|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2007 : 22:19:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Starman
No you did not. You gave us claims of eyewitness accounts. That is definitely not the same thing. |
But what you refuse to acknowledge is that I did give evidence for those claims. |
No, that is rubbish. Again what Tacitus gives us evidence of is the presence of a christian sect in Rome in around 100 AD.
Tacitus claims that this sect was persecuted during the reign of Nero, half a century earlier when Tacitus was a child not living in Rome. The claim about resurrection belief is not present is not present in Tacitus text, its an edited remark. Even so, what if christians in 100 AD believed in resurrection? This is not in any way evidence of an actual event. | And the only thing that you have shown is your inability to provide evidence supporting a claim other then a simple hand wave. |
Provide evidence? I´m not the one making the claim. You are.
You really do not have a clue of how this works.
 |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/02/2007 : 02:05:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Starman
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Starman
No you did not. You gave us claims of eyewitness accounts. That is definitely not the same thing. |
But what you refuse to acknowledge is that I did give evidence for those claims. |
No, that is rubbish. Again what Tacitus gives us evidence of is the presence of a christian sect in Rome in around 100 AD.
Tacitus claims that this sect was persecuted during the reign of Nero, half a century earlier when Tacitus was a child not living in Rome. The claim about resurrection belief is not present is not present in Tacitus text, its an edited remark. Even so, what if christians in 100 AD believed in resurrection? This is not in any way evidence of an actual event. | And the only thing that you have shown is your inability to provide evidence supporting a claim other then a simple hand wave. |
Provide evidence? I´m not the one making the claim. You are.
You really do not have a clue of how this works.
|
It's the logical fallicy of Shifting the Burden, and is a fairly common method of trying to stack the conversational deck. It is usually employed when the claimant's argument is shakey or he is simply running out of argument. | The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. |
I really don't see how the divinity of Jesus can be confirmed. All it has in it's support are the various Bible stories describing miracles & so forth and I fail to see how these can be considered reliable. After all, that same tome, in it's very beginning, makes the utterly ridiculous claim that there was a global flood that virtually wiped out almost all complex life on Earth. And that's only one of a goodish number of claims in the same vein, which cast doubt upon the veracity of the whole thing. And, let us not forget, the various writers, editors and revisers of the Bible were just as fallibly human as we are, and as such had their own axes to grind, claims of divine inspiration not withstanding (can't prove that one, either).
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 06:08:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
On the contrary, I think they are. When have they ever asked a biologist to come to the church to teach the members of the congregation about what science teaches about evolution? Can you name anyone of the Pastors or teachers of the church calling a biologist to educate themselves about biology before they start preaching anti-evolution propaganda to their members? I think it's too naive to to think that they don't realise that their sources are more than a little biased. |
The only time I ever heard a biologist in church is when I was in college. He was a biologist that was doing genetic research into pest resistant plants. He was from Texas A&M University and he taught a class about God and biology. He was a Christian so he did have that bias. But you are right I have never heard of a church calling in an expert in evolution to teach and ask questions. |
It just hit me... If I recall correctly The Pope invited Steven Hawking to hold a lecture about the current state of cosmology research for the top clergy in the Vatican. I'm pretty sure they have done the same with experts in evolutionary theory, given what the Vatican have said regarding evolution.
| It was intended to be. However, you didn't answer the question. Ok, don't worry. If I was in your position, I wouldn't. And I'm very confident that Bill scott would absolutely say I couldn't be trusted. If I'm not mistaken, he thinks that I am immoral since I'm agnostic/atheist because the only source of morality is God which I deny. |
I would like to meet you first before I make a determination but from your postings on SFN I would trust you as long as you only taught evolution and did not bring up the “there is no God thing”. |
Well, I'm mostly agnostic so I have no desire to convince people that there is no God thing. Unless I loose my temper... But that's a rather personal thing that I feel uncomfortable talking about.
A number of characteristics of Yahweh (and Jesus), as described in the Bible, are incompatible with one another. Such inconsistencies makes it difficult if not impossible for me to believe that the Bible is the word of God. But I see no reason to involve these aspects of God-belief when I discuss the theory of evolution. Especially as the theory does not make any statement about the nature of anything supernatural. Science does not have a need to concern itself with the non-existence of God, or the existence of God for that matter.
| I try to not be condescending. However, it's a two-way street. I don't like being condescended either when I'm trying to explain my position. This is also something that many creationists I've talked with does. One of the most offensive things they have done was tell me to my face "I'm going to pray for you...". It's insulting on many levels. |
That reminds me of the debate between Kirk Cameron and the atheist guy from the blasphemy challenge. Kirk told the atheist he would pray for him; the atheist responded that he would think for Kirk.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
One of the most offensive things they have done was tell me to my face "I'm going to pray for you...". It's insulting on many levels |
Can you explain why it is insulting to you? |
"I'm going to pray for you..." implies that they are better than me, because they have been "saved". It may not be the intended meaning, but I've met the "holier than thou"- attitude enough times.
Since I don't believe God (as portrayed in the Bible) is real, they know that I don't believe in prayer. They must believe that God has the power to change my mind. So by praying, they are asking God to violate my free will by either directly interfere with my thoughts, or covertly by changing external factors influence me to change my mind regarding God. Since I don't believe any prayers they say can affect me, I couldn't care less (especially if I don't know that they are praying for me), but they feel the need to tell me that they are going to pray for me.
They are overtly admitting that they have a desire to violate my free will.
Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
While this verse specifically addresses prayer, Jesus talks about a (fake) show of piousness. But since I never asked anyone to pray for me, how is a loud declaration of "I will pray for you" any different from a prayer in this context?
It's insulting to my intellect that they do this without realizing that I know that they are braking one of Jesus' commandments.
"I will pray for you..." Pray for what to happen? The line implies that there is something left unsaid. Pray for you...
...to see the light (as they have)?
...to see the truth (as they believe the truth has been revealed to them)?
...for God to save my soul (as they believe their soul has been saved)?
or something else I'm not interested in?
How about I respond by saying "thanks, I'll pray to Satan to devour you soul too". I bet you would find that as provocative as I feel provoked.
Also, just like Kirk Cameron, most people who have told me "I will pray for you..." have done so after an argument has ended without anyone convincing the other of what they believe to be true. If two reasonable people realize that cannot convince the other, or a third party, they usually end by agreeing to disagree. However, by finishing off with "I will pray for you..." they end the disagreement not with an agreement to disagree but with an "ok, but I know that I'm right." How can I possibly argue or defend my opinion against that? It clearly shows that they do not respect my opinion, or the arguments I have put forth, and that they never entered the discussion prepared to change their mind.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 06:17:25 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks Dr. Mab, your explanation as to why "I'll pray for you" is insulting to the skeptic was right on the money IMHO. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 07:16:01 [Permalink]
|
While I pretty much agree with what Mab said about the motives of those who offer to pray for you, especially after debating with them, I don't really care and am not offended by the offer. My usual response is “go for it.”
When I was younger and was more prone to get into these kinds of debates with strangers who felt they needed to set me on the right path, I had one debater so frustrated that he actually said he would pray that I would be unhappy until I accepted Jesus as my personal savior. Somehow, I think he missed the spirit of his mission as a proselytizer…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 07:33:26 [Permalink]
|
There is no need to feel insulted now that Robb has supplied us with a snappy comeback | the atheist responded that he would think for Kirk |
I thnik many ahthiests/agnostics perceive the I'll pray for you remark as self-rightous arrogance.
|
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 08:36:45 [Permalink]
|
Me:
If it could be shown beyond any reasonable doubt to you that what you call macroevolution happens, would that somehow change the faith you have in a creator? And if so, why? |
Bill:
If it is established beyond doubt that a common ancestry is responsible for all living creatures then I would say that that would definitely conflict with the Genesis account, yes. I am not so sure it would introduce doubt into a creator for me, but rather maybe who the creator is? |
So, based on your answer, your primary objection with common decent is that it doesn't jibe with your absolute literal take of Genesis.
So there really is no point in arguing what the evidence tells us about evolution, because it must be wrong. It must be rejected or you will be forced to reconsider “who the creator is” and not simply how Genesis should be interpreted. Why is that?
If Genesis is allegorical (and you are on shaky ground if you don't think that is at least a possibility, unless you think you actually do know the mind of God) how does that change its meaning when thinking about “who the creator is”?
I am not arguing your position, but it does seem to me that you have placed God in a box. It implies that God gave us the ability to use the brains he gave us to gain knowledge of the natural world but expects us not to use them.
Me:
If science could somehow find acceptable verification that JC did indeed resurrect, supporting the cornerstone belief of Christianity, and it could also be shown to you beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, would those two views really be in conflict with one another? And if so, why? |
Bill:
Yes. Because Darwinian evolution states that death was introduced into the creation millions of years before man was even on the scene. Genesis, which Christ quotes from, states that man was fully formed and placed on this Earth before death was introduced into the creation and also states that death was a result of sin and disobedience to the creator by the creation. Thus fracturing the relationship between creator and creation which was only reestablished by the work of atonement on the cross. They are diametrically opposed, Darwinian evolution and Genesis that is. |
Right. So evolution must be rejected because death is a part of the process. And with that kind of bias how can you state that you have ever looked at the evidence that supports evolution objectively? I mean, you have just stated that your entire belief system crumbles if it can be shown to you that evolution best describes the diversity of life on our planet. And that is so even if it could be established that Christ died and was resurrected.
It almost seems like taking Genesis allegorically would somehow negate the importance of resurrection in your eyes. Is that so? And if so, why?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 13:37:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Thanks Dr. Mab, your explanation as to why "I'll pray for you" is insulting to the skeptic was right on the money IMHO.
|
Thank you. The only words missing, now when I'm looking back at the post, is what Ghost Skeptic posted: the remark reeks of self-righteous arrogance. I blame English as a second language for that omission. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 15:00:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
While I pretty much agree with what Mab said about the motives of those who offer to pray for you, especially after debating with them, I don't really care and am not offended by the offer. My usual response is “go for it.” |
I usually respond similarly.
One random question, perhaps Bill scott can answer this for me: I have been asked, by people who know full well my religious (or lack thereof) beliefs, if I mind if they pray for them. If I don't think it means anything, why bother to ask my permission?
Do you mind if I sneeze for you?
How would you respond to that? "Um, sure. Have a ball." |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 15:04:03 [Permalink]
|
| People who ask an atheist's permission to pray for them either don't comprehend the atheist mindset or, more likely IMHO, are using that as an excuse to exhibit their piousness. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 15:51:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
People who ask an atheist's permission to pray for them either don't comprehend the atheist mindset or, more likely IMHO, are using that as an excuse to exhibit their piousness.
|
Not in all cases.
Wiccans are actually required to obtain a non-family member's permission to pray for them. It is because some people are uncomfortable about having another faith pray for them that we ask. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 15:58:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
People who ask an atheist's permission to pray for them either don't comprehend the atheist mindset or, more likely IMHO, are using that as an excuse to exhibit their piousness.
|
Indeed, this is a technique that was on the list of fundy forum debating tricks that was posted in these fora a while ago. (Sorry, the link is not easy to find.) And the complier of the list mentioned that it is used primarily to demonstrate smug, pious superiority. (No Wiccans were defamed in the writing of this reply.)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/02/2007 16:00:09 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 16:15:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by marfknox
People who ask an atheist's permission to pray for them either don't comprehend the atheist mindset or, more likely IMHO, are using that as an excuse to exhibit their piousness.
|
Indeed, this is a technique that was on the list of fundy forum debating tricks that was posted in these fora a while ago. (Sorry, the link is not easy to find.) And the complier of the list mentioned that it is used primarily to demonstrate smug, pious superiority. (No Wiccans were defamed in the writing of this reply.)
|
Here's the link.
http://www.ralliance.org/GamesFundiesPlay.html
The game is #118 on the list. AKA Prayer as a weapon. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 16:31:07 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, Val! That list goes beyond the hundred items promised, but I read it thoroughly when I first saw it. Through written primarily from a viewpoint of defending gays from fundy attack, it has a lot that is also more generally useful. Good stuff.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 10:19:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
There is no need to feel insulted now that Robb has supplied us with a snappy comeback | the atheist responded that he would think for Kirk |
I thnik many ahthiests/agnostics perceive the I'll pray for you remark as self-rightous arrogance.
|
I would definitly say that the athiest that said this is self righteous and arrogant. Do you? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com part 2
