She Still Believes

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:55 pm

A seven-year-old girl who talked to Donald Trump on Christmas Eve still left out milk and cookies for Santa despite the US President telling her it was "marginal" for a child of her age to still believe. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-26/ ... l/10669232

And Christians still believe too ...

Despite the total absence of evidence for the magical things concerning the Jesus character, and the childishness of their beliefs in the eyes of many.

If the president of the USA can't convince a seven-year-old that the magical things concerning Santa are only make-believe ...

What would it take to convince Christians that the magical things concerning Jesus are only make-believe ...?

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:33 pm

[Replying to post 5 by bjs]

1. A coherent and internally consistent non-theistic worldview
2. Evidence that worldview is accurate.

I have NO intention of falling into the trap of pursuing this any further than to say:

1) The Christianities have NO coherent and internally consistent worldview (evidenced by the number of sects who each have the "true Gospel' and the roaring arguments that go on in this forum about the tiniest details)

2) The Christianities provide not a SHRED of evidence that A SINGLE ONE of their worldviews is accurate - let alone a SHRED of evidence concerning the magical things associated with their Divine Leader

Personally, I find it incoherent and inconsistent that people of faith insist on evidence from every quarter other than their own.

For me, that's the power of brainwashing at work.

bjs · Post by **bjs** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:01 am

StuartJ wrote: [Replying to post 5 by bjs]

1. A coherent and internally consistent non-theistic worldview
2. Evidence that worldview is accurate.
This, in my view, is a standard ploy to take the focus off the magical things associated with Jesus.

I see it happen time, and time, and time again.

The COMPLETE ABSENCE of evidence for the magical things associated with the possibly fictional Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish propaganda concerning their Divine Leader ...

Shall I assume from this point on that you have no coherent worldview or evidence of any kind?

You talk a lot about evidence, but seem to get very agitated when people ask you for some.

StuartJ wrote: is what convinces rationalists that the magical things about Jesus are just make-believe.

Keeping the spotlight on the Jesus character ONLY ...

(which - as we all know - is the purpose of this topic: alternatives can be discussed elsewhere)

I am happy to talk about Jesus. You asked what would convince me that the things concerning Jesus are only make-believe. I answered your question.

StuartJ wrote: ...
What would it take to convince Christians that the magical things concerning Jesus are only make-believe ...?
Obviously, the COMPLETE ABSENCE of evidence is not enough ....

It might be appropriate to look in a mirror at this point.

bjs · Post by **bjs** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:02 am

StuartJ wrote: [Replying to post 5 by bjs]

1. A coherent and internally consistent non-theistic worldview
2. Evidence that worldview is accurate.
I have NO intention of falling into the trap of pursuing this any further than to say:

1) The Christianities have NO coherent and internally consistent worldview (evidenced by the number of sects who each have the "true Gospel' and the roaring arguments that go on in this forum about the tiniest details)

This is a non-sequitur. There is no logical way to get from People disagree about this, to This is incoherent.

StuartJ wrote: 2) The Christianities provide not a SHRED of evidence that A SINGLE ONE of their worldviews is accurate - let alone a SHRED of evidence concerning the magical things associated with their Divine Leader

Sure there is. We have the teleological, ontological, cosmological, and moral arguments. We have the historical evidence for Jesus, and the great number of people who have claimed personal experiences with God. Someone might remain personally incredulous of this evidence, but that doesnt somehow make it not evidence.

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:24 am

[Replying to post 13 by bjs]

Despite the total absence of evidence for the magical things concerning the Jesus character, and the childishness of their beliefs in the eyes of many.

If the president of the USA can't convince a seven-year-old that the magical things concerning Santa are only make-believe ...

What would it take to convince Christians that the magical things concerning Jesus are only make-believe ...?

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:35 am

If the president of the USA can't convince a seven-year-old that the magical things concerning Santa are only make-believe ...

What would it take to convince Christians that the magical things concerning Jesus are only make-believe ...?

Growing numbers of Christian leaders are convinced that the magical things concerning Jesus are only make-believe:

https://owlcation.com/misc/Atheists-in- ... the-Clergy

What would it take to convince those who still believe in whatever it is they still believe in ...

About the magical things concerning Jesus ...?

EPH2:8 · Post by **EPH2:8** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:40 am

StuartJ wrote: [Replying to post 13 by bjs]

Despite the total absence of evidence for the magical things concerning the Jesus character, and the childishness of their beliefs in the eyes of many.

If the president of the USA can't convince a seven-year-old that the magical things concerning Santa are only make-believe ...

What would it take to convince Christians that the magical things concerning Jesus are only make-believe ...?

Well first I would like evidence of your claim that the miracles attributed to Jesus are only make believe. You keep stating it but that does not make it true. You fail to support this claim other than some childish weak comparison to a seven year old believing in Santa.

Mithrae · Post by **Mithrae** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:02 pm

StuartJ wrote: A seven-year-old girl who talked to Donald Trump on Christmas Eve still left out milk and cookies for Santa despite the US President telling her it was "marginal" for a child of her age to still believe. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-26/ ... l/10669232

And Christians still believe too ...

Despite the total absence of evidence for the magical things concerning the Jesus character, and the childishness of their beliefs in the eyes of many.

I've found that many non-religious folk struggle with the concept of uncertainties just as much as many religious folk do. According to the story, this little girl has evidence for Santa; overnight the milk and cookies get consumed, and presents are left under the tree. The OP implies that an appeal to authority - of Donald Trump, no less - and appeal to popularity should trump that evidence from her own sphere of experience, and from the trusted sources of her parents. Personally I think that the rational approach would be precisely the opposite; trusted sources and personal experience are a far more reasonable basis for belief than authority and popularity.

However personal experience grants a woefully, dismally incomplete window on reality and can even be outright misleading, and the question of which sources are most reliable - parents, teachers, 'common knowledge,' self-proclaimed experts...? - is one whose answer will (hopefully) vary throughout a person's lifetime and never really be set in stone. Do we trust people who report direct observation of apparently miraculous events, or do we trust people who weren't there but say that they've never seen such a thing and therefore it must not be true?

The only real answer to many such questions, as far as I can tell, is that we don't know. We might have the sworn testimony of three or four surgeons and medical staff who saw a leg amputated and later regrown, but even then the believers would be mistaken if they supposed that it provided certainty that a miracle occurred. Likewise the apparent certainty that a miracle did not occur seems equally misguided, and leads to (in fact demands) the erroneous insistence of there being "total absence/not a SHRED of evidence" for their occurrence.

For some reason many of us don't like leaving the question open, so we tailor our perception of the available data to match our desired conclusion.

StuartJ · Post by **StuartJ** » Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:31 pm

[Replying to post 17 by Mithrae]

Thank you for the considered reply.

I always appreciate and respect a response that directly addresses the topic.

I agree with much of your stance with regard to authority figures and personal experience.

I would flip this sentence around though:

Likewise the apparent certainty that a miracle did not occur seems equally misguided, and leads to (in fact demands) the erroneous insistence of there being "total absence/not a SHRED of evidence" for their occurrence.

Not finding a shred of evidence for the magical things attributed to Santa or Jesus - and my broad understanding that magical things are just make-believe - leads me to conclude that the magical things attributed to Santa or Jesus are highly likely to be just make-believe too.

And it's time we ALL came of age ....

Mithrae · Post by **Mithrae** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:58 am

In one of life's little ironies, after posting in this thread the last comments I saw on my political forum before going to bed was this exchange:

Guy A: "There is no credible evidence, whatsoever, that that's what Trump is trying to do. Zero. None."
Guy B: "Meh...go easy. There's a reason children need bedtime stories...it helps them sleep. Eventually they grow up. Well, most of them. Some still believe in Trump."

StuartJ wrote: Not finding a shred of evidence for the magical things attributed to Santa or Jesus - and my broad understanding that magical things are just make-believe - leads me to conclude that the magical things attributed to Santa or Jesus are highly likely to be just make-believe too.

And yet such evidence does exist, as I pointed out. I glanced at a couple of other threads too and noticed one in which you and Jagella were insisting that if there were any such tiny shred of evidence it would mean that you would 'lose' the debate.

Surely the sworn testimony of three or four surgeons and medical staff who saw a leg amputated and later regrown would qualify as a shred of evidence and then some?

My view is not that even that level of evidence provides certainty in a positive conclusion, but rather the seeming absolutism to the contrary, the quasi-dogmatic insistence that there cannot be even the tiniest scrap of legitimacy in all the thousands volumes of documentation and argument that often honest and intelligent folk have produced over the centuries. It's a seeming refusal to acknowledge uncertainty which bears some resemblance to the attitude of many religious folk (who of course say the same about materialist or atheist arguments and evidence).

Post by **Tcg** » Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:22 am

Mithrae wrote:
Surely the sworn testimony of three or four surgeons and medical staff who saw a leg amputated and later regrown would qualify as a shred of evidence and then some?

Sure. It would be evidence that a leg was amputated and that it later regrew.

This alone wouldn't in any way be evidence of a god or even any non-natural cause.

Debating Christianity and Religion

She Still Believes

She Still Believes

Re: She Still Believes

Re: She Still Believes

Re: She Still Believes

Re: She Still Believes

Re: She Still Believes

Re: She Still Believes

Re: She Still Believes