A Gutsy Preacher

[Josiah]

What we shouldn't do it is say that since science can't answer everything, it therefore can't answer anything. Science already explains a great deal, and is directly responsible for the technological progress we have made. But, there is much our science cannot yet explain...so our work is not finished.

But my skepticism, which drives my atheism, has nothing to do with science. It simply has to do with me not accepting things without evidence...and that's what works best for me. I would not presume to tell others that they can't or shouldn't believe things by faith.

No, my friend.


RESPECTFULLY, if I may share a few points....


You simply have CHOSEN to accept the reality/validity of what you yourself current think is "science." Since that's all you will consider, you've created a perfect circle that can do no other but show you that only such exists. To use your earlier example of the number of sands on all the world's beaches, it's a bit like saying, 'I hold that number is odd because I only accept odd numbers and thus disregard all even ones." This is what Tigger much earlier noted is tying your opponents hands behind his back. And the illustration I used for the proposition: "There is life on Mars" by mandating that nothing from Mars can be used since it is rejected that Mars exists.


IMO, your "skepticism" is actually your FAITH, your BELIEF. It's how it EXCLUDES what is outside your faith/belief/assumptions you choose to run with. I don't see any skepticism about physics, science, about your faith/belief system.... I don't see any skepticism about what YOU claim is real/valid/existing.... I don't see any "skepticism" at ALL - whatsoever - in what you are claiming, my friend. I can't see how it has ANYTHING to do with skepicism. It's simply your choices, your faith, your belief being solidly closed to anything outside of it. It's simply it's exclusivity. It has nothing to do with skepticism, as far as I can tell. I asked you before to reveal your skepticism of science/materialism/physics - and you offered NOTHING, no "skepticism" at all.


I'm not being critical: faith often is exclusive, often rejects what is outside of it. You just seem to be doing the same thing in your belief system. That's not "skepticism" that's making one's faith exclusive: closing the possibility of anything beyond/outside of it. And you are smart enough to create a circle that insures it cannot be challenged by rejecting anything that may be presented that is outside of it.


I'm not questioning the PRACTICALITY of what you suggest, only that it's not skepticism (at all!) - it's just your faith system working for you and your protecting it by making it exclusive and disallowing anything that might challenge it. Friend, most people do that. I realize that this largely applies to me too (in fact, to everyone), especially those whose belief-system "works" for them (as you say yours does for you). I just think it's good to realize it. And not point out the speck in the other guys eye while ignoring..... well, you know.


I'm not suggesting blind gullibility or defending such. My study of several "cults" etc., etc. have lead me to believe that people can belief/assume some pretty absurd things (and yes, it can 'work' for them). IMO, there is a balance, there is a need for reason and reasonability. On the one hand (I think agreeing with the op), I reject the uber-philosophical point of absolute, objective PROOF of a nature none CAN reject and all MUST accept - I think that just doesn't exist (sadly). On the other hand, that, to me, does not suggest all choices/faith/beleive/assumptions are equally valid and entirely exempt from accountability. There's a balance. We must be open to both possibilities: what is outside our "box" may be real.... and what is inside our "box" may not... all the while striking a balance between faith and reason.


Atheists seem at times to be offended by Atheism being labeled a faith. But of course, it is. We ALL walk by faith, we ALL have our belief systems (some "work" some perhaps don't in terms of pure pragmatism). Some are more thought out than others. Some are more exclusive than others (here Atheism is often MORE closed, more exclusive than Theism). But as IMO your posts show, "skepticism" and "proof" often.... well..... aren't. Which just reinforces the point that we ALL walk by faith, we all believe something. And yes, it is not uncommon to form such that is exclusive - as yours is toward the divine, for example.



No disrespect at all intended...... And yes, I confess, I've shared this with you often before. When you say the same things, I tend to in reply, LOL (probably not too helpful). And I rejoice that your belief system, your faith "works" for you. Mine also does - powerfully, wonderfully; few things in my life are a greater blessing.



- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

Claimed resurrection probably was not sufficient evidence for them. Even if they believed he rose from the dead they might have thought it didn't make him God.

I would have to witness something like a decapitation (or other definitely fatal injury) and then a return to life before I would be certain of resurrection and not just a return from near death.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I would have to witness something like a decapitation (or other definitely fatal injury) and then a return to life before I would be certain of resurrection and not just a return from near death.

It was a once only event so you were born way too late to be an eyewitness

 

[Tigger]

So flogging and then crucified and finally run through the heart with a spear is just a flesh wound?

[video]https://youtube/ra_cUTmQykc[/video]



Sorry couldn't help myself :;;D:

I would have to witness something like a decapitation (or other definitely fatal injury) and then a return to life before I would be certain of resurrection and not just a return from near death.

 

[MarkFL]

Do the Scriptures actually say He was "run through the heart" with a spear? John 19:34

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do the Scriptures actually say He was "run through the heart" with a spear? John 19:34

No, not in the gospels. Some speculate that water came out because his heart burst. I do not know the basis for their claim. Catholics see the blood and the water as presaging and looking back at once on the Eucharist.

 

[MarkFL]

Certainly a piercing of the heart would fall into the category of a reasonably assumed fatal injury, but without knowing for sure the exact nature of the piercing of the side, I don't wish to speculate.

 

[MarkFL]

No...blessing.

I don't think I have ever seen a post be so completely wrong about so many things all at once (while not actually addressing anything in my post you quoted). The probability of that honestly happening is so slim, I'm going to invoke Poe's law here:

"Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism."

 

[Josiah]

No, my friend.


RESPECTFULLY, if I may share a few points....


You simply have CHOSEN to accept the reality/validity of what you yourself current think is "science." Since that's all you will consider, you've created a perfect circle that can do no other but show you that only such exists. To use your earlier example of the number of sands on all the world's beaches, it's a bit like saying, 'I hold that number is odd because I only accept odd numbers and thus disregard all even ones." This is what Tigger much earlier noted is tying your opponents hands behind his back. And the illustration I used for the proposition: "There is life on Mars" by mandating that nothing from Mars can be used since it is rejected that Mars exists.


IMO, your "skepticism" is actually your FAITH, your BELIEF. It's how it EXCLUDES what is outside your faith/belief/assumptions you choose to run with. I don't see any skepticism about physics, science, about your faith/belief system.... I don't see any skepticism about what YOU claim is real/valid/existing.... I don't see any "skepticism" at ALL - whatsoever - in what you are claiming, my friend. I can't see how it has ANYTHING to do with skepicism. It's simply your choices, your faith, your belief being solidly closed to anything outside of it. It's simply it's exclusivity. It has nothing to do with skepticism, as far as I can tell. I asked you before to reveal your skepticism of science/materialism/physics - and you offered NOTHING, no "skepticism" at all.


I'm not being critical: faith often is exclusive, often rejects what is outside of it. You just seem to be doing the same thing in your belief system. That's not "skepticism" that's making one's faith exclusive: closing the possibility of anything beyond/outside of it. And you are smart enough to create a circle that insures it cannot be challenged by rejecting anything that may be presented that is outside of it.


I'm not questioning the PRACTICALITY of what you suggest, only that it's not skepticism (at all!) - it's just your faith system working for you and your protecting it by making it exclusive and disallowing anything that might challenge it. Friend, most people do that. I realize that this largely applies to me too (in fact, to everyone), especially those whose belief-system "works" for them (as you say yours does for you). I just think it's good to realize it. And not point out the speck in the other guys eye while ignoring..... well, you know.


I'm not suggesting blind gullibility or defending such. My study of several "cults" etc., etc. have lead me to believe that people can belief/assume some pretty absurd things (and yes, it can 'work' for them). IMO, there is a balance, there is a need for reason and reasonability. On the one hand (I think agreeing with the op), I reject the uber-philosophical point of absolute, objective PROOF of a nature none CAN reject and all MUST accept - I think that just doesn't exist (sadly). On the other hand, that, to me, does not suggest all choices/faith/beleive/assumptions are equally valid and entirely exempt from accountability. There's a balance. We must be open to both possibilities: what is outside our "box" may be real.... and what is inside our "box" may not... all the while striking a balance between faith and reason.


Atheists seem at times to be offended by Atheism being labeled a faith. But of course, it is. We ALL walk by faith, we ALL have our belief systems (some "work" some perhaps don't in terms of pure pragmatism). Some are more thought out than others. Some are more exclusive than others (here Atheism is often MORE closed, more exclusive than Theism). But as IMO your posts show, "skepticism" and "proof" often.... well..... aren't. Which just reinforces the point that we ALL walk by faith, we all believe something. And yes, it is not uncommon to form such that is exclusive - as yours is toward the divine, for example.



No disrespect at all intended...... And yes, I confess, I've shared this with you often before. When you say the same things, I tend to in reply, LOL (probably not too helpful). And I rejoice that your belief system, your faith "works" for you. Mine also does - powerfully, wonderfully; few things in my life are a greater blessing.



- Josiah



.

I don't think I have ever seen a post be so completely wrong about so many things all at once (while not actually addressing anything in my post you quoted).

I suspect that if anything I wrote was wrong you would have replied and correct it.... so I see your "reply" as just a complete evasion. Not typical of you. Without any reply to anything, I suppose each of the points stand - uncorrected.

It may be you choose to evade every point and that's okay (although it might have been wiser to just not respond) but others might consider it.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

No...blessing.

I don't think I have ever seen a post be so completely wrong about so many things all at once (while not actually addressing anything in my post you quoted). The probability of that honestly happening is so slim, I'm going to invoke Poe's law here:

"Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism."

I suspect that if anything I wrote was wrong you would have replied...

I've already corrected all those points too many times for you to still be braying them. That's one of the reasons I call Poe here. :rofl3:

 

[Rens]

I suspect that if anything I wrote was wrong you would have replied and correct it.... so I see your "reply" as just a complete evasion. Not typical of you. Without any reply to anything, I suppose each of the points stand - uncorrected.

It may be you choose to evade every point and that's okay (although it might have been wiser to just not respond) but others might consider it.



- Josiah

We always say: not answering is agreeing, so I guess he agrees with you.
Lol I always do that and if they have no like function it gets weird. One man got so mad at me. He wrote a whole post and I picked out one tiny thing and said: I don't agree.
What about all the other things I wrote???? Are you gonna answer that??? Oh I did agree with that LOL.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not answering signifies loss of interest. Perhaps because the topic has covered everything at least once. Perhaps because one's interlocutor is repeating.

 

[MarkFL]

Not answering signifies loss of interest. Perhaps because the topic has covered everything at least once. Perhaps because one's interlocutor is repeating.

Yes, at some point one must make a decision about whether it is worth the effort to continue refuting the same erroneous statements.

 

[Rens]

nm

 

[MarkFL]

One point that I would like to explicitly deal with is the absurd assertion that it takes faith to reject a claim. Let's return to the Sahara, where I turn to you and claim that the number of grains of sand in the desert is even.

Naturally, you ask me, how do I know this. I actually cannot provide you with solid evidence, for all I can do is tell you that I believe it to be true, and I might even list some appeals to the supernatural and divine revelation. In the end, I must admit I do not have compelling evidence, but that I simply know it to be true.

Now, does it actually take faith on your part to reject my claim? Bear in mind that just because you reject my claim does not mean you are therefore asserting that the number is odd...you are simply rejecting the claim that it is even. You are not making any claim here one way or the other; you are simply rejecting a claim due to lack of evidence. You would equally reject a claim that the number is odd. Of course, any reasonable person can easily and instantly see that it does not take faith to make the observation that the number is not actually known, and therefore any assertion regarding the parity of the number should be rejected because of lack of knowledge of that number. The default position is to reject any claim made about the parity of the number, until such time as the grains are actually counted or if I can prove that grains of sand always occur in inseparable even-numbered groups.

You have no need to prove my assertion to be false (and it would be dishonest of me to assert you do), it is I that must prove my assertion to be true if I reasonably expect anyone to accept my claim. It would take faith to accept my claim (because you would be accepting a belief without compelling evidence), and it would take faith to assert the number is odd, but it takes no faith whatsoever to simply reject it. Faith is only used to believe or make a claim when compelling evidence cannot be provided, it is not used to reject such claims.

In exactly the same way, an atheist who makes no claim regarding the existence of God/gods is not exercising faith to simply reject theism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

One point that I would like to explicitly deal with is the absurd assertion that it takes faith to reject a claim. Let's return to the Sahara, where I turn to you and claim that the number of grains of sand in the desert is even.

Naturally, you ask me, how do I know this. I actually cannot provide you with solid evidence, for all I can do is tell you that I believe it to be true, and I might even list some appeals to the supernatural and divine revelation. In the end, I must admit I do not have compelling evidence, but that I simply know it to be true.

Now, does it actually take faith on your part to reject my claim? Bear in mind that just because you reject my claim does not mean you are therefore asserting that the number is odd...you are simply rejecting the claim that it is even. You are not making any claim here one way or the other; you are simply rejecting a claim due to lack of evidence. You would equally reject a claim that the number is odd. Of course, any reasonable person can easily and instantly see that it does not take faith to make the observation that the number is not actually known, and therefore any assertion regarding the parity of the number should be rejected because of lack of knowledge of that number. The default position is to reject any claim made about the parity of the number, until such time as the grains are actually counted or if I can prove that grains of sand always occur in inseparable even-numbered groups.

You have no need to prove my assertion to be false (and it would be dishonest of me to assert you do), it is I that must prove my assertion to be true if I reasonably expect anyone to accept my claim. It would take faith to accept my claim (because you would be accepting a belief without compelling evidence), and it would take faith to assert the number is odd, but it takes no faith whatsoever to simply reject it. Faith is only used to believe or make a claim when compelling evidence cannot be provided, it is not used to reject such claims.

In exactly the same way, an atheist who makes no claim regarding the existence of God/gods is not exercising faith to simply reject theism.

Saying that the number of grains in the Sahara Dessert is even gives the claimant a 50-50 chance of being right. A better analogy would be if the claim were that the number of grains in the Sahara was a prime number

 

[MarkFL]

Saying that the number of grains in the Sahara Dessert is even gives the claimant a 50-50 chance of being right. A better analogy would be if the claim were that the number of grains in the Sahara was a prime number

Yes, I have even used that before, but I wanted to go with something more easily understood by everyone and in the end any claim (that can't be known) made regarding the number will suffice. Even if one makes the claim that the number is composite, this should be stated as an extremely probable event, and not fact. Now, if I claim there are 15 grains or 10^(10^100) grains, those claims can be refuted.

 

[Josiah]

Saying that the number of grains in the Sahara Dessert is even gives the claimant a 50-50 chance of being right. A better analogy would be if the claim were that the number of grains in the Sahara was a prime number

Of course, it's nonsense to insist that the number is not odd and no position is held as to whether it is odd or even, it's possible the number could be odd or even and neither is denied. That position is illogical, nonsense and a contradiction. And one must wonder WHY an intelligent person would hold to such a contradictive position. Tigger (a former Atheist) came up with a good theory and Mark confirmed it: so that the Atheist can hold that position and dodge/evade the proof he/she demands of the theist by flipping back and forth between the Atheism position and the neutrality of Agnosticism.

And even more nonsensical is to insist that those who hold the number of sands is even must PROVE that by using only odd numbers.... which is exactly what Atheists do: they demand that those who hold that the supernatural exists must prove that using only the natural, rejecting the "super" part as invalid and thus disallowed as evidence. Tigger called that like having a boxing match where both the opponents hands have been tied behind their back so that you can slug away without concern.

Our friend Mark is proclaiming his belief that what he calls "the natural" exists and is all that exists - and since it is his belief and faith, offers NOTHING to indicate that's true (while calling himself a "skeptic"!), it's just his belief - and he trusts it and runs with it (and so it's also his faith). Okay. We all walk by faith. But here's where it gets..... amazing. He then rebukes others who do exactly as he does. And clearly doesn't want to discuss that. IMO, Mark is making good points - but refusing to look in the mirror.



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Prime numbers are odd with the exception of 2.

 

[Lamb]

And even more nonsensical is to insist that those who hold the number of sands is even must PROVE that by using only odd numbers.... which is exactly what Atheists do: they demand that those who hold that the supernatural exists must prove that using only the natural, rejecting the "super" part as invalid and thus disallowed as evidence. Tigger called that like having a boxing match where both the opponents hands have been tied behind their back so that you can slug away without concern.

Our friend Mark is proclaiming his belief that what he calls "the natural" exists and is all that exists - and since it is his belief and faith, offers NOTHING to indicate that's true (while calling himself a "skeptic"!), it's just his belief - and he trusts it and runs with it (and so it's also his faith). Okay. We all walk by faith. But here's where it gets..... amazing. He then rebukes others who do exactly as he does. And clearly doesn't want to discuss that. IMO, Mark is making good points - but refusing to look in the mirror.

It sounds like you and Tigger are saying that Atheists claim...

"You believe in the Supernatural but we do not. So you cannot use the Supernatural as part of your proof since we don't believe in it."

That does seem to sound like how they've put it.