The bible

Perry Phimosis said:
I don't say "There is no God". I say "I fail to see evidence of God's existence". That's a subtle but important difference.
Click to expand...

which you don't seem to understand.......
Perry Phimosis said:
I'm not an agnostic.
Click to expand...

atheists deny, agnostics say they have no proof.....the ignorant deny that distinction.......now choose......what are you?......an atheist, an agnostic, or merely an ignorant poster.............
 
PostmodernProphet said:
which you don't seem to understand.......


atheists deny, agnostics say they have no proof.....the ignorant deny that distinction.......now choose......what are you?......an atheist, an agnostic, or merely an ignorant poster.............
Click to expand...

You are wrong. You have a masters in theology and you don't understand what Huxley meant by "agnostic"? That's not surprising given your level of apparent mendacity.

Agnostics feel that the question can never be answered. Atheists (like myself) feel that it doesn't need to be answered. That if there is no evidence for something then I have no need to believe in it or even assess whether it is real or not. I am NOT an agnostic about the presence of invisible micro-elephants living in my fridge. I see no evidence for them so I fail to believe in them.

You have a masters in theology just as much as I do. Except I know more about the faith than you do, apparently.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
ah but now the important question......which of us is the false prophet......
Click to expand...

Probably the one that claims he believes in God but then tells people to "fuck off" as part of his defense of his faith.

and keep in mind.....
Click to expand...

What? That you are the exact type of hypocrite Christ warned everyone about? The one who prays publicly so that they might be noticed? The one that says "Lord, Lord" thinking that is what will get them into heaven while mocking the same faith?

Yeah, I'd say it's pretty clear.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
You are wrong. You have a masters in theology and you don't understand what Huxley meant by "agnostic"? That's not surprising given your level of apparent mendacity.

Agnostics feel that the question can never be answered. Atheists (like myself) feel that it doesn't need to be answered. That if there is no evidence for something then I have no need to believe in it or even assess whether it is real or not. I am NOT an agnostic about the presence of invisible micro-elephants living in my fridge. I see no evidence for them so I fail to believe in them.

You have a masters in theology just as much as I do. Except I know more about the faith than you do, apparently.
Click to expand...

There is something you said here about agnosticism that I think is not quite right, Perry, and should at least be questioned.

Agnostics feel that the question can never be answered.
Click to expand...

It would be hypocritical for an agnostic position to be, "The question of whether there are gods (or messages from any gods that do exist) CANNOT be answered. The agnostic position is, "The question of whether there are gods probably will never be answered." (It MAY be unknowable.) If there are no gods...the question can never be answered. There is no way to prove there are no gods. But if there is at least one god...the question MAY BE answered at some point, if the god is the kind that wants it answered.

There is also something you inferred about atheism that I think should be more nuanced.

I am NOT an agnostic about the presence of invisible micro-elephants living in my fridge. I see no evidence for them so I fail to believe in them.
Click to expand...

You seem to be inferring that all there is to atheism is a lack of "belief" that any gods exist.

I respectfully disagree. "Atheist" is a descriptor that one chooses. And every atheist I have ever met or spoken with has "belief" as a fundamental. They either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. Yes, all profess that atheism is thrust upon them by dint of dictionary definition, but without one of those "beliefs" I have not met any who use the descriptor.

If I have to use a descriptor for myself (I no longer use one, but rather simply acknowledge an agnostic position rather than describing myself as AN Agnostic)...and as such, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY GODS EXIST. I also DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE NO GODS.

I simply do not have a "belief" in either direction...nor do I have a "belief" that one is more likely than the other.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
neither is a theologian on a search for some fictional "historical Jesus" with a following of a few thousand atheists......
Click to expand...

My opinion on the authorship of the Gospels has nothing to do with atheism

It has everything to do with the standards of empirical evidence.

The authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey are traditionally attributed to Homer -- though the texts authorship and date of composition are debatable.

The Chinese classic the Dao de Jing is traditionally attributed to Laozi -- though the text's authorship and date of composition are debatable.

I have my doubts the archangel Gabriel told Muhammed what to write in the Quran.

If we ever find contemporaneous first century papyri pointing to the apostle John writing the gospel as we know it, I will salute it as one of the greatest archeological discoveries ever; a watershed moment in historical knowledge.
 
Frank Apisa said:
You seem to be inferring that all there is to atheism is a lack of "belief" that any gods exist.
Click to expand...


Then you misunderstood. There are "Strong Atheists" who take the universal negative claim "There is no God" and there are "Weak Atheists" who claim "I fail to see evidence for God so I fail to believe in God."

And every atheist I have ever met or spoken with has "belief" as a fundamental. They either "believe" there are no gods
Click to expand...


I thought my position was crystal clear. It seems you are not necessarily an epistemologist. But I am an empiricist which means I have knowledge of the world from my experience of it. As a scientist I KNOW I can never have 100% perfect knowledge of ANYTHING. My knowledge is always imperfect (as is yours, as is everyone's). As such I can only believe in those things which I have evidence for. If I lack evidence for something why on earth would I believe it exists? But even in my atheism I agree there is a non-zero probability that I am incorrect in relation to "God".

If I have to use a descriptor for myself (I no longer use one, but rather simply acknowledge an agnostic position rather than describing myself as AN Agnostic)...and as such, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY GODS EXIST. I also DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE NO GODS.
Click to expand...

I think you have stumbled upon my original point. I wish I could explain it more simply to you so you could have saved some time.

I simply do not have a "belief" in either direction...nor do I have a "belief" that one is more likely than the other.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that there are invisible pink micro-unicorns that live in your refrigerator? You cannot see them, but you cannot definitively say they are not there. So OBVIOUSLY you are in the middle. You and I differ on how we apply that lack of knowledge. Since there is a non-zero probability that such things might exist without you knowing them you appear to be of the opinion that there's at least a 50/50 chance that they are real.

I, on the other hand, treat the proposition as most humans do and say: "Unless you can provide evidence for them I will fail to believe they exist".

(Note: There's a lot of inferential logic related to this and even into inferential statistics which we can discuss at length if you like. Null hypotheses, rejection of the null, testing for Type I errors etc.)
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Then you misunderstood. There are "Strong Atheists" who take the universal negative claim "There is no God" and there are "Weak Atheists" who claim "I fail to see evidence for God so I fail to believe in God."
Click to expand...

Yes...I have heard the strong/weak, explicit/implicit stuff for decades. If one has to explain what one means when one says, "I am an atheist"...perhaps one ought not to say it.

I do not say I am AN AGNOSTIC anymore. I simply explain my position:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Unfortunately, most people do not go through that trouble. Most simply use a single word...and assume everyone will understand what is meant by that word.

Often that is not the case.


I thought my position was crystal clear.
Click to expand...

It wasn't.


It seems you are not necessarily an epistemologist. But I am an empiricist which means I have knowledge of the world from my experience of it. As a scientist I KNOW I can never have 100% perfect knowledge of ANYTHING. My knowledge is always imperfect (as is yours, as is everyone's). As such I can only believe in those things which I have evidence for.
Click to expand...

You do not have to "believe" (accept as the truth) the stuff for which you have evidence. You do not have to "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10. You know it. When using the word "believe" as you are using it, you probably mean "guess" or "estimate" or "suppose." I will interpret your use of the word that way, unless you want to discuss that feature BEFORE we proceed with any further discussion.

If I lack evidence for something why on earth would I believe it exists?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't, really. But under those circumstances, you also should not "believe" (guess, estimate, or suppose) it doesn't exist.

But even in my atheism I agree there is a non-zero probability that I am incorrect in relation to "God".
Click to expand...

You were unable to write that thought more coherently?


I think you have stumbled upon my original point. I wish I could explain it more simply to you so you could have saved some time.
Click to expand...

You should be able to do so. Give it a shot. Just explain it as simply as you can. Suppose me to be a dolt, if you must.

Do you believe that there are invisible pink micro-unicorns that live in your refrigerator?
Click to expand...

I do not. Fact is, I do not do "believing." If you are asking if I think, suppose, estimate, or guess there are invisible pink micro-unicorns that live in my refrigerator...I do not do that either...although I might wonder how a thing can be both invisible and pink at the same time.

You cannot see them, but you cannot definitively say they are not there. So OBVIOUSLY you are in the middle. You and I differ on how we apply that lack of knowledge. Since there is a non-zero probability that such things might exist without you knowing them you appear to be of the opinion that there's at least a 50/50 chance that they are real.
Click to expand...

If this is your best attempt at explaining things more simply, Perry, it did not work. Perhaps I am a dolt...perhaps I am stupid, but I just do not see where you are going with this.

I, on the other hand, treat the proposition as most humans do and say: "Unless you can provide evidence for them I will fail to believe they exist".
Click to expand...

Yes, you will fail to guess they exist. On the question of gods, I will not only fail to guess that they exist...I will also fail to guess that none exist. (The invisible, pink micro-unicorn nonsense is not worth the effort.)

(Note: There's a lot of inferential logic related to this and even into inferential statistics which we can discuss at length if you like. Null hypotheses, rejection of the null, testing for Type I errors etc.)
Click to expand...

Whatever. I'm 86...and far removed from my university work in logic, statistics, and probability, but I am willing to put in the effort if you think it necessary. I had majors in both economics and psychology...both of which required intense study in those areas. I still have my texts. I'll give it a shot if you really suppose it to be necessary.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yes...I have heard the strong/weak, explicit/implicit stuff for decades. If one has to explain what one means when one says, "I am an atheist"...perhaps one ought not to say it.
Click to expand...

So because you lack the ability to understand subtle points of philosophy and logic you assume no one should talk about it?

I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist
Click to expand...

Really? I can think of many, but they are not necessarily important to the discussion.

Let me explain it to as a scientist since you claim you had some training in the sciences, logic, and math.

Here goes:

Let us set the null hypothesis (if you don't remember what that was please google it now) that "There is no God". This is a standard approach to inference. You test data to see if there is an effect or not but start (usually) with the null that there is no effect. Then you TEST AGAINST that null hypothesis.

That's effectively how we process every contention in our lives. We test against the null hypothesis.

I fail to find sufficient evidence that would lead me to rejecting the null. I feel I would make an ERROR (Type I) if I were to reject the null hypothesis.

I can't possibly quantify what the statistics would be, but I'm going to estimate that I have a p-value from any test of the hypothesis that is well above 0.05. As such I FAIL TO REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS that "There is no God".

It does NOT mean that I say there is no God. It simply means that until one can provide sufficient evidence for me I will continue to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

(Does ANY of this sound familiar from your old days in statistics?)

It wasn't.
Click to expand...

Please be clear: It wasn't the case for YOU because that subtlety was lost on you. HOpefully my explanation using inferential statistical analyses helped clarify it for you.

You do not have to "believe" (accept as the truth) the stuff for which you have evidence. You do not have to "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10. You know it.
Click to expand...

Do you REALLY want to talk about a priori vs a posteriori epistemology?

When using the word "believe" as you are using it, you probably mean "guess" or "estimate" or "suppose."
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

I will interpret your use of the word that way, unless you want to discuss that feature BEFORE we proceed with any further discussion.
Click to expand...

You are free to misinterpret anything and everything.

You were unable to write that thought more coherently?
Click to expand...

I wrote it fine. But now I have more structurally codified it for you with a discussion inference and the null hypothesis.

You should be able to do so. Give it a shot. Just explain it as simply as you can. Suppose me to be a dolt, if you must.
Click to expand...

I need suppose nothing. I have explained it now several times.

Whatever. I'm 86...and far removed from my university work in logic, statistics, and probability,
Click to expand...

Well hopefully this discussion clarified the point for you and you remember SOME of your statistics training. Especially "Inference".
Click to expand...
 
Perry Phimosis said:
You are wrong. You have a masters in theology and you don't understand what Huxley meant by "agnostic"?
Click to expand...

I understand what the dictionary says about agnostic.......I also know it literally means "no" "knowledge"....as opposed to atheist....."no" "god"......as for YOUR masters in theology, it appears to have been wasted......
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Then you misunderstood. There are "Strong Atheists" who take the universal negative claim "There is no God" and there are "Weak Atheists" who claim "I fail to see evidence for God so I fail to believe in God."
Click to expand...

atheists want to change the definition of atheism because they are lonely.......they want to pretend they are agnostics because they realize the so-called "strong atheism" is patent ignorance in the face of their insistence on evidence........either admit your just an agnostic or admit you're an idiot.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
debate it all you want.......just don't lie and say its never been attributed......
Click to expand...

-->

Although the authorship of the Johannine works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle,[12] only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel,[13] and most conclude that he wrote none of them.[12][14][15] - Wikipedia, John the Evangelist
Click to expand...

I don't think it is at all offensive if the Gospel of John was pseudepigrapha. Lots of writings from the ancient world were pseudepigrapha. It doesn't necessarily make them less important or valuable. The Dao de Jing is almost certainly pseudepigraphical, but that doesn't reduce it's value to East Asian culture.

For all I know, the Gospel is the extension of an oral tradition that can be traced to John the Evangelist. That is not an atheist insult to assert; the bible is still the most important book in the history of western civilization, and it's importance is attested by the fact it still resonates with lots of people two thousand years later. That is a testament to it's enduring power and importance
 
PostmodernProphet said:
atheists want to change the definition of atheism because they are lonely
Click to expand...

Is it common in your version of Christianity to LIE ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND? I'm curious. If you have a "Masters in Theology" you would know all about this. But since you don't (and everyone on here already KNOWS this) it is clear you don't understand the point.

.......they want to pretend they are agnostics because they realize the so-called "strong atheism" is patent ignorance in the face of their insistence on evidence........either admit your just an agnostic or admit you're an idiot.......
Click to expand...

Wow. You really are dumb as box of hammers aren't you?

Why do you want to misrepresent yourself in service to your faith? In your version of Christianity is it OK to lie on behalf of God? Or do you want to witness against God?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
debate it all you want.......just don't lie and say its never been attributed......
Click to expand...

No one said it was never attributed. The key is that it appears to have been attributed almost a century AFTER the documents were written.

It is like suggesting that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. It's absurd on its face but it is commonly accepted in some ends of Judaism and Christianity.

Why is it SO IMPORTANT that the gospels have been eye-witness accounts? And why does Jesus have TWO DIFFERENT GENEALOGIES in the Gospels?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
really?.......you apparently haven't read much of the prophets in the OT......."fuck off" is fairly mild compared to them......
Click to expand...

Justify it as you wish, ravening wolf. I know you for what you are. Your witness for God is in need of some improvement. Why don't you focus on YOURSELF a bit before you try to tell others what is or isn't true?

Also: you aren't an old testament prophet. You are just another schlub who struggled to get a high school diploma and now you haunt this forum writing like a brain damaged toddler. Even the old testament Prophets knew periods exist and you don't have to liberally sprinkle ellipses throughout your posts like a moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top