, and thus of the overreaching by some theists into claims for special privilege in the public square.

The atheists have no faith in anything, consequently, no direction in life:

Fabulous non sequitur, just fabulous...

...and they both resent and are envious of those who do.

No doubt you'll be along any time now to demonstrate this supposed resentment and envy then?

Or could it just be rather that, you know, some of us just find the un-evidenced and poorly argued claims of theism to be daft?

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

By and large it isn't: the criticism is of the hopelessness of the arguments for it, and thus of the overreaching by some theists into claims for special privilege in the public square.

Fabulous non sequitur, just fabulous...

No doubt you'll be along any time now to demonstrate this supposed resentment and envy then?

Or could it just be rather that, you know, some of us just find the un-evidenced and poorly argued claims of theism to be daft?

I have never claimed any kind of special privilege; nor do I know any Christians who have.  I can't even imagine what privileges you are referring to.  My life has been singularly devoid of privilege.

 The rest of your post simply validates what I said, entirely.