Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, Bayesian thinking can be quiet counter-intuitive at times.
And if both competing philosophies are selling good?
You have to remember that I do not believe Gospel Jesus existed, I believe he was either a revelation or simply a man with god powers attributed to him. We also have the Jews with the first Testament / Covenant with their god. So why would a god require a second Testament? Could the alleged second Testament / Covenant not be the work of Satan? How would anyone know? They are both selling good, just with different rules.
Try following the laws of the Bible and you will end up in jail. That is why the US does not follow the laws of the Bible.
You obviously use the second, do you also accept blind faith as valid?
Originally it was to improve my English, but I hope people read my posts and stop to think about why they believe what they do, even if it does not change their mind, or that they learn something from me that they did not know before.
Just to be clear... I never mentioned the Gospels. However Jesus's existence is a true, verifiable, historically proven person. If you deny that then you deny history. Read "Killing Jesus : The History"
When we speak of goodness in competing philosophies we have to define what is good. I say and truly believe goodness is in every person. However human nature is easily corrupted, therefore many are taught to believe doing evil is good. Good is not relative. Secularists will tell you otherwise that what is good is a social construct, that different societies can define. Complete Total BS
We know as Christians the NT is not evil because the law is fulfilled and the law is based in one word... Love. There is nothing that is in conflict with the OT written in the NT. However that is for theologians to ponder. I've yet to discover anything. Are there conflicts of understanding? of course. Because the Bible is good, doesn't make the followers good. Because Love is good doesn't make people love... there is still free will. Clearly you know what free will is.
The US does follow the laws of the Bible, not all of them, but English Common law is faith based. It's is not enacted as absolutism, but "do you promise to tell the truth? so help you God" is still the primary affirmation is a court room. You can affirm if you do not believe in God.
Blind faith and presumption walk the same path. At some point the person meets a fork in the 'road'. This is why belief and knowing are profoundly different. Knowing comes from experiences, study and has an intellectual component. I'm sure we would both agree you never check your brain at the door. However this is usually the point where a person of faith moves ahead and the atheist stops. The place where eyes can not see. Is it blind faith? or is it a different vision? “I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” ~Albert Einstein~
Imagination is not seen with the eyes until it is manifested by the hand.
Before you leave, LeanrMe could you pleas answer my post? ^^^ Thanks
Now that I'm back, I see the video is unavailable, and it's hard for me to do something like you ask of me here...
To watch a video, stop, pause, start again to answer your questions is not quite as easy as answering my simple questions that are easy for you to read and respond to when you wish. As you wish. I could provide you many a video about what I think is worth viewing as well, and ask you to watch and address the points made in the video too, but instead I just try to keep it simple and quick with straight-forward Q&A tight is much easier to manage in the amount of time I usually devote to this forum and other threads along the way.
Not sure you answered all my questions either, rose, or this one question I keep asking. Now going back to my post #999. I double checked to see if you answered and maybe I missed it after my comment #999, but I'm still not finding your answer. Care to give it another go? Because I remain curious...
So quoting a Christian Biblical prophet makes Christians smug faced? Now that's just plain stupid. If a Muslim quotes Mohammed are they smug faced too? Have you ever quoted someone to illustrate a point?
There's really no point in trying to prove anything to an atheist,, it's a devil's game and ain't nobody got time for that.
Here you go, and I certainly don't have the time for this sort of nonsense either, but I think it's worth the time for all concerned to witness what sort of "thinking" many an atheist must contend with when it comes to what sort of "thinking" many religious people "bring to the party."
Here you go, and I certainly don't have the time for this sort of nonsense either, but I think it's worth the time for all concerned to witness what sort of "thinking" many an atheist must contend with when it comes to what sort of "thinking" many religious people "bring to the party."
You're just mad you got called out for sending all these people in here on a fool's errand.
He did not say scientific discoveries prove naturalism, but that "points to it", that is, it's consistent with it. It is inconsistent with supernaturalism. So sure it becomes an underlying assumption that naturalism is the correct basis for thinking about the problem. It's rather like accepting/assuming that the axioms underlying math are correct because math produces answers that reflect and accurately describe the natural world. If the various mathematical axioms produced results that are inconsistent with observed reality, it would be a different story.
We agree about this, Mordant, except for the appeal to the "supernatural" which does NOT exist. Everything is "natural" We just do not know what that "nature" IS. That is why it is a presumption and definition of convenience. You believe it is some ineffable source of processes and laws we have discovered and mapped reasonably well. So do I, but I also discovered it is itself conscious. If that does not make it God, I do not know what appellation would be more appropriate.
However Jesus's existence is a true, verifiable, historically proven person.
No, the majority view of historians leans toward historicity, but not conclusively. Historians have a relatively low bar to clear. Not conclusive evidence or a preponderance of evidence. In the absence of conclusive evidence, it is just the conclusion that can't be positively disproven.
One must also keep in mind that the specialists in this area (ancient / Biblical history) tend to be employed or tenured by religious organizations with vested interests.
Personally I have no problem if Jesus was an historical figure but lean toward the minority mythicist view.
It's a moot point though because while Historical Jesus could have existed, Bible Jesus, the Miracle-Working God-Man, could not have.
No, the majority view of historians leans toward historicity, but not conclusively. Historians have a relatively low bar to clear. Not conclusive evidence or a preponderance of evidence. In the absence of conclusive evidence, it is just the conclusion that can't be positively disproven.
One must also keep in mind that the specialists in this area (ancient / Biblical history) tend to be employed or tenured by religious organizations with vested interests.
Personally I have no problem if Jesus was an historical figure but lean toward the minority mythicist view.
It's a moot point though because while Historical Jesus could have existed, Bible Jesus, the Miracle-Working God-Man, could not have.
What makes your assertion in the bold different from "it is just the conclusion that can't be positively disproven." If Reality at its base (quanta) were consistent with what we experience and measure at the macro level, there would be some merit to dismissing those things not consistent with our macro-level experience of Reality. Sadly for you, the quantum world is NOT. Therefore there is doubt eliminating any claim to disprove anything positively! Skepticism is appropriate, but positive dismissal is not, IMO. Fortunately, I do not need to believe in miracles to KNOW the persona of Jesus described in the Bible narrative has the mind of God.
Just to be clear... I never mentioned the Gospels. However Jesus's existence is a true, verifiable, historically proven person. If you deny that then you deny history. Read "Killing Jesus : The History"
No, if you assert Jesus is a true, verifiable, historically proven person, you are not doing history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
When we speak of goodness in competing philosophies we have to define what is good. I say and truly believe goodness is in every person. However human nature is easily corrupted, therefore many are taught to believe doing evil is good. Good is not relative. Secularists will tell you otherwise that what is good is a social construct, that different societies can define. Complete Total BS
That is a simple view of morality, and I find my ancestors understood it better than the OT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
We know as Christians the NT is not evil because the law is fulfilled and the law is based in one word... Love. There is nothing that is in conflict with the OT written in the NT. However that is for theologians to ponder. I've yet to discover anything. Are there conflicts of understanding? of course. Because the Bible is good, doesn't make the followers good. Because Love is good doesn't make people love... there is still free will. Clearly you know what free will is.
I will have to leave this for now, perhaps you can go through the OT laws and see if you could legally get away with following them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
The US does follow the laws of the Bible, not all of them, but English Common law is faith based. It's is not enacted as absolutism, but "do you promise to tell the truth? so help you God" is still the primary affirmation is a court room. You can affirm if you do not believe in God.
Not most of them. That is hardly following them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
The first time you use insults I will move on.
That is a bit fragile considering I have ignored most of yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
