Beliefs Without Foundation For Christians
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I read the “in between part” and you’ve explained how Christianity comes to their conclusion. I know this is your “bias” and the reason for it. But I don’t have that view. I’ve read the posts that get into all this detail and I’ve posted before, for me, it’s like when my boys start getting into details on Mastercheif’s backstory on Halo. I remind them it’s just a game. To me, it’s just a book.
You said ...” They can stand or fall on their own. Mormon and Muslim apologists can defend their own 'book'.”
...and Jewish, don’t forget Jewish :) - but that’s the heart of my question. They do the same thing within their belief system and make the same claim. Then I come around thinking ya’ll just getting excited over a book and the same claim is being made by the book-believer.
You see what I mean?
I guess there maybe nothing more to add, and thanks for answering the best way you know how. One of the posters in a thread basically said if they had been god the book they would have written would have proven itself overtime (maybe the bronze age folks wouldn’t have understood much) and preserved it “as is” and as human civilization advanced, they would “catch up” to the writings...giving a track record, demonstrable evidence, test-ability and future “puzzles” for only the next generations understandings to unlock. I thought that was kind of cool.
Lol...had another coffee and smoke. Got to thinking - even if this posters book existed (say written on plastic or some form of downloadable mind information) and it was “without error”, I asked myself “would that get me to god?”
I don’t know. We’d might be discussing advanced alien life, or future time travellers or the idea of god until we had the evidence of such.
Oh well, who knows? But I tell you, for me, if the information had actionable benefits for humans and made sense, it would go a longer way with the whole “love” aspect.
The claim that a person thinks "X" is true solely because they were born in a part of the world where lots of people think "X" is true, is a glaring logical fallacy. I'm surprised the logical fallacy gestapo here haven't pounced on you yet.
Do I act like a person who was born in Mesopotamia in the Bronze Age? Because that's where I got my religion.
Now, you asked how I discern truth/error in the bible and I answered. The same way I discern whether or not any claim is true...or probably true. And I gave you the various/collective methods. Surely you recognise all of these in secular terms.
All of the methods of discernment I mentioned are specifically independent of religiosity. Shared epistemology means exactly that. Open to everyone. We need to mutually agree that "if ABC -> then "XYZ"
There's no point me saying - and I deliberately avoided saying - there are some truth claims in the bible which are only knowable if you trust God and open your heart to the bible. (Which is true, but this is neither sufficient nor necessary in the context of a discussion in the debate forum at Atheist Republic.) Christian apologist William Lane Craig calls this "Reformed Epistemology".
My main point is that I don't use two different epistemic methods for discerning error/truth - one for what the bible says and a different method for commercials on TV. If anything, I'm more lenient and gullible as to what passes as truth on TV and the Internet than anywhere else in my life. In fact, I think biblical theists - and even bible skeptics - understand that the bible is not some trivial collection of claims where errancy doesn't really matter all that much.
The God conclusion is the wrong thing to be wrong about.
And, like a true apologist you twist words where you can in the hope of scoring points: what was said by Whitefore was: "And setting aside “bias”. The reason I added that was because had you been raised in a different area of the world, you would have a different viewpoint on the book claiming inerrancy."
You strawmanned that into "The claim that a person thinks "X" is true solely because they were born in a part of the world where lots of people think "X" is true, is a glaring logical fallacy. I'm surprised the logical fallacy gestapo here haven't pounced on you yet.
So yes, the "gestapo"are jumping your arse for lying, AGAIN. Whitefire's paragraph made perfect sense and is undeniably true. Because of that you, in a cowardly way tried to alter her statement of fact to make her look foolish. In other words lying once more to score juvenile points.
" there are some truth claims in the bible which are only knowable if you trust God and open your heart to the bible. (Which is true, something you have convincingly failed to demonstrate. Another unevidenced claim that can be dismissed.
In fact, I think biblical theists - and even bible skeptics - understand that the bible is not some trivial collection of claims where errancy doesn't really matter all that much.
Obviously errancy doesn't matter, as you have been given multiple exemplars of where the collection of texts you call "the bible" is indeed contradictory, makes errors of fact and history, all of which you handwave away or plain ignore.
Every writer has taken you to task and fixed a bright light on your lies and evasions, never mind your pathetic apologetics and twisted verbiage to score points. Your mendacity is only matched by your obvious delusions.
Indeed, one of the fun aspects of mythology fanboyism that should immediately lead to suspicion of the entire enterprise, is the manner in which  mythology fanboys across the globe cannot agree with each other which of our extant mythologies is purportedly the "right" mythology, and  adherents of a particular mythology cannot agree among themselves on a large scale what that mythology is purportedly telling us.
@Calilasseia (Mon, 03/16/2020 - 19:20)
Youre talking about all the competing theories of everything right?
@ Lion IRC
"Youre talking about all the competing theories of everything right?"
What are you talking about? Here is Calilasseia's entire post.
"Indeed, one of the fun aspects of mythology fanboyism that should immediately lead to suspicion of the entire enterprise, is the manner in which  mythology fanboys across the globe cannot agree with each other which of our extant mythologies is purportedly the "right" mythology, and  adherents of a particular mythology cannot agree among themselves on a large scale what that mythology is purportedly telling us."
In the entire post he never used the word "theory" or "theories".
So what are you talking about? The scientific theory, or just the other application for this word, which is basically an opinion.
Or is this just a strawman?
What do you mean?
I'm talking about mythology fanboyism too.
Parallel universes. Many worlds hypotheses. Holographic universes. Multiverse. Wormholes. Dark energy. Quantum spookiness.
WTF is quantum spookiness?
@Nyar Re: "WTF is quantum spookiness?"
Don't you know anything? Quantum spookiness is when a subatomic particle suddenly appears out of nowhere and scares the quark out of a neutrino.... Duh! Geez, I thought you studied this stuff.
@ Tin Man
Jeez mate....I didn't think it possible but your comments are getting TOO FUNNY! CC just had a fit.....and got off me WITHOUT A CLAW IN SIGHT!!
Excuse me while I dry my trouser legs....oh wait, I'm wearing shorts....Doris! DORIS, its happened again!!!! get the paper towels...
I wondered that too the first time I encountered the term.
Sounds pretty unscientific. Am I right?
But hey, that's how science rolls these days.
"Elegant" theories trump falsifiable theories.
The more I read your posts, answers and questions the more I come to the conclusion that you do not make sense. You got one twisted pretzel for “reasoning”. This isn’t about you as a “person” (maybe, I don’t know - you) but your ideas and how you come to your conclusions are
about as “sensible” as a 5 year old defending their belief in Santa or Cinderella...
If my posts don't make sense to you that means you don't understand their content.
If I read a post with terms and language I didn't understand, obviously it wouldn't make sense to me, but on what basis could I make claims about whether or not the content of that post was reasonable? How on earth can you determine whether someone's conclusions are valid when you don't even understand the premises?
"If my posts don't make sense to you that means you don't understand their content."
Oh for fuck sake.
Your use of an absurd ad hominem proves White's point. (see below)
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
I'm unfamiliar with any scientific theory called quantum spookiness. My guess was that you are just making up bullshit and posting it; but I figured I'd give you a chance to explain what you mean before I accused you of that; but I think that ship has sailed:
I think the term "quantum spookiness" is bullshit too.
There's no place for woo in empirical science.
That the Church Of Spontaneousness Of The Gaps when you start appealing to a mystery called randomness.
You referenced a scientific theory you called quantum spookiness. I'm 99% positive there is no such theory. Will you be retracting this claim, or expanding on it? If you do neither I will have to assuming you are trolling. It seems you've already convinced others you are trolling; this is your last chance to convince me otherwise.
um...I cant retract a claim I never made.
go back and read it again
ROTFLMAO...LOL. I love scandanavian folklore. LOL.
Is that you didn't bother using science to access the internet, and do it with prayer/ So you never see a doctor then? just pray to get better.
You sound more like Breezy with every post.
Why do theists use this relentless dishonest misrepresentation of science, as if invalidating the manifestly successful and objective process of science, or even casting it into doubt, in any way validates any of their superstition. Bizarre behaviour, and you can guarantee if any scientific evidence were presented to validate any part of their superstition, they'd trumpet it shamelessly.
All of which are ideas, papers, hypothesis etc. None are scientific theories.
Scientists have imaginations too.
@Lion IRC: Parallel universes. Many worlds hypotheses. Holographic universes. Multiverse. Wormholes. Dark energy
Those things don't become mythology until they're written down in a holy book and enforced as orthodoxy by a priesthood and inquisition.
Until then they're just hypotheses that anyone is free to challenge.
Don't be silly donkey boy. He is talking about all the theories but for the one you believe in. Yours is special!!!
As Richard Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Evidently not even Einstein understood it.
"Quantum spookiness" was not a theory, it was an objection, coined by Einstein in regard to certain aspects of Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty, specifically the correlation of shared attributes between 'entangled particles' which defied the deterministic and measurable features of classical physics and worst of all, dared to suggest that information could travel faster than light. It is at the very heart of the profound differences between classical and quantum realities.
"God does not play dice with the Universe." said Einstein, who later added he used the word "God" metaphorically. So certain was he about the impossibility of this spookiness Einstein, and his pals, Podolsky and Rosen, produced the EPR Paradox in 1935, a thought experiment, to demonstrate that quantum theory was not so much wrong, but incomplete and only required the discovery of some good old classical natural laws to compensate for the spookiness.
However by the 1960's it was evident that no such natural laws existed. Bell's Theorem (Robert Bell) and the latest experimental evidence vindicated the reality of quantum mechanics and validated the existence of the spookiness, that despite its incomprehensibility led to the development of critical technologies like nuclear power, MRI machines, computers the internet and mobile phones etc.
I am too much of a dead head to pretend I understand quantum mechanics, and I have read enough to accept I can't understand it, There are enough names and terms above for anyone interested enough to research and learn just how much they can't understand. I am always happy to spread quantum ignorance. Its a bizarre subject involving the limits of human comprehension and the substance of reality. You might also like to look up Quantum Fluctuations for a truly bedazzling experience.
Grinseed is posting something that 'references' quantum spookiness.
Using quotes by non-theist physicists and everything.
What a peculiar response.
Whats going on? I'm not sure.
Do you often use words and phrases you don't understand to prop up your arguments?
It was obvious you did in that short rant of yours about 'mythology fanboys".
I've had an abiding interest in quantum physics for over forty years. I tried to clarify the 'spookiness issue' with you.
It is now apparent by your sarcastic response you have lost the plot and are reduced to trolling.
Its damn hard work to debate the existence of your god with resolute atheists. I have been there, pre internet, face to face encounters, very fucking risky, couldn't afford smart-arse responses then.
Either take a break or give it up. You are achieving nothing worthy now.
edited Aww...Nyah, you bounced Lion while I was typing up this response...I missed the lock out by a mere quantifiable four minutes...lol
He probably should have been removed a long time ago; but it is very hard to be sure, and it isn't something you want to be wrong about. But I'm guessing he wasn't getting the responses he wanted so he turned it up another notch and (perhaps accidentally) made it too obvious.
Anyway, I thought this was funny:
I just spent five minutes posting a response to his pointless'ness on another thread. Then read this thread...ugh.