Why no straight answers?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Why no straight answers?

Post #1

Post by Zzyzx »

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Why no straight answers?

Post #361

Post by Zzyzx »

.
arian wrote: Wow Z, it's been a while that I read your posts, but I have to admit you are truly amazing. And earendil, you can't go wrong debating here before you publish your book, .. if you live through the scrutiny, especially by Z here, and still decide to publish it, it'll be a best seller for sure
Thanks Arian. However, such books need not pass scrutiny to be best sellers -- but should be properly identified as fiction.
arian wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: One can speculate and imagine whatever they wish. Demonstrating that their speculations are true and accurate is another matter – which seems to be in rather short supply
And this comes from someone who believes that a quantum speck of "we don't yet know what", popped out of, .. or has always resided in nothing,. . .
CORRECTION: You have NEVER seen Z claim knowledge of the origin of the universe. I do NOT speculate about such things, do not claim knowledge I do not possess, do not make up stories, do not defend ANY origin stories.

Kindly refrain from FALSELY assigning to me a position. Try debating against my ACTUAL position. You can't
arian wrote: The other story Z swears by is the Evolution thriller, ..
Z correctly states that evolution (genetic change through generations) occurs every time microbes become antibiotic resistant. Those who deny that evolution occurs cannot deny that this happens -- thus that evolution (genetic change through generations) occurs.

Those who attempt to defend their Magical God beliefs are therefore inclined to claim that some evolution occurs but not much (limited evolution) but are UNABLE to identify the mechanism that limits the amount (to meet their specifications). However, they cannot explain the diversity of life forms that exist on Earth without resorting to the Magical God claims that CANNOT be supported with anything more than testimonials, conjecture and opinion.

Notice that Z states and defends NO origin of life theories -- but simply says "I don't know how life originated and you don't either." The difference is that you (generic term) speculate and I do not.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #362

Post by polonius »

[Replying to post 2 by Dropship]

Reply
In 13 years of internet debating, I've never yet seen an atheist or nonchristian give a plausible answer to the question- "What would have been the Bible writers MOTIVE for making it all up?"

Maybe the same motive as the author of the Epic of Gilgemesh, or other religious stories.

People like a good yarn and if you have no TV/VCR etc., you have a lot of time after work to write them.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #363

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 2 by Dropship]
Dropship wrote: In 13 years of internet debating, I've never yet seen an atheist or nonchristian give a plausible answer to the question- "What would have been the Bible writers MOTIVE for making it all up?"
Instead they simply chant the mantra below over and over again (yawn)..:)

Genesis- LIES!....
I think what you say may be partly true, but I for one do not go around crying "Lies, lies, lies!" the way you characterize. I want to be a critical thinker, and a critical thinker just doesn't do that kind of thing.

I do however, ask many questions to Christians, such as:

1) Who were the Bible authors?
2) What were there actual intentions?
3) Do we actually know that everything in the Bible is accurate and true?
4) Are some religions based on pure fiction and fallacies?
5) Why do some apologists not accept the burden of the proof?

I actually have hundreds... ( literally hundreds ) of questions that theists, who do have the burden of the proof. It's the theists who make the claims, it's the theists who need to convince others that what they believe in has any merit. So far, I have not experienced a single apologist who has met this burden in a meaningful way. I get so frustrated by the evasions that Z is talking about in the OP.

And I do want to stress this point:

I always get an evasion. Always ! And your answer to Z is a perfect example of an evasion. Throwing it back in our face might be rhetorically clever, but it's not an answer to Z's challenge, it's just another ... rather frustrating evasion by way of an attempt at shifting the burden of the proof . You seem to go out of your way to prove his very point!

I can tell the difference between a clever comeback and an actual ANSWER. And I can also spot an obvious straw man when I see it. I don't think ANY reasonable atheist would ever claim that ALL of the Bible is just lies...

I think there are many INACCURACIES, and contradictions in the Bible, and that the supernatural claims aren't proved ... and I think that the Bible might be purely fictional, and possibly lies, but I don't really know, so I don't pretend to.

But it's more likely that people can be:

1) Mistaken
2) Delusional
3) Lying
4) Frivolous
5) Gullible or
6) Deceived

Than something that has NEVER been proved is real, like the supernatural, or gods.

Please provide a way for us to :

1) Verify that your god claims are true, and
2)Exclude the above real world possibilities

earendil
Scholar
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Why no straight answers?

Post #364

Post by earendil »

Zzyzx wrote: .
earendil wrote:
Jolly_Penguin wrote: You start by pointing at science, but then you go back to mere observation. Science is more than mere observations. Science requires testing a prediction and often the manipulation of something.
No, ultimately science is observation.
That is a very simplistic statement regarding science. The emphasis is upon systematic study
It is still true.
One can observe "sunrise" repeatedly without learning anything significant about its true nature. However, an astronomer (scientist) can make the same observations and LEARN from them.
Irrelevant. The statement is still true.
earendil wrote: You manipulate things to set up an observation. That is all there is to it.
What "manipulation" is required in the sunrise observation mentioned above?

What "manipulation" is required for me to observe mineral crystals in an igneous rock?
You are simply making the same argument I make below. I was responding to his claim where he implied that manipulation was required, so thanks for supporting my argument, but it was not really necessary.
earendil wrote: Furthermore, there are observations which cannot be set up by manipulations, meteors for example. In such cases, the scientist has to wait until nature provides him with another opportunity to make an observation.
Agreed. The astronomer must wait approximately 24 hours between observations. Some events occur less often or less regularly. So what?
A meteor falls every 24 hours? The point is you would need to wait until one landed and you were able to locate it.......but again this is irrelevant as it was used as the same argument you used with the sun. You seem to just read each line and quibble about whatever. Perhaps if you read the whole post first.....think about the full argument....and then go through the line-by-line, it would be more constructive.
earendil wrote: And yet such things have been accepted. So the fact that you cannot manipulate things to create a paranormal observation is not an excuse to ignore legitimate observation.
Okay. HOW, exactly, can "paranormal" stories be verified – shown to be true and accurate?
By corroboration...as I already posted.

Shall we just take the word of whoever makes claims?
Of course not. But corroboration is very useful. Put two people in separate rooms and have them make up a story. What are the odds their stories will be the same?
earendil wrote:
Jolly_Penguin wrote: Mass delusion is possible as is common stories. UFO abduction lore comes to mind here.
If you actually seriously studied the UFO phenomenon, you would find quite quickly that the evidence is overwelmingly in favor of it being a genuine physical reality (no spiritual aspect at all). And most likely of alien origin.
I do not disagree – and emphasize "no gods required".
earendil wrote: But again, because of irrational bias and an inability to correctly apply the principles of science, another important subject is ignored.
By whom is the UFO question ignored? Here are references to sources that indicate that the subject is NOT ignored.
It is ignored by mainstream science. Most scientists dismiss it as delusion. Remember I am responding to someone else's claim. You are actually supporting my response to him, but you make it like you are arguing aginst me in some way.
very strange.

http://www.webwiki.com/ufoevidence.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1296963?seq ... b_contents
http://www.cufos.org/
http://www.avia-it.com/act/biblioteca/l ... n%20E..pdf

http://files.ncas.org/condon/
http://www.cufos.org/Condon_The_Scienti ... _UFOss.pdf
http://www.ufoevidence.org/
earendil wrote:
Jolly_Penguin wrote: Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad.
This is a common propaganda talking point used by the true believers that wish to dismiss testimony.
Correction: The unreliability of eyewitnesses is well known to people who study such things:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/eyewitn ... liable.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/e ... emory.html
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/05/ ... -testimon/
http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychol ... itness.htm
http://theweek.com/articles/480511/eyew ... able-trust
http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitn ... imony.html
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20 ... versky.htm
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/ ... iable.html
Yes, there are a lot of people that promote this propaganda.
earendil wrote: They did an experiment where they put some lights onto a balloon at night as a UFO hoax and sure enough there were a bunch of UFO reports.
WHO are "they" to whom you refer? Where is the study published?
It was done on the show "Fact or Faked". I did not see the show, but it came up in a discussion with Ben Hanson on witness reliability. (This was actually his specialty when he worked for the FBI.)

Anonymous "they say" claims are unlikely to be convincing to those who apply critical / analytical thinking to discussions or debate – and those who read either.
Quibbling noted. I was only trying to keep things simple. Sometimes the truth gets buried in the details.
earendil wrote: HOWEVER, when they interviewed the witnesses and asked them to describe SPECIFICALLY what they saw, it turned out that they consistantly described it very accurately.
Witnesses of the sunrise also may consistently describe it very accurately. So what?
It means the witnesses were able to describe something accurately, which supports my point. I do not see why you do not understand it.
earendil wrote: True, they interpreted it to be more, but they actually described what they saw (when properly interrogated).
Exactly. Some observers of the sunrise "interpret" it to be the sun orbiting the Earth. Others "interpret" it to mean that the Earth is rotating.

Scientific study / investigation of the observations leads to understanding cause-and-effect relationships.
earendil wrote:
Jolly_Penguin wrote: You then say that there are four observations that prove consciousness outside the body? What are they? Are you talking about those light at the end of a tunnel type near death experiences? These can and have been reproduced in labs with particular drugs acting on a particular part of the brain. Is there other evidence I am not aware of? It would be fascinating to look at it. I am not aware of any such evidence and I have read a lot of neurology studies.
There is quite a lot. Look up Out-of-body-experience, Near-death experience, and investigations of reincarnation. I argue a fourth based on human behavior and volition.
Rather than saying "look it up", in reasoned debate one presents evidence that their statements are truthful and accurate – preferably citing multiple, credible, disconnected sources.
I did not write "look it up". You are misquoting me. I gave the exact words to use to find relevant sources.

So now I have to copy the sources into the forum? You may not have noticed, but in the age of the internet, sources are a click away.
earendil wrote: Does inanimate matter simple rise up out of nowhere and create consciousnes...or does consciousness create matter? Why both are extraordinary, it is obvious that consciousness must actually be the foundation of the universe....therefore God.
That is an example of personal opinion and conjecture presented as though it was factual.
earendil wrote:
Jolly_Penguin wrote: As near as we can tell, yes, life arose form inanimate matter and that forms consciousness. We are not fully clear on how it happened. Why do you declare it didn't? Why is it so "obvious" that consciousness must actually be the foundation of the universe? And if that is so, why does that imply a God?
Evolution works by natural selection,
How do you know that?
Last I heard, that was the theory.
earendil wrote: but the disembodied consciousness exits fully formed and apparently beyond the typical physical processes of nature.
Kindly demonstrate that "the disembodied consciousness exists fully formed".
earendil wrote: In otherwords there is no physical path known by which this consiousness could evolve
This is an example of the logical blunder known as "Argument from ignorance" – (assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary)
No. It is to show that evolution does not resolve it. I have then produced a theory to explain it. All you have to do is come up with a better one.
earendil wrote: or for that matter any evidence of an evolution at all.
Evidence of evolution is presented each time a microbe becomes antibiotic resistant. Evolution is defined by biologists (who study such matters) as "genetic change through generations" – NOT as defined by Theists / Creationists / Preachers who do NOT study such matters but base conclusions on theology.
Misunderstanding noted. I was discussing evolution of a soul specifically.
earendil wrote: The fundamental consciousness, because it is consciousness, can be thus identified as a being, which we then can name God, or any other suitable name.
One can speculate and imagine whatever they wish. Demonstrating that their speculations are true and accurate is another matter – which seems to be in rather short supply.

earendil
Scholar
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Why no straight answers?

Post #365

Post by earendil »

arian wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: The fundamental consciousness, because it is consciousness, can be thus identified as a being, which we then can name God, or any other suitable name.
One can speculate and imagine whatever they wish. Demonstrating that their speculations are true and accurate is another matter – which seems to be in rather short supply.
Wow Z, it's been a while that I read your posts, but I have to admit you are truly amazing. And earendil, you can't go wrong debating here before you publish your book, .. if you live through the scrutiny, especially by Z here, and still decide to publish it, it'll be a best seller for sure, .. or you'll go into your office, pull a gun to your mouth and, .. just kidding, well let's hope not anyways.
Whoaa there. You obviously put way to much weight on Z's opinions.

Besides it is already published. It is called "The Science Behind the Christ".
OOPs...there I go, I just self-agrandized again.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Why no straight answers?

Post #366

Post by Zzyzx »

.
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: You manipulate things to set up an observation. That is all there is to it.
What "manipulation" is required in the sunrise observation mentioned above?

What "manipulation" is required for me to observe mineral crystals in an igneous rock?
You are simply making the same argument I make below. I was responding to his claim where he implied that manipulation was required, so thanks for supporting my argument, but it was not really necessary.
Correction: I disputed your claim "You manipulate things to set up an observation" by demonstrating that observation need not involve manipulation.

If someone wishes to demonstrate "paranormal activity" the burden is upon THEM to actually do so – not make excuses why they cannot.

earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: Furthermore, there are observations which cannot be set up by manipulations, meteors for example. In such cases, the scientist has to wait until nature provides him with another opportunity to make an observation.
Agreed. The astronomer must wait approximately 24 hours between observations. Some events occur less often or less regularly. So what?
A meteor falls every 24 hours?
Is this a deliberate misreading of my statement – or an attempt to be cute – or something else (kindly specify)?
earendil wrote: The point is you would need to wait until one landed and you were able to locate it.......but again this is irrelevant as it was used as the same argument you used with the sun.
Sure enough. The objective of study would have to occur before it was studied. Your point?
earendil wrote: You seem to just read each line and quibble about whatever. Perhaps if you read the whole post first.....think about the full argument....and then go through the line-by-line, it would be more constructive.
Thank you for the "advice". We'll let readers decide who makes the more rational arguments.
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: And yet such things have been accepted. So the fact that you cannot manipulate things to create a paranormal observation is not an excuse to ignore legitimate observation.
Okay. HOW, exactly, can "paranormal" stories be verified – shown to be true and accurate?
By corroboration...as I already posted.
If several people report seeing Big Foot does that "corroboration" verify the truth and accuracy of their accounts?
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Shall we just take the word of whoever makes claims?
Of course not.
Thank you
earendil wrote: But corroboration is very useful.
See the Big Foot example above.
earendil wrote: Put two people in separate rooms and have them make up a story. What are the odds their stories will be the same?
Have many people read or watch television shows about any topic then have them make up stories about it and a few of them will be similar. Is that surprising – and is it evidence that the stories are true?
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: But again, because of irrational bias and an inability to correctly apply the principles of science, another important subject is ignored.
By whom is the UFO question ignored? Here are references to sources that indicate that the subject is NOT ignored.
It is ignored by mainstream science.
I provided multiple sources to demonstrate exactly the opposite.
earendil wrote: Most scientists dismiss it as delusion.
Correction: Most scientists do not accept claims and stories that cannot be supported by verifiable evidence.
earendil wrote: Remember I am responding to someone else's claim. You are actually supporting my response to him, but you make it like you are arguing aginst me in some way.
very strange.
Readers will decide for themselves whether I support your claims.
earendil wrote: Yes, there are a lot of people that promote this propaganda.
With a wave of the hand dismiss what disagrees with your position. Great tactic. Not very likely convincing to readers – not very convincing in debate – but often all that is available when attempting to defend a weak position.
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: They did an experiment where they put some lights onto a balloon at night as a UFO hoax and sure enough there were a bunch of UFO reports.
WHO are "they" to whom you refer? Where is the study published?
It was done on the show "Fact or Faked". I did not see the show, but it came up in a discussion with Ben Hanson on witness reliability. (This was actually his specialty when he worked for the FBI.)
I see – citing as "evidence" a television show that one admittedly did not see but which was discussed by someone else. That may be solid evidence to some people but is worthless in debate.
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Anonymous "they say" claims are unlikely to be convincing to those who apply critical / analytical thinking to discussions or debate – and those who read either.
Quibbling noted. I was only trying to keep things simple. Sometimes the truth gets buried in the details
.
It is not "quibbling" to challenge meaningless "they say" claims.

Details often show the difference between truth and fiction.
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: HOWEVER, when they interviewed the witnesses and asked them to describe SPECIFICALLY what they saw, it turned out that they consistantly described it very accurately.
Witnesses of the sunrise also may consistently describe it very accurately. So what?
It means the witnesses were able to describe something accurately, which supports my point. I do not see why you do not understand it.
My point is that even though observations may be accurate, conclusions or "interpretations" drawn from the observations vary widely.
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: There is quite a lot. Look up Out-of-body-experience, Near-death experience, and investigations of reincarnation. I argue a fourth based on human behavior and volition.
Rather than saying "look it up", in reasoned debate one presents evidence that their statements are truthful and accurate – preferably citing multiple, credible, disconnected sources.
I did not write "look it up". You are misquoting me. I gave the exact words to use to find relevant sources.
Someone writing in your post clearly said "look up" (and listed topics). How is that NOT saying "look it up"?
earendil wrote: So now I have to copy the sources into the forum? You may not have noticed, but in the age of the internet, sources are a click away.
In reasoned and honorable debate when one is asked to cite sources to substantiate their claims they do so without making excuses or vague "look it up" evasions.

Also see Forum Rule 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: Evolution works by natural selection,
How do you know that?
Last I heard, that was the theory.
From what sources did you hear that? From scientific sources?
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: In otherwords there is no physical path known by which this consiousness could evolve
This is an example of the logical blunder known as "Argument from ignorance" – (assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary)
No. It is to show that evolution does not resolve it. I have then produced a theory to explain it. All you have to do is come up with a better one.
That is precisely Argument from Ignorance -- "You haven't provided a better theory than mine"
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: or for that matter any evidence of an evolution at all.
Evidence of evolution is presented each time a microbe becomes antibiotic resistant. Evolution is defined by biologists (who study such matters) as "genetic change through generations" – NOT as defined by Theists / Creationists / Preachers who do NOT study such matters but base conclusions on theology.
Misunderstanding noted. I was discussing evolution of a soul specifically.
Okay. Kindly present verifiable evidence that souls evolve (or that they exist to be capable of evolving).
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Why no straight answers?

Post #367

Post by Zzyzx »

.
earendil wrote: Whoaa there. You obviously put way to much weight on Z's opinions.
Z's questions and challenges may have weight (rather than opinions).

Claims of knowledge of supernatural entities and events have NOT stood up to questions and challenges. Excuses don't count. Evasions are transparent. Emotionalism is not evidence. Repeatedly citing one's own opinions / writings is poor form. Advising "look it up" is inappropriate in reasoned and honorable debate.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

earendil
Scholar
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Why no straight answers?

Post #368

Post by earendil »

Zzyzx wrote: .
earendil wrote: Whoaa there. You obviously put way to much weight on Z's opinions.
Z's questions and challenges may have weight (rather than opinions).

Claims of knowledge of supernatural entities and events have NOT stood up to questions and challenges. Excuses don't count. Evasions are transparent. Emotionalism is not evidence. Repeatedly citing one's own opinions / writings is poor form. Advising "look it up" is inappropriate in reasoned and honorable debate.
There was once a man who lived in a dark little house and he refused to go outside. His friend visited one day and said, you should go outside. There is sunlight out there and beautiful scenary. It is really amazing. The man did not believe him. He said prove to me that what you say is true. His friend responded, I cannot bring it into the house. You have to go outside to see it for yourself. The man responded. I will not go outside unless you prove it to me first.

So his friend left.

Infinite One
Student
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:03 pm

Re: Why no straight answers?

Post #369

Post by Infinite One »

Zzyzx wrote: .
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?
There's all kinds of answers but it's all based on belief and faith. Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that God hasn't chosen certain individuals to testify to his word and learn about the future and how he put together his creation.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Why no straight answers?

Post #370

Post by Zzyzx »

.
earendil wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
earendil wrote: Whoaa there. You obviously put way to much weight on Z's opinions.
Z's questions and challenges may have weight (rather than opinions).

Claims of knowledge of supernatural entities and events have NOT stood up to questions and challenges. Excuses don't count. Evasions are transparent. Emotionalism is not evidence. Repeatedly citing one's own opinions / writings is poor form. Advising "look it up" is inappropriate in reasoned and honorable debate.
There was once a man who lived in a dark little house and he refused to go outside. His friend visited one day and said, you should go outside. There is sunlight out there and beautiful scenary. It is really amazing. The man did not believe him. He said prove to me that what you say is true. His friend responded, I cannot bring it into the house. You have to go outside to see it for yourself. The man responded. I will not go outside unless you prove it to me first.

So his friend left.
Great metaphor-- with the dark little house representing religion -- which often blocks the light of learning, education, knowledge, science that contradict the darkness of dogmatic thinking.

Occupants of those dark houses may prefer to stay in their comfort zone believing that supernatural entities originate and/or control human life (and supposed "afterlife"). Those outside are not bound by such restraints and are free to explore the real world to learn actual cause-and-effect relationships without looking for magic interventions or "explanations" -- and without being constrained by religious taboos and superstitions.

House occupants seem to have been led to believe that they have the answers to life's questions based on tales told by ancients "who didn't know where the sun goes at night" (to quote an anonymous writer).
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Post Reply