We have yet another thread running on the historicity issue (yawn ...) but it's been getting quite a bit of attention.
So, let's have ourselves another thread on the divinity issue ...!
I'm in a state of the mind that assents to the proposition that it's make-believe.
What do we have to demonstrate that it's true ...?
The divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth
Moderator: Moderators
-
Deleted
Post #51
"Replying to Post 47 by Tcg"]
Every responsible employer knows he has a duty to applicants to advise them of the qualifications BEFORE they apply. Yet you and StuartJ chide me for asking that.
But since you have made it clear that arguments from faith are equivalent to nothing at all, do you realize the hypocrisy you entertain in your own atheism? You are in the exact same position, which makes you a hypocrite if you condemn it in me while entertaining it for yourself.
You're going to claim you don't have to prove anything beyond the lack of evidence. But that's the agnostic position. The atheist is making a claim, a declaration, that there is no God. Which is a claim that he knows something about the non-existence of God. That he knows that God doesn't exist.
And that is a statement of belief, not an epistemological statement of knowledge. The best you can offer is that you don't *believe* God exists. And there we are in the midst of faith.
And since you wish to declare that as fact to the world, the tables are now turned on you. I can ask what evidence do you have that God does not exist. Wherein we would conclude the exact same thing - that you have nothing at all except belief, which according to your logic is nothing at all.
Yet you go forward without a catch proclaiming something as fact for which you only have faith to support.
If you don't have to prove a negative, then please stop going around claiming you know a negative state of affairs.
[Edit]
Here's the autopsy on your reasoning thus far:
You commented that it was refreshing to see a Christian admit there is no evidence for God. When it was explained to you that you are basing this on a limited, self-serving view of evidence, you complain that I'm backtracking on my admission. But in reality the reason you won't listen to a cogent qualification about evidence is that it will ruin your premature boast that you've finally gotten a Christian to admit there is no evidence.
Not buying that little trick. It's like a guy applying for a job where the employer hides the qualifications that will get a person hired. Yet he says, "Make your applications and will tell let you know?"Just present all you have and we'll proceed from there.
If it doesn't qualify, I'll let you know.
Every responsible employer knows he has a duty to applicants to advise them of the qualifications BEFORE they apply. Yet you and StuartJ chide me for asking that.
But since you have made it clear that arguments from faith are equivalent to nothing at all, do you realize the hypocrisy you entertain in your own atheism? You are in the exact same position, which makes you a hypocrite if you condemn it in me while entertaining it for yourself.
You're going to claim you don't have to prove anything beyond the lack of evidence. But that's the agnostic position. The atheist is making a claim, a declaration, that there is no God. Which is a claim that he knows something about the non-existence of God. That he knows that God doesn't exist.
And that is a statement of belief, not an epistemological statement of knowledge. The best you can offer is that you don't *believe* God exists. And there we are in the midst of faith.
And since you wish to declare that as fact to the world, the tables are now turned on you. I can ask what evidence do you have that God does not exist. Wherein we would conclude the exact same thing - that you have nothing at all except belief, which according to your logic is nothing at all.
Yet you go forward without a catch proclaiming something as fact for which you only have faith to support.
If you don't have to prove a negative, then please stop going around claiming you know a negative state of affairs.
[Edit]
Here's the autopsy on your reasoning thus far:
You commented that it was refreshing to see a Christian admit there is no evidence for God. When it was explained to you that you are basing this on a limited, self-serving view of evidence, you complain that I'm backtracking on my admission. But in reality the reason you won't listen to a cogent qualification about evidence is that it will ruin your premature boast that you've finally gotten a Christian to admit there is no evidence.
-
Deleted
Post #52
"Replying to post 43 by StuartJ"
But the failure is rigged in your favor. When you declare that you won't accept certain forms of evidence, you've rigged the outcome to show failure. But all you've actually shown is that you've rigged things to ensure you'll never arrive at the truth.I was asking YOU to demonstrate that the cult propaganda you are using to back your claims CAME from your version of "God".
You have failed to do that.
Which contains a claim you've neglected to see places the burden of proof on you first. Your claim is that the deity of Christ through the virgin birth is nothing more than a "fanciful make-believe." That comes first in this challenge. You are making that claim BEFORE you are asking me to demonstrate it's more than fanciful. So you have the first burden to prove your claim. (Which you can't because it's a statement of belief not fact.)And you have failed to demonstrate that the claim that your Divine Leader - the person called Jesus of Nazareth - was sired by the mythological (and possibly not even Jewish) biblical deity Yahweh on a human virgin, is anything more than fanciful make-believe.
-
Deleted
Re: The divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth
Post #53"Replying to post 43 by StuartJ"
That's because these are only statements of belief. So, to coin a phrase, those allegations "Look like make-believe to me."
No one offers a shred of evidence that they know God doesn't exist. No one offers a shred of evidence that Jesus never said the things attributed to him, or that someone else wrote them.No one offers a shred that the possibly fictional Jesus character was sired by the mythological Yahweh on a human virgin. No one ....
It still looks like make-believe to me.
That's because these are only statements of belief. So, to coin a phrase, those allegations "Look like make-believe to me."
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Post #54
[Replying to post 52 by mrhagerty]
There are differences in the beliefs though.
Christianity is, of necessity, a faith-based belief, while those of StuartJ are beliefs largely obtained/shaped through lack of any available evidence.
Comically, those who demand evidence for faith-based beliefs miss the mark entirely as they appear to develop counter-beliefs in order to argue against faith-based beliefs, and would not hold any such beliefs, if faith-based beliefs did not exist.
So in that way, such beliefs owe their existence to faith-based beliefs, and provide hours of entertainment for everyone involved.
Atheists are better off realizing this and shifting away from the absurdity and possible addiction of/to it.
It does beg the question "Why do Christian debate forums exist, if Christianity is nonnegotiable?" and the careful critical thinker should be able to find the most obvious answers easily enough.
1: Because certain types of atheists enjoy the process enough to provide certain types of Christians with arguments, which in turn gives certain types of Christians the impression that their beliefs are valid and relevant.
2: Because it allows for the opportunity for certain types of Christians to proselytize, which of course is tied into [1] in a looping fashion.
Fortunately too, there are other areas that topics for debate and discussion can and do occur where those dynamics can be largely ignored and avoided, so there is some other purpose for the existence of Christian debate forums, at least in regard to this particular one.
I agree that statements of belief are indeed happening on both sides of this argument.Which contains a claim you've neglected to see places the burden of proof on you first. Your claim is that the deity of Christ through the virgin birth is nothing more than a "fanciful make-believe." That comes first in this challenge. You are making that claim BEFORE you are asking me to demonstrate it's more than fanciful. So you have the first burden to prove your claim. (Which you can't because it's a statement of belief not fact.)
There are differences in the beliefs though.
Christianity is, of necessity, a faith-based belief, while those of StuartJ are beliefs largely obtained/shaped through lack of any available evidence.
Comically, those who demand evidence for faith-based beliefs miss the mark entirely as they appear to develop counter-beliefs in order to argue against faith-based beliefs, and would not hold any such beliefs, if faith-based beliefs did not exist.
So in that way, such beliefs owe their existence to faith-based beliefs, and provide hours of entertainment for everyone involved.
Atheists are better off realizing this and shifting away from the absurdity and possible addiction of/to it.
It does beg the question "Why do Christian debate forums exist, if Christianity is nonnegotiable?" and the careful critical thinker should be able to find the most obvious answers easily enough.
1: Because certain types of atheists enjoy the process enough to provide certain types of Christians with arguments, which in turn gives certain types of Christians the impression that their beliefs are valid and relevant.
2: Because it allows for the opportunity for certain types of Christians to proselytize, which of course is tied into [1] in a looping fashion.
Fortunately too, there are other areas that topics for debate and discussion can and do occur where those dynamics can be largely ignored and avoided, so there is some other purpose for the existence of Christian debate forums, at least in regard to this particular one.
-
Don McIntosh
- Apprentice
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:20 am
Re: The divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth
Post #55Well, that's right. What I presented was evidence in support of the belief that Jesus was divine (most of which you ignored). You would be correct to object that evidence does not render a proposition true, in the way a valid syllogism might; it only increases the probability of the belief in question.StuartJ wrote: [Replying to post 40 by Don McIntosh]
Convincing people that it's true does not mean that it is.Yet Jesus somehow managed to convince a large following of devout Jews in first century Judea that he was divine.
Given that you have confused evidence with logical entailment, I can see now why you maintain the old "not a shred" line. It's true that I did not offer a single logical proof that Jesus is divine.No one offers a shred that the possibly fictional Jesus character was sired by the mythological Yahweh on a human virgin.
Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims.
Awaiting refutations of the overwhelming arguments and evidence for Christian theism.
Transcending Proof
Awaiting refutations of the overwhelming arguments and evidence for Christian theism.
Transcending Proof
-
Deleted
Post #56
"Replying to post 52 by William"
But something more subtle is happening. Atheists want to be able to make a claim re: the truth about reality, i.e. that a feature of reality is that there is no God. Because they're mission in life is to dissuade myth-believers in a desire to re-educate gullible people about the true condition of reality. And that is how they make the move from a belief to a claim, or a fact, which they can't do, else they have to allow Christians the same privilege.
Then it would be a contest as to which "belief" is more probable. And I'm guessing they fear they might lose that one.
Another option might be to open up to the idea that evidence can come from another source. And there's a good philosophical reason for doing that when one contemplates the death of Rationalism. But I fear the step toward the spiritual would be filled with dread rather than intrigue.
The chief problem is holding a mentality that someone must win. If that underlies every sentence, then intellectual honesty can suffer and the point of it all can be lost.
My impetus for tip-toeing onto the property is to put the apologetic statements out there whether they take effect or not. Because it's every believer's responsibility to provide an answer. There's even a verse for that: "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is within you " (I Peter 3:15)
And if he recognizes he has entered the realm of faith, fine. He can certainly say he believes there is no God from lack of evidence.I agree that statements of belief are indeed happening on both sides of this argument. . . while those of StuartJ are beliefs largely obtained/shaped through lack of any available evidence.
But something more subtle is happening. Atheists want to be able to make a claim re: the truth about reality, i.e. that a feature of reality is that there is no God. Because they're mission in life is to dissuade myth-believers in a desire to re-educate gullible people about the true condition of reality. And that is how they make the move from a belief to a claim, or a fact, which they can't do, else they have to allow Christians the same privilege.
Then it would be a contest as to which "belief" is more probable. And I'm guessing they fear they might lose that one.
Which is an option based on the premise that the only thing that counts as evidence is what is experienced empirically or from the disciplines of science.Atheists are better off realizing this and shifting away from the absurdity and possible addiction of/to it.
Another option might be to open up to the idea that evidence can come from another source. And there's a good philosophical reason for doing that when one contemplates the death of Rationalism. But I fear the step toward the spiritual would be filled with dread rather than intrigue.
Many Christians don't see the point of them either because it's not just one side that's non-negotiable. Entertaining that faith can convey evidence that science will never discover is non-negotiable for the opposing party.It does beg the question "Why do Christian debate forums exist, if Christianity is nonnegotiable?" and the careful critical thinker should be able to find the most obvious answers easily enough.
The chief problem is holding a mentality that someone must win. If that underlies every sentence, then intellectual honesty can suffer and the point of it all can be lost.
My impetus for tip-toeing onto the property is to put the apologetic statements out there whether they take effect or not. Because it's every believer's responsibility to provide an answer. There's even a verse for that: "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is within you " (I Peter 3:15)
-
StuartJ
- Banned
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:46 am
- Location: Australia
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #57
[Replying to post 49 by Mithrae]
You've already told me: It's not proof of Jesus' divinity, by any stretch of the imagination,
And I've already told you I'm not going to play analogies with you.
You've already told me: It's not proof of Jesus' divinity, by any stretch of the imagination,
And I've already told you I'm not going to play analogies with you.
No one EVER demonstrates that "God" exists outside their parietal cortex.
-
StuartJ
- Banned
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:46 am
- Location: Australia
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #58
Bucketloads of bloviated language about "epistemology" and Lord knows what ...
But not a shred of plain, down-to-earth, simple, fact/evidence/proof/whatever you want to call it ...
That the possibly fictional Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish propaganda was sired by the mythological and possibly not-even-Jewish deity Yahweh on a human virgin.
If there was any at all, it would be slammed triumphantly on the pulpit.
All that is ever offered is:
1) The propaganda sort of says that's what happened - but even early Christians couldn't agree that the Divine Leader was divine.
2) The Indwelling Holy Spirit says that's what happened - but the IHS may just be voices/imagination inside the heads of believers.
3) A disappearance into "philosophy" and "poetry" and "analogies" and "hermeneutical epistemological redemptive eschatology" and "Stalin was worse" and "you've offended me" and "what do you mean by ..." ...
And anything other than directly address that the notion of gods breeding with human virgins looks very much like ...
MAKE-BELIEVE
But not a shred of plain, down-to-earth, simple, fact/evidence/proof/whatever you want to call it ...
That the possibly fictional Jesus character from the Christian-Jewish propaganda was sired by the mythological and possibly not-even-Jewish deity Yahweh on a human virgin.
If there was any at all, it would be slammed triumphantly on the pulpit.
All that is ever offered is:
1) The propaganda sort of says that's what happened - but even early Christians couldn't agree that the Divine Leader was divine.
2) The Indwelling Holy Spirit says that's what happened - but the IHS may just be voices/imagination inside the heads of believers.
3) A disappearance into "philosophy" and "poetry" and "analogies" and "hermeneutical epistemological redemptive eschatology" and "Stalin was worse" and "you've offended me" and "what do you mean by ..." ...
And anything other than directly address that the notion of gods breeding with human virgins looks very much like ...
MAKE-BELIEVE
No one EVER demonstrates that "God" exists outside their parietal cortex.
-
Mithrae
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4304
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 190 times
Post #59
Still no answer to such a simple, straightforward question. How disappointing - and yet how revealing.StuartJ wrote: [Replying to post 49 by Mithrae]
You've already told me: It's not proof of Jesus' divinity, by any stretch of the imagination,
And I've already told you I'm not going to play analogies with you.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Post #60
[Replying to post 56 by mrhagerty]
I don't agree that claiming GODs do or do not exist should be supported by physical evidence, simply because GODs are metaphysical ideas, and not often really well defined for that. This is to say that if a strong atheist claimed that GODs do not exist and someone were to say 'show me the evidence' and the SA points to the fact that no GODs can be found in which to point at, therefore the evidence is in the absence of, then I have to presume that by GODs they mean something along the lines of 'physical humanoid beings which should be able to be seen', which - while may qualify as a definition of a GOD, does not qualify as the only definitions of a GOD.
Theists in general do define their idea of GODs, and it is within the definitions that debate can take place.
My own motivation in participating is because it is a great way to learn quite a few things and this particular board offers a means in which to inject different notions into the mix for consideration.
I am more of a 'win-win' individual, so often look for ways in which I can get on the same page as another which often requires constant change of approach when in their 'air-space' trying to gain permission to land on their 'field'. I have learned through trial and error that the most attractive type of debate is where the individuals involved are looking for 'win-win'.
That is what I was referring to as 'finding the opportunity to proselytize'.
That of course, is different to debating, especially when what is being proselytized is obviously not up for debate. Some of which are listed in the OP of this thread:
Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs
What to look out for which is non-debatable...
I did not state or imply that StuartJ had faith or was expressing faith-based beliefs. It is my understanding that he is not. One should take care not to conflate belief with faith. Not all belief requires faith.And if he recognizes he has entered the realm of faith, fine. He can certainly say he believes there is no God from lack of evidence.
First of all it is a certain type of atheist which believes that GODs do not exist. They are referred to as "strong/hard atheists". Natural confusion arises because more often than not they are lazy and just refer to themselves as 'atheists' - assuming I suppose, that people will figure out what type of atheists they are. To save confusion all around the best solution would be for everyone to make it clear/have it made clear as to what type of atheist they are or they are dealing with.But something more subtle is happening. Atheists want to be able to make a claim re: the truth about reality, i.e. that a feature of reality is that there is no God. Because they're mission in life is to dissuade myth-believers in a desire to re-educate gullible people about the true condition of reality. And that is how they make the move from a belief to a claim, or a fact, which they can't do, else they have to allow Christians the same privilege.
I don't agree that claiming GODs do or do not exist should be supported by physical evidence, simply because GODs are metaphysical ideas, and not often really well defined for that. This is to say that if a strong atheist claimed that GODs do not exist and someone were to say 'show me the evidence' and the SA points to the fact that no GODs can be found in which to point at, therefore the evidence is in the absence of, then I have to presume that by GODs they mean something along the lines of 'physical humanoid beings which should be able to be seen', which - while may qualify as a definition of a GOD, does not qualify as the only definitions of a GOD.
Theists in general do define their idea of GODs, and it is within the definitions that debate can take place.
Fortunately guesses don't mean anything in relation to debate. I think my understanding of 'what is GOD' is better than any Christians in relation to many things including 'more probable', and am happy to engage in debate about that. Of course once the Christians spirals their argument back into the faith-based vortex, it is 'game over' as far as debate goes, due to faith-based beliefs not being negotiable.Then it would be a contest as to which "belief" is more probable. And I'm guessing they fear they might lose that one.
Atheists are better off realizing this and shifting away from the absurdity and possible addiction of/to it.
Not was I was saying. It is the most logical option to choose based upon the fact that faith-based beliefs are non-debatable, because they are nonnegotiable.Which is an option based on the premise that the only thing that counts as evidence is what is experienced empirically or from the disciplines of science.
Feel free to create a thread to debate that idea in greater detail.Another option might be to open up to the idea that evidence can come from another source. And there's a good philosophical reason for doing that when one contemplates the death of Rationalism. But I fear the step toward the spiritual would be filled with dread rather than intrigue.
It does beg the question "Why do Christian debate forums exist, if Christianity is nonnegotiable?" and the careful critical thinker should be able to find the most obvious answers easily enough.
When there are two sides holding nonnegotiable positions, the sanity of the dynamic therein becomes questionable in relation to debate. The possibility of egocentrically driven addiction can be explored as one possible reason for said dynamic.Many Christians don't see the point of them either because it's not just one side that's non-negotiable. Entertaining that faith can convey evidence that science will never discover is non-negotiable for the opposing party.
It is true that I have witnessed written on occasion that some are into debate for the purpose of winning. I would not go so far as to say it is an underlying motivation of non-theists alone.The chief problem is holding a mentality that someone must win. If that underlies every sentence, then intellectual honesty can suffer and the point of it all can be lost.
My own motivation in participating is because it is a great way to learn quite a few things and this particular board offers a means in which to inject different notions into the mix for consideration.
I am more of a 'win-win' individual, so often look for ways in which I can get on the same page as another which often requires constant change of approach when in their 'air-space' trying to gain permission to land on their 'field'. I have learned through trial and error that the most attractive type of debate is where the individuals involved are looking for 'win-win'.
My impetus for tip-toeing onto the property is to put the apologetic statements out there whether they take effect or not. Because it's every believer's responsibility to provide an answer. There's even a verse for that: "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is within you " (I Peter 3:15)
That is what I was referring to as 'finding the opportunity to proselytize'.
That of course, is different to debating, especially when what is being proselytized is obviously not up for debate. Some of which are listed in the OP of this thread:
Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs
What to look out for which is non-debatable...
