Creator: supernatural vs natural (posts from 'fine detail in the gospels).

[floo]

Moderator:

I've co-opted this post of Floo's so as to use it, based on it's timestamp, as an OP for this thread - which contains posts removed from the 'fine details in the gospels' thread where this discussion developed, but on a wholly separate topic.

The relevant posts, with a couple of off-topic exceptions, have been move to here so that those involved can continue their discussion. 

Gordon

[bluehillside Retd.]

Once again the Lieutenant Pigeon of wishful thinking crashes into the revolving door of reality…

Who do you propose is lying? What are the lies.

In which LP fails to grasp that all that’s necessary is that lying (and many other real world explanations) need only be possible for non divine options to be in play.

Jesus myth is fringe

In which LP forgets that only a few posts ago he attempted to identify (albeit wrongly) an ad pop by someone else while also missing entirely the point that Jesus the demigod is anything but “fringe” in any case.

Roman authorities and Jewish authorities were in a far better position at demonstrating Jesus myth and never managed it or attempted it .

In which LP fails to grasp that killing a supposed demigod is probably a pretty good indication that they didn’t think he was a demigod at all, while also forgetting that as he was so unpersuasive to his audience there probably wasn’t even a myth to be demolished by those authorities until in any case.

Research on conspiracy theory shows that such a conspiracy has a low survival rate.

In which LP manages to crash into the reference point error: everything “has a low survival rate” – the mistake is to retrofit special significance to those that do survive. See also the lottery winner’s fallacy - Winner: “Odds of 14 million-to-one? How special am I?” Camelot: “Er, not special at all – the odds from our perspective were after all one."
 

I need a date for a lie Gordon or several lies if you are saying it's all lies.

Six-year-old: “The Tooth Fairy took my tooth.”

Mummy: “Well perhaps there’s another explanation.”

Six-year-old: "Who took it exactly? What time? Why did they do it? What did that have for tea?” etc etc

Mummy: “Er, none if that is relevant to the basic point that real world options are available. You’re not a very bright six-year-old are you?”

You are exceedingly amateur if you require an investigation and can't specify who or what to investigate.

In which LP confirms that he’s not a very bright six-year-old.

However if we even suggest lies we are also suggesting a truth. Can you give that?

In which LP collapses again into gibberish.

[floo]

Yep. 2 hours this time Floo.

Wow Vlad!  

[bluehillside Retd.]

Of course however I have encounteredJesus myself and the account in the NT is consistent with my experience.

In which Lieutenant Pigeon fails to grasp that his claim to have "encountered Jesus" has no more epistemic value than my claim to have met Elvis down the chip shop - and that personal beliefs and facts are not the same thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

So, are you saying your personal experience means that the writers of the NT didn't make mistakes of lie?

Do you think that your personal experience might have been influenced by your prior interaction with the NT?

What would be the implications for you be if you were to consider that you might have made a mistake regarding how you assessed this experience?

You give the Lieutenant too much credit with the term "experience". What he actually has is a narrative that he finds convincing - whether he actually experienced the thing the narrative describes is - to say the least - doubtful.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon,

You give the Lieutenant too much credit with the term "experience". What he actually has is a narrative that he finds convincing -

And you can prove that can you or is that your belief?

[bluehillside Retd.]

I assume you have interacted with the NT Gordon? Therefore what do you think is particularly significant with my interaction?

Confirmation bias. "Experiences" of deities are almost invariably with the deities to which the subject happens to be most enculturated, the Lieutenant's included.

Funny that.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

And you can prove that can you or is that your belief?

In which Lieutenant Pigeon plants the land mine of "prove" and hopes no-one notices. Can he prove to the six-year-old that the Tooth Fairy didn't take his tooth?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon plants the land mine of "prove" and hopes no-one notices. Can he prove to the six-year-old that the Tooth Fairy didn't take his tooth?

Repetition of a phrase in this case ''Lieutenant Pigeon'' usually is a sign of an attempt at hypnosis, Hillside......note the word attempt.
I wonder who the first fuckwit will be who starts repeating it (Lieutenant Parrot?).

[ippy]

Repetition of a phrase in this case ''Lieutenant Pigeon'' usually is a sign of an attempt at hypnosis, Hillside......note the word attempt.
I wonder who the first fuckwit will be who starts repeating it (Lieutenant Parrot?).

Could be lieutenant Kije.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could be lieutenant Kije.

Regards ippy

Eh,

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Confirmation bias. "Experiences" of deities are almost invariably with the deities to which the subject happens to be most enculturated, the Lieutenant's included.

Funny that.

Sounds like this is something you were bursting to express and eventually let out, Guff works like that.

[Spud]

That misinterprets what is in Matthew.

The implication of Matthew was that at the time of Jesus' birth Mary and Joseph were permanent residents in Bethlehem, negating the need for a census and and/or a journey from Nazareth to place them in Bethlehem at the time of the birth. Matthew suggests that they only moved to Nazareth well after Jesus' birth.

So we have a major discrepancy between the two with Luke claiming they were residents of Nazareth during Mary's pregnancy, while Matthew suggests they weren't.

The only significant difference i see is that Luke doesn't mention the flight to Egypt. They both mention Bethlehem as place of birth and Nazareth as place where he grew up, so they are consistent. Notably, Matthews focus is on Joseph and Luke's is on Mary, so they are simply reporting different aspects of the story.

[floo]

Of course however I have encounteredJesus myself and the account in the NT is consistent with my experience.

Explain what you mean by encountering Jesus?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Explain what you mean by encountering Jesus?

First becoming aware that God is rather than isn't.
Reading more about religion
Reading more about Christ
Affected by CS Lewis statement about other religions not having christ
Realising the question ''why should christ be affecting me?''
After reading Revelations 3.20 realised that christ was there and it meant me.
After a period of resistance to christ I invited Him in.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Lieutenant Pigeon’s ontology:

First becoming aware that God is rather than isn't.

Translation: Start with reification – note the “becoming aware” as if it was a fact rather than just a personal belief.

Reading more about religion

Translation: Add a log to the confirmation bias fire.

Reading more about Christ

Translation: Add another log.

Affected by CS Lewis statement about other religions not having Christ

Translation: Become beguiled by an interesting novelist but a poor thinker.
 

Realising the question ''why should christ be affecting me?''

Translation: Assume that the question has a correct or meaningful answer.

After reading Revelations 3.20 realised that christ was there and it meant me.

Translation: Add a bit more reification – note the “realise” rather than, “come to think that”.

After a period of resistance to christ I invited Him in.

Translation: Decided to suspend critical faculties.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.
 
Translation: Assume that the question has a correct or meaningful answer.

As opposed to assuming there isn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

As opposed to assuming there isn't.

In which Lieutenant Pigeon continues to demonstrate his failure to grasp even the basic concept of burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.
Translation: Add a log to the confirmation bias fire.

Screwtape
That would then include reading The God Delusion, Hitchens, anything on antitheist, Antitheist rant sites, turdpolisher, and finally joining the Posse on religionethics.........

Firstly and those that remember my earlier testimony on the forum will be aware of there is the question of my road to God in the first place.
I have to say it was Carl Sagan culmintating in his episode where he discusses his universal community. There are two responses to this either one experiences a rising crescendo of wonder of the greater than oneself at this point or sitting there thinking ''I suppose life on proximity centauri is a bit like Bromley being near to Hayes. Put the cocao on dear''.

One then has to ask what is the wonder of and where is it coming from. It can't be the science since one can be neutral and so we are into what Lewis refers to as the numinous.

That's the meaning of affect Screwtape, it just grabs you because in a sense it is external to you. You aren't making it up.

And that's it Screwtape, there is affective knowledge and there are neutral facts. To not investigate what it is that affects you that is shutting stuff off at the get go.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon continues to demonstrate his failure to grasp even the basic concept of burden of proof.

So something affects me.....We mustn't investigate why?

The trouble with someone like yourself claiming you don't have a burden of proof. You do for your scientism, humanism, physicalism, agnosticism, your poor use of the concept of unknown unknown you retreat into to end debate new atheism and the arrogance that seems to attract, your claim that you can find no reasons for belief or even consideration of God,............ and we know that because you have declared all these philosophies explicitly or implicitly.

I find that none of them are what they are cracked up to be the mystery for me is how you support all of them.

However God actually is affecting you in someway because of your continued presence here.

And of course your God avoidance in refusing to recognise that the central aspects of N D G Tyson's theory are traditional theology.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon:

That would then include reading The God Delusion, Hitchens, anything on antitheist, Antitheist rant sites, turdpolisher, and finally joining the Posse on religionethics.........

Fails to grasp the difference between books containing reasoning and argument and books containing assertions of religious truths.

Firstly and those that remember my earlier testimony on the forum will be aware of there is the question of my road to God in the first place.

Conflates “testimony” with “claim” (an old trick of the religious), and then adds a bit more reification re a “road to God” rather than just a personal belief about that.
 

I have to say it was Carl Sagan culmintating in his episode where he discusses his universal community. There are two responses to this either one experiences a rising crescendo of wonder of the greater than oneself at this point or sitting there thinking ''I suppose life on proximity centauri is a bit like Bromley being near to Hayes. Put the cocao on dear''.

Fails even to attempt to find a logical path from a connected universe to "God".

One then has to ask what is the wonder of and where is it coming from. It can't be the science since one can be neutral and so we are into what Lewis refers to as the numinous.

Essays yet another non sequitur (there is no “then”), moves to gibberish (“what is the wonder of”), tries an unqualified assertion (“It can’t be the science”) while failing to grasp that science provides explanatory models but isn’t itself the phenomena it describes, and finishes with another non sequitur (there’s no reason for the "numimous" not to be explicable with the tools of science, at least in principle).

When he falls, he falls hard… 

[quoteThat's the meaning of affect Screwtape, it just grabs you because in a sense it is external to you. You aren't making it up.[/quote]

Conflates not making something up with poor thinking, honest mistake etc.

And that's it Screwtape, there is affective knowledge and there are neutral facts. To not investigate what it is that affects you that is shutting stuff off at the get go.

Fails to grasp that accepting divine answers is the opposite of investigation – simplistic answers that actually explain nothing is the death of enquiry and understanding, not the place it leads to. 

Whilst once can see that having the ludicrousness of his thinking and the unsustainability of its conclusions explained must be painful, the price of the fundamental dishonesty of the Lieutenant’s position would be too high for some of us.

Perhaps a good place to start would be for him to stop knocking the pieces over, crapping on the board, and flying back to his flock to claim victory.

[Stranger]

...your claim that you can find no reasons for belief or even consideration of God...

Can you name one? I have never come across a sensible, rational argument nor have I been presented with any credible evidence.

And of course your God avoidance in refusing to recognise that the central aspects of N D G Tyson's theory are traditional theology.

Tyson's speculation (it isn't a theory or even a hypothesis) is explicitly naturalistic. Attempting to link it to theology is either extremely stupid or extremely dishonest.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which the Lieutenant…

So something affects me.....We mustn't investigate why?

Is unable to answer his own question – why wouldn’t he investigate using tools capable of the job rather than settle for simplistic faith answers that actually explain nothing? 

The trouble with someone like yourself claiming you don't have a burden of proof. You do for your scientism, humanism, physicalism, agnosticism, your poor use of the concept of unknown unknown you retreat into to end debate new atheism and the arrogance that seems to attract, your claim that you can find no reasons for belief or even consideration of God,............ and we know that because you have declared all these philosophies explicitly or implicitly.

Resorts to lying – anyone who asserts a statement of fact has the burden of proof for it – while failing to address his most recent failure to grasp its meaning. "I believe in X - you can't prove me wrong" is still a bad argument whether X is "god" or the Tooth Fairy. 

I find that none of them are what they are cracked up to be the mystery for me is how you support all of them.

Fails to grasp that nothing will be “what they are cracked up to be” when his only response is lying about them.

However God actually is affecting you in someway because of your continued presence here.

Collapses into incoherent and unqualified assertion.

And of course your God avoidance in refusing to recognise that the central aspects of N D G Tyson's theory are traditional theology.

Returns to a piece of deep stupidity and dishonesty that was roundly trounced several threads ago.

Desperate, desperate stuff indeed.

[floo]

First becoming aware that God is rather than isn't.
Reading more about religion
Reading more about Christ
Affected by CS Lewis statement about other religions not having christ
Realising the question ''why should christ be affecting me?''
After reading Revelations 3.20 realised that christ was there and it meant me.
After a period of resistance to christ I invited Him in.

I invited that guy Jesus in when I was 11, but he failed to accept the invite, so I drew my own conclusion by the time I was old enough to ask searching questions about the faith.

[BeRational]

First becoming aware that God is rather than isn't.
Reading more about religion
Reading more about Christ
Affected by CS Lewis statement about other religions not having christ
Realising the question ''why should christ be affecting me?''
After reading Revelations 3.20 realised that christ was there and it meant me.
After a period of resistance to christ I invited Him in.

This is just an admission of gullibility, and poor reasoning ability.