Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

rather it just means that you’ve found an explanatory narrative (usually culturally determined) that explains the experience to your satisfaction.

Too heavy a reliance on explanation. That is consistent with your apparent belief that things somehow only exist if there is an explanation for it.....Come back on that Good buddy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

The thing is that although the argument works for me and you it won’t for a theist. You aren’t comparing them but you are using both in an argument where you are comparing beliefs in one with the other and that is where theists stop listening. After all, they’ve outgrown the tooth fairy but god is still around.  Personally I think it far more challenging to ask a theist to explain why their god and not another.

But there's a deep, Vladistic dishonesty about that because I'm not comparing the beliefs at all. Far from it. Rather I'm comparing the arguments that validate the beliefs - and pointing out that when the same argument produces equally "god" and leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument. Vlad in particular will never engage with that and resorts instead to telling lies about what's being compared, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter one jot.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Too heavy a reliance on explanation.

Absent a method of any kind to test your claims (the point at which you always run away remember?), "an explanation" is all you have.

That is consistent with your apparent belief that things somehow only exist if there is an explanation for it.....

He lied. Again.

No doubt many things exist for which we have no explanation. Your problem though - as ever - is the the burden of proof. If you think that something you call "god" exists, then (finally) demonstrate it.

Come back on that Good buddy.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Absent a method of any kind to test your claims (the point at which you always run away remember?), "an explanation" is all you have.

He lied. Again.

No doubt many things exist for which we have no explanation. Your problem though - .

..........is fascination with antitheists?

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

But there's a deep, Vladistic dishonesty about that because I'm not comparing the beliefs at all. Far from it. Rather I'm comparing the arguments that validate the beliefs - and pointing out that when the same argument produces equally "god" and leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument. Vlad in particular will never engage with that and resorts instead to telling lies about what's being compared, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter one jot.

But if you use terms like ‘leprechaunists’ you are blurring the lines. And people do believe in leprechauns and fairies and dragons. You and I know it’s an intellectual exercise demonstrating arguments but to a believer you are comparing things that people believe it believed in. It’s not simply dishonesty for most theists; you are comparing something that is very real to them with something that isn’t. And because there are beliefs about both that is usually where a believer will focus, and it certainly gives the vlads a get-out clause.

The thing that I will always find baffling is why is actually matters. Why not just shrug and say yeah, it’s a shit argument but it works for me so why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

But if you use terms like ‘leprechaunists’ you are blurring the lines. And people do believe in leprechauns and fairies and dragons. You and I know it’s an intellectual exercise demonstrating arguments but to a believer you are comparing things that people believe it believed in. It’s not simply dishonesty for most theists; you are comparing something that is very real to them with something that isn’t. And because there are beliefs about both that is usually where a believer will focus, and it certainly gives the vlads a get-out clause.

But the point of it is as a sort of shorthand – rather than endlessly dismantle the same bad arguments for “god” one at a time (and then repeat the exercise each time they reappear), it’s more efficient to ask, “does this argument pass the leprechaun test?” and, when it doesn’t, to dismiss it out of hand. That the Vlads of this world cannot or will not deal with it (preferring instead to lie about what’s actually being compared) seems to me to be more a problem for the theist than for the rationalist.     

The thing that I will always find baffling is why is actually matters. Why not just shrug and say yeah, it’s a shit argument but it works for me so why not?

It matters because on the back of those same shit arguments lots of very bad beliefs are validated and consequent actions that affect the rest of us are endorsed. If someone wants a private belief in “god” (or indeed in leprechauns) that’s no-one’s business but his own. When he parks his tank in the public square though by insisting that these beliefs be given privileged access in the legislature, in education, in the media, in the tax codees etc then the rest of us are entitled – obliged even – to examine the underlying arguments and to dismantle them when they’re wrong.

[Rhiannon]

You are misunderstanding me, Blue. What I don’t get is why it matters to Vlad (and indeed AB and others) to ‘prove’ themselves by trying to win unwinnable arguments. The only way to even come close is by distorting the truth, evasion and goalpost moving. It’s not fun for them and it’s not an especially peaceful way to live. So why bother?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

You are misunderstanding me, Blue. What I don’t get is why it matters to Vlad (and indeed AB and others) to ‘prove’ themselves by trying to win unwinnable arguments. The only way to even come close is by distorting the truth, evasion and goalpost moving. It’s not fun for them and it’s not an especially peaceful way to live. So why bother?

Oh I see - sorry. Well there's the evangelising aspect I suppose, plus the Violet Elizabeth Bott need ("it's twoo I tell you, it'th twoo!") as if other people agreeing helps validate their personal beliefs. There's also perhaps an attempt at least to justify why their beliefs should be afforded special privileges, though the effort always fails it seems to me. Safer just to say "it's traditional innit?" and leave it at that I'd have thought.

I'm struck sometimes too when people like Vlad complain that leprechauns are obviously made up - apparently unaware that some of us find his god to be every bit as made up -   as if we should afford his faith belief more respect because it happens to have the label "god". Odd.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are misunderstanding me, Blue. What I don’t get is why it matters to Vlad (and indeed AB and others) to ‘prove’ themselves by trying to win unwinnable arguments. The only way to even come close is by distorting the truth, evasion and goalpost moving. It’s not fun for them and it’s not an especially peaceful way to live. So why bother?

Hillside needs opposed because an inappropriate control freakery (who and where does he think he is?) coupled with a facile naturalism, shite analogy, category rogering, bolstered by unthinking posse-ism is the last thing that should be normalised......IMHO.

Sorry I seem to have missed out ego fortification.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Hillside needs opposed otherwise an inappropriate control freakery (who and where does he think he is?) coupled with a facile naturalism bolstered by unthinking posseism is the last thing that should be normalised......IMHO.

Even the pretence at coherence has been abandoned now. Gibberish squared.

[Spud]

Rhi,

Oh I see - sorry. Well there's the evangelising aspect I suppose, plus the Violet Elizabeth Bott need ("it's twoo I tell you, it'th twoo!") as if other people agreeing helps validate their personal beliefs. There's also perhaps an attempt at least to justify why their beliefs should be afforded special privileges, though the effort always fails it seems to me. Safer just to say "it's traditional innit?" and leave it at that I'd have thought.

I'm struck sometimes too when people like Vlad complain that leprechauns are obviously made up - apparently unaware that some of us find his god to be every bit as made up -   as if we should afford his faith belief more respect because it happens to have the label "god". Odd.

Blue,
Are leprechauns supposed to explain some phenomenon, in the same way that God is the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing? I'm afraid I don't agree with your  comparison.
God's existence is testable, through prayer. Presumably leprechauns existence is testable too in some way.

[floo]

Blue,
Are leprechauns supposed to explain some phenomenon, in the same way that God is the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing? I'm afraid I don't agree with your  comparison.
God's existence is testable, through prayer. Presumably leprechauns existence is testable too in some way.

God might be an explanation, but not a fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Are leprechauns supposed to explain some phenomenon, in the same way that God is the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing? I'm afraid I don't agree with your  comparison.

But that’s not the comparison at all. Rather the comparison is between the arguments attempted for “god” and for leprechauns alike. The point is that, when the same argument produces each with equal facility then it’s probably a bad argument.

Pick an argument for “god” that we’d agree is a bad one – let’s say for example, “you can’t disprove God, therefore God is real”. Now try it again, only replace “God” with “leprechauns” and you get the same result: "therefore leprechauns are real". As leprechauns clearly aren’t real, that tells you something about the argument – namely that it’s a false one.

Now consider other arguments attempted for “god” and you’ll find that many of them too “work” equally for leprechauns, so they too can be dismissed out of hand for the same reason. What that does is to clear the field for arguments that work for the claim “god” but do not also work for the claim “leprechauns” – of which there are in fact very few.   

Do you see the point now?   
 

God's existence is testable, through prayer. Presumably leprechauns existence is testable too in some way.

That’s a remarkable claim – what makes you think it’s true? What evidence do you have that prayed for outcomes happen more frequently than outcomes that are not prayed for, or indeed that outcomes following prayers to your god happen more frequently than outcomes following prayers to my leprechauns?

[floo]

Maybe leprechauns are in hiding like god!

[Robbie]

No they're not, I've seen them in The Simpsons (also seen God and Heaven).

[Maeght]

God's existence is testable, through prayer.

Seen no evidence for that. Anecdotes yes, but no evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

that outcomes following prayers to your god happen more frequently than outcomes following prayers to my leprechauns?

Prayers from YGS are not credible given your views on the supernatural.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Prayers from YGS are not credible given your views on the supernatural.

FIFY

[BeRational]

Prayers from YGS are not credible given your views on the supernatural.

They are credible, if they can be demonstrated to work.

They have not been so far though.

That's the point.

[Spud]

Bluehillside,
How about "you cannot disprove God, yet you can prove he exists"? Repeat for leprechauns.

Maybe leprechauns are in hiding like god!

God left his fingerprints. Did leprechauns?

   
That’s a remarkable claim – what makes you think it’s true? What evidence do you have that prayed for outcomes happen more frequently than outcomes that are not prayed for, or indeed that outcomes following prayers to your god happen more frequently than outcomes following prayers to my leprechauns?

On all three occasions when I've prayed that I can re-capture my nephew's hamster while I was hamster-sitting, I've done so, against seemingly high odds. This example is a good one because it is different from the somewhat selfish prayer that we are tempted to pray, such as for the removal of someone we don't like from our town, for example. Now lets have the statistics from your prayers to leprechauns and we'll compare.
Ps, the hamster required trapping with bait, as he had escaped down a hole under the floorboards.

[BeRational]

Bluehillside,
How about "you cannot disprove God, yet you can prove he exists"? Repeat for leprechauns.God left his fingerprints. Did leprechauns?On all three occasions when I've prayed that I can re-capture my nephew's hamster, I've done so, against seemingly high odds. This example is a good one because it is different from the somewhat selfish prayer that we are tempted to pray, such as for the removal of someone we don't like from our town, for example. Now lets have the statistics from your prayers to leprechauns and we'll compare.

What fingerprints?

I assume your point about catching the hamster was a joke. It was a joke?

Have you tried praying for something that does not happen all the time without the need for any god?

Try praying for an amputee to be healed. That would be a good start.

[Spud]

Try praying for an amputee to be healed. That would be a good start.
-----
Of course it would. An amputee such as the high priest's servant has been healed by Jesus, but that was to confirm to those present that Jesus was who he claimed to be. We find in the Bible that God works miracles at specific points in time, when he is speaking through prophets and apostles he would confirm his word with miraculous signs.
Now we wait to hear about blue's fairies.

[BeRational]

Try praying for an amputee to be healed. That would be a good start.
-----
Of course it would. An amputee such as the high priest's servant has been healed by Jesus, but that was to confirm to those present that Jesus was who he claimed to be. We find in the Bible that God works miracles at specific points in time, when he is speaking through prophets and apostles he would confirm his word with miraculous signs.
Now we wait to hear about blue's fairies.

We still need yours.
I am still thinking you are joking in your posts.
Prayed the catch a hamster? Really?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

How about "you cannot disprove God, yet you can prove he exists"? Repeat for leprechauns.

How about it? Now all you have to do it to be the first person ever to provide that “proof”.

God left his fingerprints. Did leprechauns?

What fingerprints?
 

On all three occasions when I've prayed that I can re-capture my nephew's hamster while I was hamster-sitting, I've done so, against seemingly high odds. This example is a good one because it is different from the somewhat selfish prayer that we are tempted to pray, such as for the removal of someone we don't like from our town, for example. Now lets have the statistics from your prayers to leprechauns and we'll compare.

No, it’s a terrible one and here’s why:

First, it’s just an anecdote. Anecdotes aren’t evidence for anything because the range of variables for alternative explanations is too great.

Second, you have no comparables. To demonstrate that your god would take time out from giving malaria to African babies so as to find your nephew’s hamster you’d need to show what happened when the hamster got lost and you didn’t pray for it to be found. Lots of times in fact so as to eliminate the problem of silent evidence – ie, you have to include the misses as well as the hits in your data set if you want to claim evidence.

Third, given the fact of terrible things in the world happening to innocent people your god bothering to find a hamster rather than, say, cure someone of childhood leukaemia would tell us that “he’s” anything but benevolent which, as I understand it, is one of the tenets of your faith. That it was your cousin’s hamster rather than yours is neither here nor there by the way – presumably he was as pleased that you found it as he would have been had he found it for himself and your reward was his being pleased with you for finding it. 

And that’s your problem with claiming the efficacy of prayer as evidence for “god” – no-one has ever been able to show that it is effective. Such studies as there have been find that praying or not praying makes no difference whatever to the outcomes (in fact one study of patients in a hospital who were told that they were being prayed for suggested the that they actually did slightly worse!). Sorry, but it’s just nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

FIFY

You aren't credible.