tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post3272846906440240454..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Times/Harris Poll: 1/4th of Us Could Be Either Agnostic or AtheistUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51666110848720395842007-10-12T17:41:00.000-04:002007-10-12T17:41:00.000-04:00In the interests of futility, utter untimeliness a...In the interests of futility, utter untimeliness and perhaps boredom (idle hands and all that ;), I thought I'd add a comment to this thread since I found it so charming (well, until the end).<BR/><BR/>I must admit, that halfway through I thought Jason was playing the devil's advocate, with his position that...<BR/><BR/><I><B>Christians already trust the source since the source is God. </I></B><BR/><BR/>...which gave me quite a chuckle, as I had participated in a few theological discussions that devolved to a similar circular argument. Reading on I learned Jason was honestly taking that position, and made an incorrect definition of the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignoratiam to argue against Btsai. Since most of the meat of the discussion was on this topic, I thought it important to make a small correction. Before I do so though, I'd like to do Jason the courtesy of answering his questions:<BR/><BR/><I><B>I’d like answers to my questions now:<BR/>1. The claim was made that Matthew isn’t inspired. What tangible evidence can be offered proving this?<BR/><BR/>2. What does a lack of historical evidence prove: That something didn’t happen or that history is silent concerning the supposed event?</I></B><BR/><BR/>Answers:<BR/>1. None. It is not within the scope of human capacity to prove such a negative. Even raising Matthew from the dead and having him recant would not prove that he was not divinely inspired at the time of his writing. It would take Omniscience and omnipotence on my part to prove to you otherwise (firstly to have all possible knowledge, then the coercive power to force you to believe that I do). Seeing that no-one posting here has such power, they should have avoided trying to prove the human impossibility. Why they didn't honestly answer your question... I'd hazard to guess they didn't want to give you something you might consider a victory, even if it really would have been meaningless to the debate.<BR/><BR/>2. That history is silent concerning the supposed event, simply enough.<BR/><BR/>I also must commend you on your grasp of scripture, and of humbling the atheists who stubbornly tried to prove a negative without having all necessary knowledge at their disposal (shame shame ;). It made this thread all the more enjoyable to read.<BR/><BR/>Now back to that mis-definition of "agrumentum ad ignoratiam". The proper structure of the fallacy is <B>not</B>:<BR/><BR/><I>(argumentum ad ignorantiam) - a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is <B>false</B> only because it has not been proved <B>true</B>.</I><BR/><BR/>It is instead the reverse:<BR/><BR/><I>An appeal to ignorance proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise. But, of course, the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. What we don't know could nevertheless be so.</I><BR/><BR/>i.e. "...fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is <B>True</B> only because it has not been proved <B>False</B>."<BR/><BR/>Whether or not you transposed the two booleans on purpose to confound your opponents, or whether it was a simple mistake I couldn't tell. But I was saddened that no-one quite corrected you. Btsai did say, that you were shifting the burden of proof, but the mis-definition was left standing uncorrected. Which led to further confusion, both using "argumentum ad ignoratiam" against each other, which at that point was uncomfortable to see, since I was no longer under the impression that Jason was playing the devils advocate, and was instead honestly trying to argue using faulty logic. The atheists were never trying to disprove Matthew's divine inspiration, they were trying to show that your belief in such was based on an argument from ignorance.<BR/><BR/>Which brings me to my last comment.<BR/><BR/>Jason, in his last post, was projecting a version of his own circular argument onto the atheists in the discussion. Namely that the atheists believed unequivocally and by definition that belief in deities cannot be based on sound reasoning. On multiple occasions in the thread, it was made clear that this was not the opinion held by the atheists:<BR/><BR/><B>Lee Randolph</B><BR/><I>"I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe in god but I won't say it can't exist...I am aware that my position depends on the best information I have at the time..."</I><BR/><BR/><B>benny</B><BR/><I>"This may or may not be necessary, but I want to clarify that not even "flat-out atheism" claims with 100% certainty that God does not exist. As far as I can tell, only people from the religious camp looking for a strawman to knock down will say this is what atheism is about. Most atheists, like myself, share Lee's position: while it's possible that supernatural beings may exist, the information we have right now simply does not support that belief."</I><BR/><BR/>That is to say that, given evidence, these atheists would change their mind -- Which is why it <B>entirely permissible and logically consistent</B> for atheists like Btsai to judge Jason's logical reasoning for belief in a deity, or whether Matthew was divinely inspired. They have refused using "argumentum ad ignoratiam" for reason to believe in any deity, all it would take is sufficient evidence or logical argument to convince them to. Until that logical argument or evidence is presented to them, they take the logically consistent position not to believe.<BR/><BR/> Which is partly why atheists ask these questions in the first place - Is there a logically consistent reason to believe in a particular deity? That question must necessarily go to those who DO believe, since no atheist can answer that question positively and remain an atheist. The second part of why atheists typically ask these types of questions of believers is that for nearly all atheists raised in religious cultures, these questions are what ultimately led them their atheism. It was this logical line of questioning that brought them to non-belief. It may be their hope (on a website dedicated to debunking religion) that the seeds of these questions may lead others to the same vision of reality.<BR/><BR/>Of course, in order to convert believers to atheism via argument, everyone must agree to debate by the same rules (logic). I've always found that those confident enough to debate on the deist side of the equation will eventually refuse those rules just as Jason did, by holding to a belief with an admittedly unsound logical foundation. How to get around that problem when debating religion with believers is what I see to be the largest stumbling block in any such discussions.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, no-one was requiring a christian to justify anything to an Atheist - they were asking you to, so they might understand if your justification was logical - up to that point you had voluntarily given your justifications. In the end, the answer you gave us by your avoidance only leaves one conclusion - you hadn't thought it through that far.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649144658208062948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59696121764721484182007-07-13T19:17:00.000-04:002007-07-13T19:17:00.000-04:00"No. You seem to see this as reason to exempt reli...<I>"No. You seem to see this as reason to exempt religious ideas and claims from scrutiny by reason. I see it as reason to reject religious ideas and claims."</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly. Back to the topic then, if believing in a supernatural deity isn’t sound reasoning (by your own admission), how can you judge which religion ‘uses sound reasoning’ (your words) as a means of determining who is ‘spiritually correct’? Right. By definition, you can’t. Therefore, as I said at the beginning of this, your BFSM analogy is irrelevant which is why I stopped responding to it.<BR/><BR/><I>"You want to know where you said that religion should be exempt from reason?"</I><BR/><BR/><I>Jason: "As an atheist, how can you possibly think any religion is based on 'sound reasoning'? Is believing in a supernatural deity 'sound reasoning'? It’s like asking a vegetarian to judge a BBQ competition...ugh."</I><BR/><BR/>Other then your original comment being false (you aren’t in a position to judge religions since you’ve already rejected them), where do you see the blanket statement <B>“religion should be exempt from reason”</B> in my comment?<BR/><BR/><I>"So it’s possible and not possible to offer tangible evidence showing Matthew wasn’t inspired. Explain please. My statement: "Another red herring? Another attempt to shift the burden of proof? I say yes to both."</I><BR/><BR/>Ah, my apologies. For some bizarre reason, I thought you were actually answering one of my questions! How silly of me! Let's try again (second time's a charm): You’ve observed the lack of evidence but you’ve concluded the lack of evidence disproves the divinity of the Gospels. True or false? This isn’t actually as tough as it looks. Pick one. After all, the whole basis for this discussion rests on this answer.<BR/><BR/><I>"Nowhere in this thread did an atheist state that the lack of evidence proves that the gospels are not divinely inspired."</I><BR/><BR/>Really? I could have sworn there was a reference to a "Why didn't anyone write about..." question early on in this post. Isn't the along the lines of 'lack of evidence'? Of more relevance though, the claim was made the Gospels aren’t inspired. As such, the burden of proof rests with the party making the claim, which in this case happens to be the atheist camp.<BR/><BR/><I>"Instead, what we have been asking for from the beginning is evidence to support the Christian claim that the gospels are divinely inspired. You are still trying to shift the burden of proof."</I><BR/><BR/>Firstly, the burden of proof rests with the party making the claim. This whole site is about atheists debunking Christianity, not Christianity debunking atheism. As such, the claims made here are anti-Christian & anti-Bible. Therefore, the burden of proof rests with the atheists.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, you're obviously confused. From the beginning people have been stating the Gospels aren't inspired. Hence the request for further evidence. I mean seriously, why can’t someone just answer whether or not it’s true Jesus only appeared to his disciples after his resurrection? Surely someone must know...?<BR/><BR/><I>"You believe that a Christian is justified to accept, a priori, the premise that the gospels are inspired without 3rd party evidence."</I><BR/><BR/>Christianity believes in a supernatural deity. Because of this, you automatically reject Christianity, its claims and its ideas. An FSM-ist believes in a holy book. Because of this, you automatically reject FMS-ism, its claims and its ideas. Your opinion of unsound reasoning is irrelevant since you’ve already rejected religion as a whole. Your FSM analogy is therefore pointless because by definition, you reject the plausibility of your own hypothetical situation.<BR/><BR/>And whether or not a Christian is justified to accept anything isn’t your call. You’re not a Christian. :)<BR/><BR/><I>"But when I pointed out that a FSM-ist can play his own version of this trump card to prove any FSM claim, you say that he would be guilty of unsound reasoning..."</I><BR/><BR/>You’ve already rejected Christianity and FSM on account of both being religions. You’re in no position to judge anything in terms of exchanges between the two parties.<BR/><BR/><I>“When pressed to justify a Christian's a priori acceptance of your magical premise, you sputter and respond with a series of logical fallacies.”</I><BR/><BR/>Since when is a Christian required to justify anything to an atheist? The claim was made that the Gospels aren’t inspired. Does evidence exist or not? <BR/><BR/><I>"As I understand it, the main point of this forum is to subject Christianity's premises to scrutiny by reason."</I><BR/><BR/>Scrutiny by reason? How is argumentum ad ignorantiam “scrutiny by reason”???Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7557056134017183882007-07-13T15:03:00.000-04:002007-07-13T15:03:00.000-04:00Jason asks,From your perspective, is believing in ...Jason asks,<BR/><BR/><I>From your perspective, is believing in a supernatural deity ‘sound reasoning’?</I><BR/><BR/>No. You seem to see this as reason to exempt religious ideas and claims from scrutiny by reason. I see it as reason to reject religious ideas and claims.<BR/><BR/>You want to know where you said that religion should be exempt from reason?<BR/><BR/>Benny: "I would judge [which religion is more "spiritually correct"] based on whose ideas rest upon sound reasoning, and whose claims are supported by evidence. You know, the same criteria we use to judge ideas and claims in every walk of life. Folks like you who want to claim that religious ideas and claims should somehow be exempt from this scrutiny are guilty of, say it with me, special pleading." (10:34 AM, July 12, 2007)<BR/><BR/>Jason: "As an atheist, how can you possibly think any religion is based on 'sound reasoning'? Is believing in a supernatural deity 'sound reasoning'? It’s like asking a vegetarian to judge a BBQ competition...ugh." (11:52 PM, July 12, 2007)<BR/><BR/><I>So it’s possible and not possible to offer tangible evidence showing Matthew wasn’t inspired. Explain please.</I><BR/><BR/>My statement: "Another red herring? Another attempt to shift the burden of proof? I say yes to both."<BR/><BR/>Meaning: Your question is both a red herring and another attempt to shift the burden of proof.<BR/><BR/><I>You’ve observed the lack of evidence but you’ve concluded the lack of evidence disproves the divinity of the Gospels. True or false?</I><BR/><BR/><I>You’re claiming that a premise (the Gospels are inspired) is false only because it has not been proved true. Therefore, argumentum ad ignorantiam.</I><BR/><BR/><I>On the other hand, the atheist camp has decided the Gospels aren’t inspired and they offered non-evidence proving as such. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.</I><BR/><BR/><I>This claim was put forward: The Gospels aren't inspired.<BR/><BR/>Therefore: Evidence must be presented proving the Gospels aren't inspired.</I><BR/><BR/>Nowhere in this thread did an atheist state that the lack of evidence proves that the gospels are not divinely inspired. Instead, what we have been asking for from the beginning is evidence to support the Christian claim that the gospels are divinely inspired. You are still trying to shift the burden of proof.<BR/><BR/><I>Why are you arguing the personal choices of a Christian? The decision to believe that the Gospels are inspired without extra Biblical evidence isn’t an argument, friend. It’s a simple statement that doesn’t involve anyone else.</I><BR/><BR/>Ah, this is the heart of the matter. You believe that a Christian is justified to accept, a priori, the premise that the gospels are inspired without 3rd party evidence. As a friend puts it, this premise is your magical logic trump card, with which any Christian claim can be proven. <BR/><BR/>But when I pointed out that a FSM-ist can play his own version of this trump card to prove any FSM claim, you say that he would be guilty of unsound reasoning. Yet you continue to cling to this unsound reasoning yourself. You also refuse to acknowlege that under your reasoning, a FSM-ist is as justified in his rejection of Christianity as you are in your rejection of FSM doctrine.<BR/><BR/>When pressed to justify a Christian's a priori acceptance of your magical premise, you sputter and respond with a series of logical fallacies. Circular reasoning, arguments from ignorance, and ad hominem attacks (oh my!). You distort the skeptic's position to shift the burden of proof, and use special pleading to try to exempt religion from rational scrutiny, while denying making such statements.<BR/><BR/>As I understand it, the main point of this forum is to subject Christianity's premises to scrutiny by reason. It is pointless to debate someone like you, who chooses to accept Christianity's premises irrationally (in the sense of "without/devoid of reason"). I will follow in Jim and Lee's footsteps, and take my leave of you.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66924919264218735462007-07-13T11:39:00.000-04:002007-07-13T11:39:00.000-04:00"Oh, so you're saying that religion should not be ...<I>"Oh, so you're saying that religion should not be judged by reason, because religion cannot be built on on sound reasoning, interesting."</I><BR/><BR/>From your perspective, is believing in a supernatural deity ‘sound reasoning’?<BR/><BR/><I>"Where have I made the claim that 'religious ideas and claims should be exempt from this kind of scrutiny'? Right up above, where you said religion cannot be judged by reason."</I><BR/><BR/>Quote me please because I must be missing it.<BR/><BR/><I>"Observing that something is unsupported by evidence is just that, an observation, not an argument from ignorance. You should make sure you understand the term's definition before you try throwing it around."</I><BR/><BR/>If it’s only an observation, how is it that you’ve reached a conclusion? You’ve observed the lack of evidence but you’ve concluded the lack of evidence disproves the divinity of the Gospels. True or false?<BR/><BR/><I>"Here's a question: Is it or is it not possible to offer tangible evidence showing Matthew wasn't inspired. Another red herring? Another attempt to shift the burden of proof? I say yes to both."</I><BR/><BR/>So it’s possible and not possible to offer tangible evidence showing Matthew wasn’t inspired. Explain please.<BR/><BR/><I>"Still can't see the distinction between logical fallacy and sound skeptical position."</I><BR/><BR/>That’s right, because there isn’t one. You’re claiming that a premise (the Gospels are inspired) is false only because it has not been proved true. Therefore, argumentum ad ignorantiam.<BR/><BR/><I>"And I've been stating, time after time, that throwing in the phrase "from a Christian perspective" doesn't make an unsound argument magically sound. If a Christian says to himself, "I believe the gospels are divinely inspired because they say they are, no 3rd party evidence is needed", it's still circular reasoning. If a Christian says to himself, "I will accept the gospels as true until someone proves to me they are not", it's still an argument from ignorance."</I><BR/><BR/>Why are you arguing the personal choices of a Christian? The decision to believe that the Gospels are inspired without extra Biblical evidence isn’t an argument, friend. It’s a simple statement that doesn’t involve anyone else. On the other hand, the atheist camp has decided the Gospels aren’t inspired and they offered non-evidence proving as such. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.<BR/><BR/><I>"Do you have anything meaningful to contribute, or do you intend to just keep up the showcasing of logical fallacies?"</I><BR/><BR/>You mean like your ad hominem bit? Lol<BR/><BR/>Let's talk about the burden of proof - "Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it." -wiki<BR/><BR/>This claim was put forward: <B>The Gospels aren't inspired.</B><BR/><BR/>Therefore: <B>Evidence must be presented proving the Gospels aren't inspired.</B> <I>Note: it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim.</I><BR/><BR/>So, where's the evidence?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66764091069678959042007-07-13T02:41:00.000-04:002007-07-13T02:41:00.000-04:00Btsai,You can't argue with people who have no gras...Btsai,<BR/><BR/>You can't argue with people who have no grasp of the basic principles of logic and the requirements of burden of proof.<BR/><BR/>Rid yourself of this one before you pop a brain vessel.<BR/><BR/>Lego :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15493653684012441368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69343961112110503692007-07-13T00:43:00.000-04:002007-07-13T00:43:00.000-04:00As an atheist, how can you possibly think any reli...<I>As an atheist, how can you possibly think any religion is based on 'sound reasoning'? Is believing in a supernatural deity 'sound reasoning'? It’s like asking a vegetarian to judge a BBQ competition...ugh.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, so you're saying that religion should not be judged by reason, because religion cannot be built on on sound reasoning, interesting.<BR/><BR/><I>Where have I made the claim that 'religious ideas and claims should be exempt from this kind of scrutiny'?</I><BR/><BR/>Right up above, where you said religion cannot be judged by reason.<BR/><BR/><I>The only thing your so-called scrutiny has turned up is there's no evidence to support some of the events in the Gospels. I believe the term is ‘argumentum ad ignorantiam’....?</I><BR/><BR/><I>"Ill supported by evidence"?? Argumentum ad ignorantiam.</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong again. Observing that something is unsupported by evidence is just that, an observation, not an argument from ignorance. You should make sure you understand the term's definition before you try throwing it around.<BR/><BR/><I>Here's a question: Is it or is it not possible to offer tangible evidence showing Matthew wasn't inspired.</I><BR/><BR/>Another red herring? Another attempt to shift the burden of proof? I say yes to both.<BR/><BR/><I>Forget the burden of proof and garbage like that.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you asking me to forget all about sound reasoning and "garbage like that"? Play only by your special rules? Thanks but no thanks.<BR/><BR/><I>Both statements are based on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam since it's claimed that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.</I><BR/><BR/>Still can't see the distinction between logical fallacy and sound skeptical position.<BR/><BR/><I>I’ve been stating, time after time, that from a Christian perspective, extra-Biblical evidence isn’t required to prove the divinity of the Gospels.</I><BR/><BR/>And I've been stating, time after time, that throwing in the phrase "from a Christian perspective" doesn't make an unsound argument magically sound. If a Christian says to himself, "I believe the gospels are divinely inspired because they say they are, no 3rd party evidence is needed", it's still circular reasoning. If a Christian says to himself, "I will accept the gospels as true until someone proves to me they are not", it's still an argument from ignorance.<BR/><BR/><I>To refresh your memory, all I want is to see the evidence that supposedly exists which proves the Gospels aren’t divinely inspired (evidence alluded to in the original four questions put forth by Jim). That’s all. Can you do that or not?</I><BR/><BR/>Still trying to off-load your burden of proof.<BR/><BR/><I>And I see you’re still not willing to extend to me the same courtesy as I extended you.</I><BR/><BR/>You mean your courtesy of repeatedly dodging questions like this one?<BR/><BR/><B>Still waiting on your answer of whether you think the FSM-ist is perfectly justified in rejecting Christianity. Because he would be perfectly justified to do so, using your reasoning from a FSM-ist perspective, right?</B><BR/><BR/><I>Maybe you're a bit out of your league...?</I><BR/><BR/><I>lol I have no expectations. You’re an atheist, after all. ;) An atheist brings up a few statements concerning the Bible (as if they're experts on Scriptural matters), the statements are revealed to be false, and poof, no more engaging. Typical.</I><BR/><BR/>Attempts at ad hominem?<BR/><BR/>Do you have anything meaningful to contribute, or do you intend to just keep up the showcasing of logical fallacies?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84009255450742784682007-07-12T23:52:00.000-04:002007-07-12T23:52:00.000-04:00"I would judge based on whose ideas rest upon soun...<I>"I would judge based on whose ideas rest upon sound reasoning, and whose claims are supported by evidence. You know, the same criteria we use to judge ideas and claims in every walk of life."</I><BR/><BR/>Well, you learn something new everyday. As an atheist, how can you possibly think any religion is based on 'sound reasoning'? Is believing in a supernatural deity 'sound reasoning'? It’s like asking a vegetarian to judge a BBQ competition...ugh.<BR/><BR/><I>"Folks like you who want to claim that religious ideas and claims should somehow be exempt from this scrutiny are guilty of, say it with me, special pleading."</I><BR/><BR/>Where have I made the claim that 'religious ideas and claims should be exempt from this kind of scrutiny'? The only thing your so-called scrutiny has turned up is there's no evidence to support some of the events in the Gospels. I believe the term is ‘argumentum ad ignorantiam’....?<BR/><BR/><I>"From what I can see, it does so by prodding people to think critically about the claims made by Christianity, and see how ill-supported by evidence they are."</I><BR/><BR/>"Ill supported by evidence"?? Argumentum ad ignorantiam.<BR/><BR/>Here's a question: Is it or is it not possible to offer tangible evidence showing Matthew wasn't inspired. Forget the burden of proof and garbage like that. Simple question.<BR/><BR/><I>"The assertion has never been "because of lack of evidence, Matthew is not divinely inspired". It's always been "because of lack of evidence, there's no reason to believe that Matthew is divinely inspired." The former is a logical fallacy. The latter is simple sound reasoning."</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong. Both statements are based on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam since it's claimed that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.<BR/><BR/><I>"It's interesting you brought up the argument of ignorance. You are the one who's been claiming that biblical stories such as Matthew should be considered true until proven false."</I><BR/><BR/>Where have I made this claim? I’ve been stating, time after time, <I>that from a Christian perspective</I>, extra-Biblical evidence isn’t required to prove the divinity of the Gospels. This seems to be causing you tremendous confusion.<BR/><BR/>To refresh your memory, all I want is to see the evidence that supposedly exists which <B>proves the Gospels aren’t divinely inspired</B> (evidence alluded to in the original four questions put forth by Jim). That’s all. Can you do that or not?<BR/><BR/><I>"Still trying to red-herring away from the topic of your unsound reasoning, I see."</I><BR/><BR/>And I see you’re still not willing to extend to me the same courtesy as I extended you. Do the questions intimidate you? I would have thought #1 and #2 would have been the easiest for you to answer. Even the last one should be pretty straightforward. Maybe you're a bit out of your league...?<BR/><BR/><I>"You are free to hold any belief you want, and free to justify them to yourself using any unsound reasoning you fancy."</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn’t aware I needed your permission to believe anything I wanted. Speaking of unsound reasoning, how sound is this criticism: <B>“Jesus only appeared to his disciples after his resurrection – he appeared to no one else”?</B><BR/><BR/><I>"So if you want to have any meaningful discussions here, best to start learning how to employ sound reasoning. Until you do, don't expect much to come out of your attempts to engage others."</I><BR/><BR/>lol I have no expectations. You’re an atheist, after all. ;) An atheist brings up a few statements concerning the Bible (as if they're experts on Scriptural matters), the statements are revealed to be false, and poof, no more engaging. Typical.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47378383236941766032007-07-12T10:50:00.000-04:002007-07-12T10:50:00.000-04:00Hi Lee,Thanks for the compliment :) Though I'm af...Hi Lee,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the compliment :) Though I'm afraid what you flatteringly call patience is really just pig-headed stubbornness. But I'll happily take the free drink! By the way, I was also Benny. But I have to use my Google account name now, under the new commenting system.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55632924811064227132007-07-12T10:34:00.000-04:002007-07-12T10:34:00.000-04:00Jason claims,That’s right, you’re not religious. Y...Jason claims,<BR/><BR/><I>That’s right, you’re not religious. You can’t question whether I’m spiritually correct since you’re not able to judge either way. As an unbeliever, on what grounds would you decide who is spiritually ‘right’ and who is spiritually ‘wrong’?</I><BR/><BR/>I would judge based on whose ideas rest upon sound reasoning, and whose claims are supported by evidence. You know, the same criteria we use to judge ideas and claims in every walk of life. Folks like you who want to claim that religious ideas and claims should somehow be exempt from this scrutiny are guilty of, say it with me, special pleading.<BR/><BR/><I>You’re kidding. This whole forum dedicated to “debunking Christianity” – yes or no?</I><BR/><BR/>That's right, the forum is dedicated to debunking Christianity. From what I can see, it does so by prodding people to think critically about the claims made by Christianity, and see how ill-supported by evidence they are. I would think this is obvious by the nature of the topics raised at this forum. I don't see anyone trying to take on the impossible task of proving a negative. Only someone trying to shift the burden of proof would claim that.<BR/><BR/><I>The original assertion was that the Gospel of Matthew wasn't inspired because of the lack of historical evidence or reliable eyewitnesses. To use your fancy argument terms, this is an argument from a position of ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) - a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true. Note: “logical fallacy”</I><BR/><BR/>Sneaky Jason! The assertion has never been "because of lack of evidence, Matthew is not divinely inspired". It's always been "because of lack of evidence, there's no reason to believe that Matthew is divinely inspired." The former is a logical fallacy. The latter is simple sound reasoning. It's a shame you are unable or unwilling to see the difference.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting you brought up the argument of ignorance. You are the one who's been claiming that biblical stories such as Matthew should be considered true until proven false. Sounds just like an argument from ignorance to me!<BR/><BR/><I>I’d like answers to my questions now:</I><BR/><BR/>Still trying to red-herring away from the topic of your unsound reasoning, I see.<BR/><BR/>You are free to hold any belief you want, and free to justify them to yourself using any unsound reasoning you fancy. And maybe unsound reasoning is acceptable among your colleagues who share your beliefs. But when people of different beliefs want to exchange and discuss ideas, the common coin is sound reasoning, free of logical fallacies. So if you want to have any meaningful discussions here, best to start learning how to employ sound reasoning. Until you do, don't expect much to come out of your attempts to engage others.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50654762085254809152007-07-12T03:04:00.000-04:002007-07-12T03:04:00.000-04:00Hi Btsai,you have the patience of a saint.;-)I wis...Hi Btsai,<BR/>you have the patience of a saint.<BR/>;-)<BR/>I wish I could buy you a beer.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27575427766303724362007-07-12T00:05:00.000-04:002007-07-12T00:05:00.000-04:00"So if I'm not religious, I can't question whether...<I>"So if I'm not religious, I can't question whether you are spiritually correct?"</I><BR/><BR/>That’s right, you’re not religious. You can’t question whether I’m spiritually correct since you’re not able to judge either way. As an unbeliever, on what grounds would you decide who is spiritually ‘right’ and who is spiritually ‘wrong’?<BR/><BR/><I>"Let me introduce you to the concept of the burden of proof. In each instance above, the burden of proof is on you, the defender of the positive claims, to present evidence to support your claims, not the skeptic."</I><BR/><BR/>You’re kidding. This whole forum dedicated to <B>“debunking Christianity”</B> – yes or no? The original assertion was that the Gospel of Matthew wasn't inspired because of the lack of historical evidence or reliable eyewitnesses. To use your fancy argument terms, this is an argument from a position of ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) - a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true. Note: <I>“logical fallacy”</I><BR/><BR/>I’d like answers to my questions now:<BR/>1. The claim was made that Matthew isn’t inspired. What <B>tangible evidence</B> can be offered proving this?<BR/><BR/>2. What does a lack of historical evidence prove: That something didn’t happen or that history is silent concerning the supposed event?<BR/><BR/><I>"You can keep copy/pasting those topics as much as you'd like, but I simply have no interest in them."</I><BR/><BR/>That's nice. Now tell me what ‘circular logic’ has to do with examining false statements and asking for more information?<BR/><BR/>1. “The Bible says that Christ was raised from the dead and appeared to his disciples, and no one else.” According to John 20:18, is this statement true or false?<BR/><BR/>2. “(The Jews) might have believed that he would 'grow up to be their king' but there is no evidence (not even in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) that they would have gathered around him." Does Matthew 2:2 and 2 Kings 22:1 support or contradict this statement? <BR/><BR/>3. “I love the way Christians have it both ways, first seeing Jesus with this immense following, and then seeing him with no followers and hated by the people, whichever is most convenient and without even noticing the contradiction.” What’s the contradiction?<BR/><BR/>4. “The oldest manuscripts of the Bible are hardly identical to those we have today -- they differ in almost every particular, some in important ways some in minor ways.” For example?<BR/><BR/>Answer the question: If I tell you that the first king of Israel, according to the Bible, was King Johnny and you show me it was actually Saul, what would you say if I told you, “That’s just circular reasoning. This conversation is over”?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2388572593739783732007-07-11T19:19:00.000-04:002007-07-11T19:19:00.000-04:00Oh yeah, almost forgot. Still waiting on your ans...Oh yeah, almost forgot. <B>Still</B> waiting on your answer of whether you think the FSM-ist is perfectly justified in rejecting Christianity. Because he would be perfectly justified to do so, using your reasoning from a FSM-ist perspective, right?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58821672949705379812007-07-11T19:12:00.000-04:002007-07-11T19:12:00.000-04:00I’m done responding to this analogy. You’re not re...<I>I’m done responding to this analogy. You’re not religious. You don’t have a ‘holy text’. You’re not engaging me in a discussion regarding which of us is spiritually correct. Should you ever end up aligning yourself with a non-Biblical holy text, we can examine each other’s book and make unreasonable claims until the cows come home. Until then, the manner in which two religious groups want to refute the other’s holy book is really of no concern to you.</I><BR/><BR/>So if I'm not religious, I can't question whether you are spiritually correct? And you being religious gives you carte blanche to use what you admit is unsound reasoning? Can you say, <A HREF="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html" REL="nofollow">special pleading</A>?<BR/><BR/><I>The claim was made that Matthew isn’t inspired. What tangible evidence can be offered proving this?</I><BR/><BR/><I>The original claim was made by the skeptic... The resulting comments consisted of questions and statements that deal with Bible inerrancy and claim the resurrection was a myth. No evidence was ever presented supporting this.</I><BR/><BR/><I>What does a lack of historical evidence prove: That something didn’t happen or that history is silent concerning the supposed event?</I><BR/><BR/>Positive claim: Matthew was divinely inspired.<BR/>Negative claim: There's no reason to believe that Matthew was divinely inspired.<BR/><BR/>Positive claim: The Resurrection happened exactly as the Bible described.<BR/>Negative claim: There's no reason to believe that the Resurrection happened, let alone exactly as the Bible described.<BR/><BR/>Positive claim: The Bible's Herod baby-killing story is true.<BR/>Negative claim: There's no reason to believe that that story is true.<BR/><BR/>Let me introduce you to the concept of the burden of proof. In each instance above, the burden of proof is on you, the defender of the positive claims, to present evidence to support your claims, not the skeptic. <A HREF="http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/JoelKatz/knowledge.html" REL="nofollow">An intro to objective reasoning</A>, which talks about positive/negative claims near the middle.<BR/><BR/><I>You incorrectly stated that the context in which I was writing wasn’t regarding the Gospels or Herod. Admit as such and move on.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I will admit (as I did already in the "Eyewitness testimony and apologetics" thread) that I mistook your circular justification of the gospels for circular justification of the bible. I agree, let's move on. Back to the topic of your unsound reasoning.<BR/><BR/><I>I’m not asking you when we changed subjects. I’m asking you how circular reasoning killed off these topics:</I><BR/><BR/>You can keep copy/pasting those topics as much as you'd like, but I simply have no interest in them. I stated my interpretation that your previous discussion died over your use of circular logic only in an attempt to bring your attention to the consequences of employing unsound reasoning. What I'm interested in is, you guessed it, your unsound reasoning itself. Which has now grown to include not just circular logic, but also special pleading and shifting the burden of proof. Impressive :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59989005224186830752007-07-11T16:21:00.000-04:002007-07-11T16:21:00.000-04:00So you readily state..."I’m done responding to thi...<I>So you readily state..."</I><BR/><BR/>I’m done responding to this analogy. You’re not religious. You don’t have a ‘holy text’. You’re not engaging me in a discussion regarding which of us is spiritually correct. Should you ever end up aligning yourself with a non-Biblical holy text, we can examine each other’s book and make unreasonable claims until the cows come home. Until then, the manner in which two religious groups want to refute the other’s holy book is really of no concern to you. <BR/><BR/>The claim was made that Matthew isn’t inspired. What <B>tangible evidence</B> can be offered proving this?<BR/><BR/><I>What a hoot! When someone makes a positive claim, such as "I believe the bible is divinely inspired", the onus is on the *claimer* to justify that claim, not on the skeptic.</I><BR/><BR/>The original claim was made by the skeptic. Go back and read the posts. <I>“The trick is to think critically and skeptically -- which does not mean rejecting things out of hand, but testing them against the evidence, and sometimes against common sense… Here, let me give you a couple to think about…”</I> The resulting comments consisted of questions and statements that deal with Bible inerrancy and claim the resurrection was a myth. <B>No evidence was ever presented supporting this.</B><BR/><BR/><I>"Nowhere was I interested in or tried to engage you about the context. The context is irrelevant, because, again, unsound reasoning is unsound regardless of context."</I><BR/><BR/>Whether you were interested or not doesn’t concern me and unsound reasoning doesn’t change the context. You incorrectly stated that the context in which I was writing wasn’t regarding the Gospels or Herod. Admit as such and move on.<BR/><BR/><I>"Precisely! The veracity of historical claims made by the bible should be judged by the degree of corroboration from other historical records.."</I><BR/><BR/>What does a lack of historical evidence prove: That something didn’t happen or that history is silent concerning the supposed event?<BR/><BR/><I>No problem, I'll refresh your memory. Scroll up to Lee's post at 3:22 AM, July 02, 2007. That's where the two of you dropped the other topics and switched exclusively to talking about your circular justification of why the bible should be trusted."</I><BR/><BR/>I’m not asking you when we changed subjects. I’m asking you how circular reasoning killed off these topics:<BR/><BR/>1. <I>“The Bible says that Christ was raised from the dead and appeared to his disciples, and no one else.”</I> According to John 20:18, is this statement true or false?<BR/><BR/>2. <I>“(The Jews) might have believed that he would 'grow up to be their king' but there is no evidence (not even in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) that they would have gathered around him."</I> Does Matthew 2:2 and 2 Kings 22:1 support or contradict this statement? <BR/><BR/>3. <I>“I love the way Christians have it both ways, first seeing Jesus with this immense following, and then seeing him with no followers and hated by the people, whichever is most convenient and without even noticing the contradiction.”</I> What’s the contradiction?<BR/><BR/>4. <I>“The oldest manuscripts of the Bible are hardly identical to those we have today -- they differ in almost every particular, some in important ways some in minor ways.”</I> For example?<BR/><BR/>If I tell you that the first king of Israel, according to the Bible, was King Johnny and you show me it was actually Saul, what would you say if I told you, “That’s just circular reasoning. This conversation is over”?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14978685105197865882007-07-11T02:29:00.000-04:002007-07-11T02:29:00.000-04:00Jason,So you readily state that when an FSM-ist sa...Jason,<BR/><BR/>So you readily state that when an FSM-ist says "I believe X is divinely inspired because X says so" it is not sound reasoning, but refuse to acknowledge your own use of that unsound reasoning? How disappointing. I thought we were actually getting somewhere. Unsound reasoning is unsound reasoning, regardless of the context or who is employing it. In other words, unsound reasoning does not magically become sound just because a Christian is using it.<BR/><BR/><I>The claim was made Matthew isn’t inspired. The onus is on the accuser, not the Christian, to prove as such. Until evidence is presented that can be responded to, a Christian isn’t obligated to present any evidence of their own beyond stating their belief in the divinely inspired nature of the author. Therefore, the Christian response “God inspired the author so I believe it’s right” happily stands until tangible evidence is presented that proves Herod, etc. didn’t do what the Gospels said he did.</I><BR/><BR/>What a hoot! When someone makes a positive claim, such as "I believe the bible is divinely inspired", the onus is on the *claimer* to justify that claim, not on the skeptic. And when you make a super-natural claim, you better have some extraordinary evidence.<BR/><BR/>Again, let's re-visit our friendly hypothetical FSM-ist to see why your idea is absurd. According to you, he is perfectly justified in his belief, until someone can disprove the existence of the FSM. If you want to insist that the onus is on the challenger, then you better get started disproving the existence of the FSM, else accept that the FSM-ist is as justified in his belief as you are in yours.<BR/><BR/><I>What is it about these comments that is giving you confusion regarding their rather obvious Gospel context?</I><BR/><BR/>I'll say it again: re-read my comments. Nowhere was I interested in or tried to engage you about the context. The context is irrelevant, because, again, unsound reasoning is unsound regardless of context.<BR/><BR/><I>No, that’s not what I said at all. My point was a rather simple one: From a Christian perspective, the Bible is His Word and it’s infallible. Therefore, another text that makes claims that contradict the Bible must, by extension, be considered false by Christians. Now, where do you read that I’m saying X,YX,Y is sufficient for anyone of any religion to prove that all other religions are wrong? Please, indulge me.</I><BR/><BR/>Still not getting it eh? I'll try to make it even clearer, then. You're saying that because a Christian believes his holy text the bible, if another text contradicts the bible, then that text must be wrong. Replace the bible with X, and "another text" with Y, and you have exactly the "if I believe my holy text X, and Y contradicts X, Y must be wrong" I attributed to you. Better?<BR/><BR/>To continue, according to you, a FSM-ist would be perfectly justified in denying everything that contradicts his Book of the FSM. Up to and including, like, every other religion. If you're still paying attention, this is how your "point" is sufficient for anyone of any religion to "prove" that all other religions are wrong.<BR/><BR/>Still waiting on your answer of whether you think the FSM-ist is perfectly justified in rejecting Christianity.<BR/><BR/><I>What evidence?</I><BR/><BR/>Precisely! The veracity of historical claims made by the bible should be judged by the degree of corroboration from other historical records. In the case of, say, biblical stories of Herod, what corroborating records do we have? Oh wait, I forgot, you still abide by your circular logic that no evidence is needed for biblical claims because it's divinely inspired, and that it's divinely inspired because it says it is. And you wonder how discussions get into deadlock over unsound reasoning.<BR/><BR/><I>Now then, I’d like to know how, according to you, circular reasoning killed the topics off as listed below...</I><BR/><BR/>No problem, I'll refresh your memory. Scroll up to Lee's post at 3:22 AM, July 02, 2007. That's where the two of you dropped the other topics and switched exclusively to talking about your circular justification of why the bible should be trusted.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59347942369791750352007-07-11T00:28:00.000-04:002007-07-11T00:28:00.000-04:00Dare I hope that you might recognize the circular ...<I>Dare I hope that you might recognize the circular and unsound reasoning in these comments of yours?</I><BR/><BR/>Tiresome. The claim was made Matthew isn’t inspired. The onus is on the accuser, not the Christian, to prove as such. Until evidence is presented that can be responded to, a Christian isn’t obligated to present any evidence of their own beyond stating their belief in the divinely inspired nature of the author. Therefore, the Christian response “God inspired the author so I believe it’s right” happily stands until tangible evidence is presented that proves Herod, etc. didn’t do what the Gospels said he did.<BR/><BR/><I>If you think our discussion has been about Matthew, Herod, et al., I suggest you re-read my comments.</I><BR/><BR/>1. <I>Christians already trust the source since the source is God." - 4:49 PM, July 03, 2007</I> As stated in response to a comment made regarding the events recorded in Matthew.<BR/><BR/>2. <I>I’m explaining that a Christian doesn’t require third-party evidence to prove these stories because divinely inspired writings don’t require corroboration. - 10:05 AM, July 06, 2007</I> A continuation of my point regarding the killing of babies by Herod.<BR/><BR/>3. <I>Christians don’t require evidence from a third-party to verify the divinity of the Gospels. - 11:32 PM, July 08, 2007</I> As stated in response to a comment made regarding Herod killing babies.<BR/><BR/>What is it about these comments that is giving you confusion regarding their rather obvious Gospel context?<BR/><BR/><I>"My example was intended to demonstrate to you that your reasoning "if I believe my holy text X, and Y contradicts X, Y must be wrong" can be used by a believer of ANY religion to "prove" that all other religions are wrong."</I><BR/><BR/>No, that’s not what I said at all. My point was a rather simple one: From a Christian perspective, the Bible is His Word and it’s infallible. Therefore, another text that makes claims that contradict the Bible must, by extension, be considered false by Christians. Now, where do you read that I’m saying X,YX,Y is sufficient for anyone of <B>any</B> religion to prove that <B>all</B> other religions are wrong? Please, indulge me.<BR/><BR/><I>"Boy, I'm glad I have your permission to complain :) Once again, I'll point out that your voting suggestion is redundant given that I (surprisingly enough) already thought of it on my own (11:35 AM, July 09, 2007). But thanks anyway."</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn’t aware you thought you needed my permission to complain…? And I congratulate you that you thought of my voting suggestion on your own. In the conversation I was finishing up with Lee before you jumped in and decided to continue things, we hadn’t gotten there yet.<BR/><BR/><I>"You don't think your exchange with Jim and Lee died over circuluar logic? Jim originally brought up his 4 "strange questions" in the context of encouraging people to think about the Bible, to try to measure it against evidence and common sense."</I><BR/><BR/>Great. What evidence?<BR/><BR/><I>“You then entered the scene with the circular reasoning that the Bible need not be measured against evidence because it's divinely inspired.”</I><BR/> Actually, I entered the scene responding to Jim’s questions. Perhaps you missed this particular post and the half dozen after it…?<BR/><BR/>Now then, I’d like to know how, according to you, circular reasoning killed the topics off as listed below (original comment in italics, my response in non-italics):<BR/><BR/>1. <I>“The Bible says that Christ was raised from the dead and appeared to his disciples, and no one else.”</I> This statement is false according to John 20:18.<BR/><BR/>2. <I>“(The Jews) might have believed that he would 'grow up to be their king' but there is no evidence (not even in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) that they would have gathered around him."</I> Matthew 2:2 and 2 Kings 22:1 disagree.<BR/><BR/>3. <I>“I love the way Christians have it both ways, first seeing Jesus with this immense following, and then seeing him with no followers and hated by the people, whichever is most convenient and without even noticing the contradiction.”</I> What’s the contradiction?<BR/><BR/>4. <I>“The oldest manuscripts of the Bible are hardly identical to those we have today -- they differ in almost every particular, some in important ways some in minor ways.”</I> For example?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89145258411262248192007-07-10T16:24:00.000-04:002007-07-10T16:24:00.000-04:00Jason admits,No, it’s not sound reasoning but then...Jason admits,<BR/><BR/><I>No, it’s not sound reasoning but then it’s still not a relevant analogy because I’ve never been asked why I believe the Bible is inspired. The discussion, once again, is regarding a single event in the Gospel of Matthew.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm over-joyed that you finally admit that "I believe X is divinely inspired because X says so" is not sound reasoning. Progress! Dare I hope that you might recognize the circular and unsound reasoning in these comments of yours?<BR/><BR/>"Christians already trust the source since the source is God." - 4:49 PM, July 03, 2007<BR/><BR/>"I’m explaining that a Christian doesn’t require third-party evidence to prove these stories because divinely inspired writings don’t require corroboration." - 10:05 AM, July 06, 2007<BR/><BR/>"Christians don’t require evidence from a third-party to verify the divinity of the Gospels." - 11:32 PM, July 08, 2007<BR/><BR/>This is what I've been hounding you about all along. Your use of reasoning that even you admit is unsound. If you think our discussion has been about Matthew, Herod, et al., I suggest you re-read my comments.<BR/><BR/><I>Completely irrelevant. How I would convince you that you’re wrong has nothing to do with Christian perspectives. If a text contradicts Scripture, then by nature, from a Christian perspective, it’s false.</I><BR/><BR/>My example was intended to demonstrate to you that your reasoning "if I believe my holy text X, and Y contradicts X, Y must be wrong" can be used by a believer of ANY religion to "prove" that all other religions are wrong. In other words, under your reasoning, a FSM-ist is perfectly justified in his rejection of Christianity. If you have no problems with this consequence of your "reasoning", cool.<BR/><BR/><I>Whether or not you want to complain about mistakes made by people you didn’t vote for is completely up to you. My statement is still if people have problems with Christians meddling in politics, they shouldn’t vote them into office.</I><BR/><BR/>Boy, I'm glad I have your permission to complain :) Once again, I'll point out that your voting suggestion is redundant given that I (surprisingly enough) already thought of it on my own (11:35 AM, July 09, 2007). But thanks anyway.<BR/><BR/>You don't think your exchange with Jim and Lee died over circuluar logic? Jim originally brought up his 4 "strange questions" in the context of encouraging people to think about the Bible, to try to measure it against evidence and common sense. In his own words:<BR/><BR/>"The trick is to think critically and skeptically -- which does not mean rejecting things out of hand, but testing them against the evidence, and sometimes against common sense. But you have to ask the right questions. Here, let me give you a couple to think about in relation to Christianity and the Bible." - 6:42 PM, June 28, 2007<BR/><BR/>You then entered the scene with the circular reasoning that the Bible need not be measured against evidence because it's divinely inspired. And how do Christians know that the Bible was divinely inspired? Oh, because the Bible says so. When someone employs circular thinking in a discussion about critical thinking, and refuses to see any no problem with the practice, it leaves little point to the discussion. Your last comment, days after Jim and Lee departed, is the first where you admit that circular reasoning is unsound!<BR/><BR/>The above is, of course, just my interpretation; you are welcome to stick to your own conclusions.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79137331280931664772007-07-10T14:29:00.000-04:002007-07-10T14:29:00.000-04:00"If someone said that they believe the Book of the...<I>"If someone said that they believe the Book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is divinely inspired because the Book says so, and they say no other evidence is required, is that reasoning sound?"</I><BR/><BR/>No, it’s not sound reasoning but then it’s still not a relevant analogy because I’ve never been asked why I believe <B>the Bible</B> is inspired. The discussion, once again, is regarding a <B>single event</B> in the Gospel of Matthew. <BR/><BR/>If I said that a single event mentioned in the BFSM didn’t occur because history doesn’t mention anything about it, I’m not offering anything by way of counter-evidence proving the event in the BFSM <I>isn’t</I> divinely inspired. I’m simply making an observation. From the BFSM supporter’s point of view, he’s not obligated to defend his view with anything tangible because nothing tangible has been presented.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, it makes no difference if no extra-Biblical evidence has been found that proves Herod killed babies. Until actual evidence is presented, a Christian isn’t obligated to present any evidence of their own beyond stating their belief in the divinely inspired nature of the author.<BR/><BR/><I>"Tell me, if my only reason for stating that Christianity is false is because it contradicts my beloved Book of the FSM, which I believe is divinely inspired because it says it is, how would you convince me that I'm wrong?</I><BR/><BR/>Completely irrelevant. How I would convince you that you’re wrong has nothing to do with Christian perspectives. If a text contradicts Scripture, then by nature, from a Christian perspective, it’s false.<BR/><BR/><I>"Is it your opinion that people such as Lee and myself should not complain about mistakes made by people we didn't vote for?"</I><BR/><BR/>Whether or not you want to complain about mistakes made by people you didn’t vote for is completely up to you. My statement is still if people have problems with Christians meddling in politics, they shouldn’t vote them into office.<BR/><BR/><I>"But I would venture that the discussion on those topics died precisely because of the deadlock over circular reasoning."</I><BR/><BR/>I would say you’re venturing wrong. What does this statement have to do with circular reasoning: <I>“The Bible says that Christ was raised from the dead and appeared to his disciples, and no one else.”</I> The Bible quite clearly says this statement is false (John 20:18). What’s the difficulty in admitting as such? <I>“(The Jews) might have believed that he would 'grow up to be their king' but there is no evidence (not even in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) that they would have gathered around him."</I> Matthew 2:2 and 2 Kings 22:1 disagree. Circular reasoning plays no part. <I>“I love the way Christians have it both ways, first seeing Jesus with this immense following, and then seeing him with no followers and hated by the people, whichever is most convenient and without even noticing the contradiction.”</I> What’s so difficult about being able to explain the contradiction? <I>“The oldest manuscripts of the Bible are hardly identical to those we have today -- they differ in almost every particular, some in important ways some in minor ways.”</I> I couldn't even get an example of how they're different. Why not?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47079934214662902172007-07-10T00:41:00.000-04:002007-07-10T00:41:00.000-04:00Jason said,I think you’re missing the context of t...Jason said,<BR/><BR/><I>I think you’re missing the context of the discussion.</I><BR/><BR/>And I think you just dodged my question. I'll ask it again. If someone said that they believe the Book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is divinely inspired because the Book says so, and they say no other evidence is required, is that reasoning sound?<BR/><BR/><I>The Bible is the root of Christianity. If a text contradicts Scripture, then by nature, from a Christian perspective, it’s false. Seems pretty straightforward, no?</I><BR/><BR/>No, not straightforward. Quite circular, actually :) Tell me, if my only reason for stating that Christianity is false is because it contradicts my beloved Book of the FSM, which I believe is divinely inspired because it says it is, how would you convince me that I'm wrong?<BR/><BR/><I>It’s my opinion that if people have problems with Christians meddling in politics, they shouldn’t vote them into office. This would seem to be the most logical way to solve the meddling Christian problem.</I><BR/><BR/>You did read my previous comment, right, where I've already stated how I would not vote for "meddling Christians"? Again, please answer the question I posed to you earlier. Is it your opinion that people such as Lee and myself should not complain about mistakes made by people we didn't vote for?<BR/><BR/>Not being knowledgeable about Herod , Matthew, Sanhedrin, or Pilate, I'm afraid I cannot help you with those inquiries. But I would venture that the discussion on those topics died precisely because of the deadlock over circular reasoning. When two sides can't even agree on what constitutes sound reasoning, all they can do is talk past each other. Now, I would like some closure on my questions to you. Would you care to oblige?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21345257262434522292007-07-09T23:38:00.000-04:002007-07-09T23:38:00.000-04:00"...Would you say that this reasoning is sound?"I ...<I>"...Would you say that this reasoning is sound?"</I><BR/><BR/>I think you’re missing the context of the discussion. It was originally stated, among other things, that because no one outside of Scripture had ever recorded Herod killing babies, then the Biblical account of the event must not be true. However, as I’ve already stated, this isn’t a reasonable or logical means of refuting the divinity of the Gospels since no third-party evidence is required to verify the account, especially considering the atheist position is based on an argument of silence. It’s certainly not sufficient enough to prove the Gospels aren’t inspired. Let’s put it this way: If Josephus didn’t record that Herod ever killed babies, who cares if Christians can’t provide a extra-Biblical evidence stating he did? What does this prove other then the fact that Josephus didn’t record the event?<BR/><BR/><I>"Christianity is rejected on the grounds that it contradicts the BFSM. From a FSM-ist perspective, the BFSM is Its Word and it's infallible. Therefore, another text that makes claims that contradicts the BFSM must, by extension, be considered false by FSM-ists."</I><BR/><BR/>Er, okay. What does this have to do with Christianity rejecting other “holy texts”? The Bible is the root of Christianity. If a text contradicts Scripture, then by nature, from a Christian perspective, it’s false. Seems pretty straightforward, no?<BR/><BR/><I>"Is it your opinion that people like Lee and myself should just shut up and put up with the mistakes made by people we didn't vote for?"</I><BR/><BR/>It’s my opinion that if people have problems with Christians meddling in politics, they shouldn’t vote them into office. This would seem to be the most logical way to solve the meddling Christian problem.<BR/><BR/><I>"So I don't think your accusation of them trying to sweep those questions under the carpet is justified."</I><BR/><BR/>The circular reasoning deadlock was a byproduct of the discussion, not the discussion itself. I was originally interested in understanding what the confusion was about why Herod killed the babies in the Matthew account, trying to figure out why some think that Jesus didn’t appear to anyone other then his disciples after his resurrection, and also continuing the discussion about whether or not the Sanhedrin & Pilate didn’t defend Jesus because they didn’t believe him or because they feared the people. I was looking for closure on these topics and none was offered. I’d like to know why.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4499207256852231202007-07-09T11:35:00.000-04:002007-07-09T11:35:00.000-04:00Jason said,Christians don’t require evidence from ...Jason said,<BR/><BR/><I>Christians don’t require evidence from a third-party to verify the divinity of the Gospels... What’s the problem?</I><BR/><BR/>Still don't see how this is faulty reasoning? You believe that X is divinely inspired, and the only proof you think is needed is that X says so. Let's substitute "Book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (BFSM) for X. Then I could claim that I know the BFSM is divinely inspired, because the BFSM says so. And of course, no other proof is needed, because I "know" that the BFSM is divinely inspired. Would you say that this reasoning is sound?<BR/><BR/>In case it's still not clear, here's a link that explains your fallacy in a slightly more formal fashion (check out Example 1):<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html" REL="nofollow">LINK</A><BR/><BR/><I>The “others” are rejected on the grounds they contradict Scripture. From a Christian perspective, the Bible is His Word and it’s infallible. Therefore, another text that makes claims that contradict the Bible must, by extension, be considered false by Christians.</I><BR/><BR/>Christianity is rejected on the grounds that it contradicts the BFSM. From a FSM-ist perspective, the BFSM is Its Word and it's infallible. Therefore, another text that makes claims that contradicts the BFSM must, by extension, be considered false by FSM-ists.<BR/><BR/>That sounds silly, doesn't it? That's exactly how it sounds to the rest of us when Christians employ that reasoning. I hate to resorting to the FSM, but at this point it seems like the best way to show you the absurdities in that reasoning.<BR/><BR/><I>Therefore, if people hate Christians meddling in politics, stop voting them in!!!</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't vote for Bush. And I won't be voting for anyone who won't respect the separation of church and state. However, I seem to be in the minority. So in addition to wielding my vote, I applaud people like Lee who publically point out the mistakes made when politicians forget the line between church and state. Is it your opinion that people like Lee and myself should just shut up and put up with the mistakes made by people we didn't vote for?<BR/><BR/><I>The topic I responded to and the subsequent discussion was regarding the four questions originally posted by Jim.</I><BR/><BR/>Questions raised in the comment thread rather than the opening post, so Lee's observation that things have drifted off-topic was true. And I see that both Jim and Lee spent some time interacting with you on those questions, before coming to a deadlock over the circular reasoning at the core of your comments. So I don't think your accusation of them trying to sweep those questions under the carpet is justified.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27371027271734957922007-07-08T23:32:00.000-04:002007-07-08T23:32:00.000-04:00Btsai,Christians don’t require evidence from a thi...Btsai,<BR/><BR/>Christians don’t require evidence from a third-party to verify the divinity of the Gospels. Atheists, on the other hand do. What’s the problem?<BR/><BR/><I>"On what basis do you accept this claim from one holy text but reject all the others?"</I> The “others” are rejected on the grounds they contradict Scripture. From a Christian perspective, the Bible is His Word and it’s infallible. Therefore, another text that makes claims that contradict the Bible must, by extension, be considered false by Christians.<BR/><BR/><I>"The difference is that science admits it is a human endeavor...and as such, it seldom, if ever, claims perfect/absolute knowledge."</I> You’re aware that a Christian is as imperfect as a scientist, correct? If a Christian comes along claiming the Bible says Eve was created before man and you point out the verse showing that Eve was created after man, who’s to blame for the mistake, God or man? Catholics believe in Purgatory and the ever-virgin status of Mary. Can either be proved using the Bible? No. So who’s to blame for these false doctrines, God or man?<BR/><BR/><I>"Whose fault is it if a meddling Christian is sworn into office????" "The people that voted him into office?"</I> Exactly. Therefore, if people hate Christians meddling in politics, stop voting them in!!!<BR/><BR/><I>"I thought the topic was the Financial Times/Harris poll."</I> The topic I responded to and the subsequent discussion was regarding the four questions originally posted by Jim.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4601297405949232672007-07-06T11:35:00.000-04:002007-07-06T11:35:00.000-04:00Hi Jason,I’m explaining that a Christian doesn’t r...Hi Jason,<BR/><BR/><I>I’m explaining that a Christian doesn’t require third-party evidence to prove these stories because divinely inspired writings don’t require corroboration. I’m not sure what you’re struggling with…?</I><BR/><BR/>"I believe the bible (without 3rd party evidence) because it is divinely inspired, and I believe it is divinely inspired because the bible says so." I don't understand how you fail to see the circularity and faultiness of this reasoning. Also, just about every holy text claims it is divinely inspired. On what basis do you accept this claim from one holy text but reject all the others?<BR/><BR/><I>As for why Christians contradict each other in what they say, who cares? Scientists don’t agree about evolution but it’s not like people debunk science because scientists aren’t singing the same tune.</I><BR/><BR/>The difference is that science admits it is a human endeavor. It recognizes that it is the striving of imperfect humans seeking to improve their imperfect understanding of the world, and as such, it seldom, if ever, claims perfect/absolute knowledge. On the other hand, many Christians love to tell us that they have perfect/absolute knowledge gleaned from the bible or God himself. When these people start disagreeing with each other, well, one has to wonder if it really is the case that they all have "divinely inspired" knowledge.<BR/><BR/><I>Whose fault is it if a meddling Christian is sworn into office????</I><BR/><BR/>The people that voted him into office?<BR/><BR/><I>Seems like there's less of an appetite here to discuss Scripture then there is to rant about politics even when the topic is Scripture (your post is case in point).</I><BR/><BR/>I thought the topic was the Financial Times/Harris poll.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15840365864303482832007-07-06T10:05:00.000-04:002007-07-06T10:05:00.000-04:00You state that no third-party evidence proves the ...You state that no third-party evidence proves the validity of the Gospels, specifically the killing of babies by Herod. I’m explaining that a Christian doesn’t require third-party evidence to prove these stories because divinely inspired writings don’t require corroboration. I’m not sure what you’re struggling with…?<BR/><BR/>As for why Christians contradict each other in what they say, who cares? Scientists don’t agree about evolution but it’s not like people debunk science because scientists aren’t singing the same tune.<BR/><BR/>Politics is so amusing. Whose fault is it if a meddling Christian is sworn into office????<BR/><BR/>It's a shame really that the four questions posted in this topic have been quetly swept under the carpet. Seems like there's less of an appetite here to discuss Scripture then there is to rant about politics even when the topic is Scripture (your post is case in point).Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55054261533560573602007-07-05T03:28:00.000-04:002007-07-05T03:28:00.000-04:00Hi Jason, Of course it's circular, that's what I'v...Hi Jason, <BR/><B><I>Of course it's circular, that's what I've been trying to explain. A Christian doesn't need a third-party to prove God, an atheist does. Therefore, from a Christian perspective, the events described in Matthew don't require corroboration.</B></I><BR/>Jason, circular reasoning is flawed reasoning. Circular arguments are flawed arguments. Generally a good argument or good reasoning depends on data, principles which are supported by the data that lead to a conclusion. Your data is dubious, and your principles while supported by one set of data, are not supported by others. In my view this is one reason why Christians can't nail down some firm theology that they all agree on. You should ask yourself why is it that so many christians that comment here contradict each other in what they say. <BR/><BR/><B><I>As for the Pope and HIV...huh? First of all, what does this actually have to do with politics and second of all, since when was 'Christian meddling' a necessary ingredient for 'harmful politics'???</B></I><BR/>No, Christian Meddling is not a necessary condition for harmful politics, but it is sufficient.<BR/>What this means is that, as I pointed out, christians can't even get their theology in one sock. When they get into politics, then they have the potential to do all sorts of silly things for dubious, not verifiable or non-falsifiable reasons, and in fact which contradict good data and principled reasoning. The HIV position of the pope is one. He is a very influential person, doing something silly. Our president got us into trouble with the Iraq war. I supported going into Iraq but now I don't anymore. No one will ever know the real reasons why we went in but the reasons for which I supported it were the alleged weapons of mass destruction. When I was a christian, I heard all sorts of preachers and even myself talking about the end times and tribulation and babylon. We all know Iraq used to be babylon. Newsweek had an article on Bush's "God Talk" and in an article in the <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101356.html?hpid=topnews" REL="nofollow">Washington Post on July 2nd</A> they described a series of meetings that Bush is having with scholars, philosophers, theologians etc. Michael Novak, a theologian who participated, says that Bush is focused on the nature of good and evil and sees himself as doing Gods work. Does that include trying to fulfil prophecy by hastening the coming of Jesus? The president of the most powerful country in the world needs to use principled reasoning that don't rely on data that can't be corroborated. WMD data was evidently dubious, and so is the Bible. I suspect that the presidents religious view colored the way he intepreted the dubious WMD data. I don't that is fair to the young people I see walking around, back from the war, missing arms, legs, eyes, etc.<BR/><BR/>As a parting thought, Bush seems to have <A HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070620-8.html" REL="nofollow">vetoed</A> the stem cell bill on his personal principles basing it on guidance from his advisors who hold a minority opinion on the issue. I think he is deliberately and deceptively using the term "Embryo" instead of the more correct term "blastocyst" because he knows that people won't associate humans with a microscopic ball of 150 cells, but they will associate humans with the image of the fetus, which the term embryo calls to mind. There are lots of people that he is indirectly harming by blocking stem cell research. Just like the pope when he discourages condom use in HIV ravaged countries.<BR/><BR/>I realize that this comment is way off topic so this is all that I have to say about that and I thank you for your dialogue. I'm going to move on and give you the last word. I'll see you in another article but I'll check back to see if you responded.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.com