- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I call evidence that stands on its own terms as evidence. It is not my opinion that christianity is a minority belief in Saudi Arabia and India. Those are the facts on which I built my reasoning. You have not actually refuted it yet.
You certainly can build a logical argument on absurd premises. That is the whole basis of christianity as far as I can see. It is absurd to guess that there is an invisible thing called a god that created the universe and everything in it, however if you accept that absurd assumption then it would be entirely logical to worship such a god.
Humans do not walk again after they have been successfully executed, that is absurd. However, if you accept the absurdity, then it is entirely logical to be amazed and assert that there is something going on that requires explanation in terms not yet understood by us.
If you are willing to accept ridiculous assumptions then christianity makes sense.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2009,12:51) I call evidence that stands on its own terms as evidence. It is not my opinion that christianity is a minority belief in Saudi Arabia and India. Those are the facts on which I built my reasoning. You have not actually refuted it yet. You certainly can build a logical argument on absurd premises. That is the whole basis of christianity as far as I can see. It is absurd to guess that there is an invisible thing called a god that created the universe and everything in it, however if you accept that absurd assumption then it would be entirely logical to worship such a god.
Humans do not walk again after they have been successfully executed, that is absurd. However, if you accept the absurdity, then it is entirely logical to be amazed and assert that there is something going on that requires explanation in terms not yet understood by us.
If you are willing to accept ridiculous assumptions then christianity makes sense.
Stuart
I certainly understand your philosophy better now that you have explained it this way.And
I do not blame you for not believing in what you think of as others think of ghost stories, invented for amusement among children.
If I sat with you around a campfire telling ghost stories, and began one with the phrase, “once upon a time” and then built a story that was designed to make you shiver with fright, like children have done for centuries, I could begin to think like you.
BUT, when the story is not told by a child around the campfire, but is presented as originating with God, and the story tells me things that no man could possibly relate except through lucky guess, and then the story begins to give details that not even “lucky guess” would account for, I begin to take notice.
And when the story unfolds through centuries of time, through many different lives, as told by many different authors, with no break in the story between the foretelling and the fulfillment, I certainly believe it goes far beyond the child's ghost story around the campfire.
I have explained to you several times now, about God's foretelling of details about Cyrus, king of Persia. You simply dismissed the story as nonsense. But you did not give any reason for that response. You did not cite an encyclopoedia, or another God, or a publication by angels, or any other reason for dismissing it other than your own doubt.
If my faith was to be dismissed so easily by your doubt, the story would indeed be a fable not worthy of retelling. But faith is living, and active, and fulfilling. Faith is uplifting, because it gives one reason to strive for something. Faith even gives me reason to pause for reflection, whether I am truly driven for a proper reason. “Try yourselves, whether ye be in the faith.”
Notice the remark does not say “Try yourslef whether you have faith;” but whether you are “IN THE FAITH.” As long as you are motivated by doubt you will never see the truth of that which drives me by faith. For my focus is on the living God as he expressed his story on living pages of truth.
You may accept it and learn. You may reject it and doubt, but you will never prove it false, based on simple doubt. You have no eye witness who can come forward and say “I was there, it did not happen that way.” You have no historical account that gives sway to doubt, giving much different reasons for why things happened as they are described in the scriptures as written by God.
When the American Indian tells of “Turtle” bringing first man from under the earth, I can readily see the archeologists explanation as it unfolds in explanation of early man migrating accross the Aleutian chain into what is now Alaska, from the Russian plains. There is a vast difference between natural men trying to explain things in terms of man made gods, And trying to explain away that which God claims for himself.
I can see from your casual dismissal of evidence that demands explanation, and your application of terminology that has no place in the discussion, that we are not really even talking about the same things.
At this point, I am ready to simply agree to disagree. We are not even using the same means of communication, though the terminology seems to be the same, it is not, because it does not carry the same meaning between us.
Paladin
Quote I certainly understand your philosophy better now that you have explained it this way.
This is not my philosophy, it is just a description of the difference between empiricism and reason.Quote I do not blame you for not believing in what you think of as others think of ghost stories, invented for amusement among children.
I have said they were invented for the gain of political power.Quote BUT, when the story is not told by a child around the campfire, but is presented as originating with God, and the story tells me things that no man could possibly relate except through lucky guess, and then the story begins to give details that not even “lucky guess” would account for, I begin to take notice.
There is nothing you have presented that cannot be accounted for without gods.Quote I have explained to you several times now, about God's foretelling of details about Cyrus, king of Persia. You simply dismissed the story as nonsense. But you did not give any reason for that response. You did not cite an encyclopoedia, or another God, or a publication by angels, or any other reason for dismissing it other than your own doubt.
I gave you the evidence of later tampering with historical documents and the human nature that results in such misrepresentations being committed, and YOU chose to ignore THAT.Quote You may accept it and learn. You may reject it and doubt, but you will never prove it false, based on simple doubt. You have no eye witness who can come forward and say “I was there, it did not happen that way.”
You have none who was an eyewitness that wrote anything about your man-god. I am not making claims about a man who did magic and walked again after he died. Your ‘evidence’ for that is a joke. Indeed you have to believe it on faith, because it is an absurdity to consider it historical reality.Quote You have no historical account that gives sway to doubt, giving much different reasons for why things happened as they are described in the scriptures as written by God.
Well I do, but you wont bother thinking about them. Why should I cast good pearls after bad, to mangle a couple of metaphors?Quote I can see from your casual dismissal of evidence that demands explanation, and your application of terminology that has no place in the discussion, that we are not really even talking about the same things.
Your nonsense verse about Cyrus was almost certainly written AFTER his reign. You can believe your absurd little ‘prophecy’ as much as you want, but Jews and christians have been lying to make their fantasy appear plausible for so long now that frankly it is all pretty dull. Whether it be Josephus or creationist lies or televangelists or telling little children they will go to hell, christianity is an enormous fabrication, and not a very original one given the number of dogmas stolen from other religions.Quote At this point, I am ready to simply agree to disagree. We are not even using the same means of communication, though the terminology seems to be the same, it is not, because it does not carry the same meaning between us.
No, I require evidence but you rejoice in believing things without evidence, and often despite the facts.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
