The bible

[Saint Guinefort]

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......

Dipshit: I NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE A DEGREE IN THEOLOGY. I'm not a massive lying hypocrite like you.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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

That is what you got out of my comment?

And you want to discuss the subtle points of philosophy and logic?

Gimme a break.

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?)

Actually, it does sound familiar...but not from my old days in statistics.

It sounds like so many other youngsters coming along trying to wow the audience...and failing.

But...that aside, I see NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THERE CANNOT BE ANY GODS...and neither do you...your comments notwithstanding.

It is possible there are gods. It also is possible there are no gods.

You are apparently blindly guessing there are no gods...or that it is more probable that there are no gods...so you identify as an atheist.

Okay...that makes sense to you.

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.

I am always clear...and your "new explanation" did nothing to clarify your earlier "explanation."

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

Not especially, but apparently you do. So...

Incorrect.

I am more certain of it now than I was earlier.

You are free to misinterpret anything and everything.

Of course I am. You are merely stating the obvious attempting to make a point you did not make.

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

I gotcha null hypothesis right heah!

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

You are supposing (actually, just blindly guessing) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. No problemo! We have people making blind guesses in both directions on that question all the time.

It is kinda cute listening to it.

Well hopefully this discussion clarified the point for you and you remember SOME of your statistics training. Especially "Inference".

My guess is your peers are very impressed with you. Don't throw sand at each other!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

That is what you got out of my comment?

And you want to discuss the subtle points of philosophy and logic?

Gimme a break.

Understood. You seem lacking in this area.

Actually, it does sound familiar...but not from my old days in statistics.

It sounds like so many other youngsters coming along trying to wow the audience...and failing.

Oh please stop it. Just stop it. If you are 86 years old then that means you took statistics in college only about 60 years ago which is well after Fisher and inferential statistics. If you find an error in what I posted say it. But since you actually DON'T UNDERSTAND what I said (probably because you were lying about having any statistics) I guess we can probably let this go.

It is possible there are gods. It also is possible there are no gods.

It really feels like you haven't read a single thing I wrote.

You are apparently blindly guessing there are no gods...or that it is more probable that there are no gods...so you identify as an atheist.

Just as I "blindly guess" there are no invisible microelephants living in my fridge. (Gosh I wish you read my posts instead of replying without reading).

I am always clear...and your "new explanation" did nothing to clarify your earlier "explanation."

Maybe you shouldn't have lied about having statistics.

I gotcha null hypothesis right heah!

If you don't understand something, you know you can ask.

It is kinda cute listening to it.

Cute? You mean an 86 year old with a high school diploma (just barely) thinks my writing is cute? Great.

My guess is your peers are very impressed with you. Don't throw sand at each other!

At least I'm not uneducated like you appear to be.

 

[Into the Night]

Fuck you.

I'd much rather stay here and argue with people who use what is closer to fairytales than history books...for their history.

If you do not like it...tough.

In any case, most religious discussions have taken place with people being tortured and killed...so making a big deal of a bit of vulgarity is just more bullshit from you.

You believe your fairy tale more than anyone else's fairy tale....gotit.

 

[Into the Night]

Tradition and folklore are generally not super convincing.

A billion Muslims accept it on faith that the Quran was transcribed by Muhammad, a barely literate Bedouin camel driver, from the words spoken to him by the archangel Gabriel.

That is not very convincing to me either

But you are convinced that no god or gods exist. You are just a religious, except that you are also a fundamentalist.

 

[Into the Night]

You were doing so well with your syllogism. Then you just had to go and break it.

I didn't break anything.

 

[Into the Night]

C'mon, it's YOUR RELIGION. If you don't care enough about it to support your positions then why on earth would anyone else take it seriously?

Your fallacies are not my religion. I am a Christian. I do not try to prove my religion to anyone. I don't need to. I simply take it on faith that Jesus Christ exists, and the He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God.

 

[Into the Night]

lol...perhaps before you call the gospels a lie you should show everyone you have the truth, rather than simple denial.......

He does not need to prove anything. Indeed, it's not possible to do so. It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not.

when the canon of the scriptures was established churches from all over the then known world sent copies of their religious writings........there were those that all of them agreed were authored by the men who wrote the gospels........they identified them as the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John......they were accepted by the entire Christian church as legitimate....today, 3 billion people accept that as the truth.......on the other hand a dimwitted atheist with 600 posts on a politics board denies it.......in summary, fuck off......

He is not an atheist. He is a religious fundamentalist from the Church of No God.
Telling someone to fuck off because they don't happen to be the same religion as yours is just being rude. It accomplishes nothing.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Your fallacies are not my religion. I am a Christian.

I gathered that you were a Christian. Clearly you are incapable of discussing any technical details about your supposed "faith", though.

I do not try to prove my religion to anyone.

Good. (Clearly you couldn't if you wanted to, but good for you to know your limits).

I don't need to. I simply take it on faith that Jesus Christ exists, and the He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God.

Good for you. No one is begrudging you that. I know I certainly don't. But just because you believe in Jesus doesn't mean you necessarily know anything about how your faith came to be. I know a lot of people who couldn't name one Church father or explain the Ontological Argument of Anselm but still fervently believe in Christ. I guess it's not necessary to know anything about one's religion but if you want to poke your head into a conversation about it, you might come across as needlessly wasting peoples' time.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

it's not possible to do so. It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not.

But per many variants of your faith those who fail to "believe" properly (even as you note without any possibility of "proof") then they will be consigned to the flames of hell.

He is not an atheist. He is a religious fundamentalist from the Church of No God.

I know you think that's super-clever, but trust me. It isn't.

Telling someone to fuck off because they don't happen to be the same religion as yours is just being rude.

One of your fellow Christians said that directly.

It accomplishes nothing.

It accomplishes quite a bit, actually. It tells the reader that the Christian telling others to "fuck off" when they don't believe as the Christian does that maybe the Christian doesn't understand anything about their own faith and their witness is actually working AGAINST bringing people to God.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

But you are convinced that no god or gods exist.

How do you know you are worshipping the correct God? If you don't do the right things in Islam and Islam turns out to be the true religion what are you going to say on Judgement day? Might want to gin up a backup plan.

 

[Into the Night]

That's not how it works. If you believe the Gospels are as you imagine them then surely you have evidence for your position. Since I have no necessary NEED for the Gospels to be magical writings from the exact time (despite some of them having JARRINGLY different aspects) I am under no obligation to prove ANYTHING.

However, at least I have more proof of my position than you of yours. The fact of the matter is there is NO EVIDENCE that the Gospels were written at the time of Christ (they may have been but there is no evidence for it). Instead the OLDEST we have is a scrap written maybe 3 or 4 decades after the event.

It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not.

You seem to have somewhat of a cartoon view of how the canon was formed.

In Christianity, scripture comes from God. He is the only author. Even Jesus said so.

You might want to read up more on it.

Since you deny the Bible, it is YOU that probably never read it.

Given that there are several apocryphal books that SOME traditions still keep in their canon would put the suggestion that the canon was formed early and in a coordinated fashion into some doubt.

I love how a "Christian" defends his faith and then tells me to "fuck off".

you are a TRUE WITNESS for Christ, my friend.

(I'm an atheist and even I wouldn't mock the faith quite that viciously. But that's now between you and your god. Hope for your sake he isn't real.)

You are not an atheist. You are a religious fundamentalist in the Church of No God. He is not mocking God. Why do you care anyway? According to you, God does not exist.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't think it is at all offensive if the Gospel of John was pseudepigrapha.

irrelevant....you didn't say ut was pseuedegrapha......you said it had NEVER BEEN ATTRIBUTED.......that is an obvious lie......even the point you just quoted makes it a lie.....

Although the authorship of the Johannine works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle

in addition, this is still nothing more than atheist propaganda......

only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel

the only ones who don't believe he wrote it are the atheists......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No one said it was never attributed.

the person I was speaking to did.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Dipshit: I NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE A DEGREE IN THEOLOGY. I'm not a massive lying hypocrite like you.

liar.....

You have a masters in theology just as much as I do.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not.

Now try applying your response to what I actually was talking about...

In Christianity, scripture comes from God. He is the only author. Even Jesus said so.

Most Christians believe today that human hands were involved in writing the Bible. Sure they think God inspired it, but humans had to do the writing. I don't know what you believe.

Just as a fun factoid: Humans often lie or make stuff up.

Since you deny the Bible, it is YOU that probably never read it.

Wrong-o. Front to back (sans apocrypha). Do you have any questions about it? I can help you.

You are not an atheist.

You are not a Christian. Luke 6:31. See how it works?

Why do you care anyway? According to you, God does not exist.

Because I used to be a Christian and I like talking about religion. Why do you care?

 

[Into the Night]

And hypocrites who spout "Lord, Lord" are easy to make fun of, too. Especially when you know what the Bible says about those who say "Lord, Lord" (Matt 7:21)

Contextomy fallacy.

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.

None.

Because I am trained in philosophy

No, you are not. You are failing to present arguments and the reasoning for them, and attempting a negative proof.

and logic

No, you are not. You are making fallacy after fallacy and attempting a negative proof.

I know that universal negatives are impossible to defend.

They are, but only by using negative predicates. You are attempting to use positive predicates to conduct a negative proof. This is also known as an argument of ignorance fallacy. You then try to turn it around and make a positive proof out of a negative predicent, producing the circular argument fallacy, or fundamentalism.

Which is why I'm the kind of atheist that simply fails to see evidence for God.

The evidence has already been presented to you. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

If a ravening wolf like you can show me evidence for God then by all means.

He has already done so. Repetitive Question Already Answered (RQAA).

But right now all I see from you is someone who clearly doesn't believe any more in a real god than I do.

True Scotsman fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Word stuffing.

I see a ravening wolf who dresses in sheep's clothing and spouts "Lord, lord" in hopes of getting into heaven because he says the right things.

There's an apocryphal story about St. Francis which goes something like: When witnessing for the Gospel use words when necessary. Basically it says your actual witness for your fake God comes from how you ACT not what you say.

I know you for the fruit you bear.

You do not get to speak for God. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

liar.....

Clearly you didn't get it. I think you are lying. I don't believe FOR ONE INSTANT you have a Masters degree IN ANYTHING.

Wanna know why?

1. You are incapable of talking technically about ANY of this stuff.
2. You write like a brain damaged 3rd grader. Learn how to use punctuation. (If you had a Masters in Theology you would have had to write quite a bit. If you wrote like this you didn't get a degree. I know this because unlike you I actually DO have a couple graduate degrees).

So go ahead and try to lead the flock astray, ravening wolf. I know you for what you are.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The key is that it appears to have been attributed almost a century AFTER the documents were written.

as previously shown, that is a lie.....

Why is it SO IMPORTANT that the gospels have been eye-witness accounts?

better to ask why its so important for atheists to deny the obvious.....

And why does Jesus have TWO DIFFERENT GENEALOGIES in the Gospels?

one traces his genealogy for the Jews, the other for the Greeks.......different systems......note that one notes the women in his family history.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

you aren't an old testament prophet.

you're just another God denier......but not an old testament one.....