Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?

2PhiloVoid said:

Not that I'm aware of. From my vantage point, there been only a surface scratch. But you and Steve carry on if you feel you must.

Click to expand...

This is the part I was agreeing with (above), and about there only being a surface scratch, etc, and that's because we've only just barely scratched the surface about going about trying to determine the truth of the events (you guys keep resorting to attacking each other, and/or going elsewhere) and how much of it is real or actual, and how much of it is made up basically, and most importantly, your supporting evidence for these, or for each, of which you have all made some pretty good points, but also keep going off-topic, etc. Anyway, that's what's barely being discussed here in my book, because whenever one or more of you gets close to making some very good points, you all resort to doing other things, and keep going off-topic.

This is for @Hans Blaster @Ophiolite @stevevw and anyone else who wants to reply/participate also.

Take Care/God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

This is the part I was agreeing with (above), and about there only being a surface scratch, etc, and that's because we've only just barely scratched the surface about going about trying to determine the truth of the events (you guys keep resorting to attacking each other, and/or going elsewhere) and how much of it is real or actual, and how much of it is made up basically, and most importantly, your supporting evidence for these, or for each, of which you have all made some pretty good points, but also keep going off-topic, etc. Anyway, that's what's barely being discussed here in my book, because whenever one or more of you gets close to making some very good points, you all resort to doing other things, and keep going off-topic.

This is for @Hans Blaster @Ophiolite @stevevw and anyone else who wants to reply/participate also.

Take Care/God Bless.

Click to expand...

I agree skeptics want to shut down the thread before any real discussion as they believe there is no evidence. There is a lot more that can be discussed. I have presented some of this which needs further investigation.

Its not too disimilar to NDE. Except NDE is a vision and Christs resurrection was in physical form. But the type of evidence is similar in that we have to determine whether the belief itself is based on irrational beliefs (illusion and lies ) or real beliefs that Christ did appear.

Determining beliefs is about epistemics and metaphysics and not necessarily about material evidence. Especially when it happened nearly 2000 years ago.

At the very least we can say the witnesses truely believed they seen Christ. So we know the belief was sincere and real to the believers. It then becomes whether this was based on a lie or a delusion or mistaken identity or something like that. There has been little discussion along these lines.

stevevw said:

I agree skeptics want to shut down the thread before any real discussion as they believe there is no evidence. There is a lot more that can be discussed. I have presented some of this which needs further investigation.

Its not too disimilar to NDE. Except NDE is a vision and Christs resurrection was in physical form. But the type of evidence is similar in that we have to determine whether the belief itself is based on irrational beliefs (illusion and lies ) or real beliefs that Christ did appear.

Determining beliefs is about epistemics and metaphysics and not necessarily about material evidence. Especially when it happened nearly 2000 years ago.

At the very least we can say the witnesses truely believed they seen Christ. So we know the belief was sincere and real to the believers. It then becomes whether this was based on a lie or a delusion or mistaken identity or something like that. There has been little discussion along these lines.

Click to expand...

I think most will say that the NT history is mostly accurate for the most part as a historical document, but only without the supernatural or the resurrection, which they don't believe, because they don't think it's possible, etc. So the rest is in trying to determine it from there, etc. And we have accounts of people believing what they believed or felt was true/accurate for a reason, and as you brought out earlier, even becoming extremely willing to be mistreated and even dying submissively for it, etc, and you also mentioned hostile witnesses, and some other evidences, etc, and that's when I felt like you were going somewhere, or were getting close to something, etc, which is why I think it moved more toward the thread wanting be ended after that I think, because you all went off course after that again I think, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

I think most will say that the NT history is mostly accurate for the most part as a historical document, but only without the supernatural or the resurrection, which they don't believe, because they don't think it's possible, etc. So the rest is in trying to determine it from there, etc. And we have accounts of people believing what they believed or felt was true/accurate for a reason, and as you brought out earlier, even becoming extremely willing to be mistreated and even dying submissively for it, etc, and you also mentioned hostile witnesses, and some other evidences, etc, and that's when I felt like you were going somewhere, or were getting close to something, etc, which is why I think it moved more toward the thread wanting be ended after that I think, because you all went off course after that again I think, etc.

God Bless.

Click to expand...

Does that mean that the finnic, baltic and west slavic pagan beliefs are true since (at least some) people were willing to be killed instead of converting during the northern crusades?

Stopped_lurking said:

Does that mean that the finnic, baltic and west slavic pagan beliefs are true since (at least some) people were willing to be killed instead of converting during the northern crusades?

Click to expand...

If you want to talk about the the realness, or not realness, of the people/places/events in the NT, and why or why not you think that is, then let me know, otherwise I'm not discussing it. I don't care right now about any other religions, etc. This thread is supposed to be talking about the accuracy/not accuracy of this one. And it's avoided that more than enough already, etc.

Take Care.

Neogaia777 said:

If you want to talk about the the realness, or not realness, of the people/places/events in the NT, and why or why not you think that is, then let me know, otherwise I'm not discussing it. I don't care right now about any other religions, etc. This thread is supposed to be talking about the accuracy/not accuracy of this one. And it's avoided that more than enough already, etc.

Take Care.

Click to expand...

It was just a reminder that being prepared to be killed or kill for ones beliefs in no way imply the realness (of course it is real that people hold them, but I guess you meant something else) or correctness of those beliefs. In this post Do atheists constantly change the goalposts? you seemed to imply that it was important.

Stopped_lurking said:

It was just a reminder that being prepared to be killed or kill for ones beliefs in no way imply the realness (of course it is real that people hold them, but I guess you meant something else) or correctness of those beliefs. In this post Do atheists constantly change the goalposts? you seemed to imply that it was important.

Click to expand...

@stevevw would be a better person to talk about that specfic aspect of it with you, cause he can do it better than I can, etc. But it wasn't/isn't just simply being willing to die, etc. But @stevevw can explain it to you better than I can, etc. I'm just mainly here to observe and learn as far as this thread goes now for the most part, etc.

Take Care.

Here's a short video of Wes Huff on the Joe Rogan show. So its not a religious cite but a casual discussion on the death and resurrection of Christ. Rogan asks most of the questions skeptics ask and Huff gives some good and interesting answers.

Its worth checking out to get a good perspective from those who know about the context and history as well as the origins of the language and cultural context.

Relatively short so it won't take too much time. Worth a watch. Funny as well because I think Rogan is stoned and he is amazed lol.

Neogaia777 said:

@stevevw would be a better person to talk about that specfic aspect of it with you, cause he can do it better than I can, etc. But it wasn't/isn't just simply being willing to die, etc. But @stevevw can explain it to you better than I can, etc. I'm just mainly here to observe and learn as far as this thread goes now for the most part, etc.

Take Care.

Click to expand...

I agree that "it wasn't/isn't just simply being willing to die". Its a case of going through each objection and qualifying it. So I guess the next step is qualifying the willingness to die for a belief.

Thats why I think as Phil said we have only stratched the surface as far as determing the truth. I linked a video which touches on some of this. Worth a watch. But its only touching on how we can qualify whether the belief is based on a real event or not.

Even then we can never 100% make a case either way and there will be an element of unsupported belief or that we can say something significant happened that is unexplainable. So theres a degree of faith in taking the step to actually believe it is reality.

But surely we can qualify one kind of belief from another.

stevevw said:

I agree that "it wasn't/isn't just simply being willing to die". Its a case of going through each objection and qualifying it. So I guess the next step is qualifying the willingness to die for a belief. Just like in court.

Thats why I think as Phil said we have only stratched the surface as far as determing the truth. I linked a video which touches on some of this. Worth a watch. But its only touching on how we can qualify whether the belief is based on a real event or not.

Even then we can never 100% make a case either way and there will be an element of unsupported belief in taking the step to believe it really happened. But surely we can qualify one kind of belief from another.

Click to expand...

Well, something significant happened with some figures that actually existed, and I think a lot of us agrees on that, but what specifically or exactly, or how much of it might have grown or been changed, is what I think we're going to be debating here probably. The following it created though, for example? Anyway, would be just only one point of evidence probably.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 said:

Well, something significant happened with some figures that actually existed, and I think a lot of us agrees on that, but what specifically or exactly, or how much of it might have grown or been changed, is what I think we're going to be debating here probably. The following it created though, for example? Anyway, would be just only one point of evidence probably.

God Bless.

Click to expand...

I think it has been pretty well established that the disciples and other followers believed that Christ had risen very soon if not days after Christ appeared. When Paul mentions the core creed of Christianity that Christ was crucified and rose again on the 3rd day. He is quoting a tradition that was handed down and already widely spread for years.

Thats what makes it significantly different. That aspect has never changed and in fact was defended to the point of suffering and death.

Any claim about an unreal event that defies physical reality is a contradiction. So for some if not many who are not open to such possibilities metaphysically will automatically not believe its even possible.

If this hapopened 2000 years ago then its hard to test. But even a miracle or supernatural event today cannot be repeated in a lab. So it comes down to determining the lived reality and context of how the event came about.

None of that is empirical and more about epistemics (rational reasons to believe). Working out how and why they believe and whether that is logical and rational in the context it happened in.

For example the first witnesses are said to be women. Something a hoax will never use as evidence as women were the lowest of believable witnesses. Overall the idea of a King or Messiah being a man who suffered humiliation and executed as the lowest of criminals is the opposite of building a believable story of some great Messiah coming to save the Jews against the Romans. Or the world for that matter. .

In fact the idea of a physically resurrected person was mocked as crazy like we do for say Flat Earthers. There are many little pieces like that that build a case for the belief being genuine and not a lie or illusion.

Also on comparisons to other unreal beliefs in religion or more generally. As mentioned with Islam there are no eye witnesses. People that later die for the belief have no eye witnesses basis to look back on. So they are actually dying without any rational basis. This is different to Christians.

But also when there are events that have many eye witnesses (there are many examples) we usually don't dismiss this but rather make it unexplainable. Because of the fact that there were many eye witnesses. We interview them and their stories match remarkably and they don't appear to be making stuff up. All the surrounding context is coherent and there is nothing to suggest it was made up.

But skeptcis will lean towards it being some sort of illusion or hoax no matter what.

stevevw said:

But skeptcis will lean towards it being some sort of illusion or hoax no matter what.

Click to expand...

Or maybe skeptics understand the NT, heck the Bible(s) as religious testimony, and not verbatim historical. These books were not created in a divine vacuum. They are wrought with syncretism and pseudepigrapha. They are a product of their environment where miracle workers were really, a dime a dozen.

Say it aint so said:

Or maybe skeptics understand the NT, heck the Bible(s) as religious testimony, and not verbatim historical. These books were not created in a divine vacuum. They are wrought with syncretism and pseudepigrapha. They are a product of their environment where miracle workers were really, a dime a dozen.

Click to expand...

That sounds a bit like today.

stevevw said:

That sounds a bit like today.

Click to expand...

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose​

I listened to the Huff/Rogan interview, and frankly it's baffling. Rogan asks a question and Huff mentions the events at the time of the NT writings could have been fact checked. Fact checking however just isn't the worldview of those people from that era, and I will give an example. This is from Flavius Josephus one of the most prominent historians at the time as written in his "The Wars of the Jews"

292 "At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple."

Click to expand...

It's one heck of a claim, but within the worldview it was written; the paradigm it was written, rather normal and the point isn't whether it's true or not to be fact checked. But a means to express a greater meaning. If there is anything close to "fact check" within the NT, it's all of Paul's polemic against others who followed Jesus, but not with the same understanding of Paul. Paul didn't fact check them, he just boasted how is gospel is superior to those who he called "super apostles" while mocking them for claiming theirs were superior. So for Huff to even mention things not being real time fact checked is disingenuously taking tools we use in this modern era as evidence applied to a time and people where fact checking really wasn't a thing.

Say it aint so said:

I listened to the Huff/Rogan interview, and frankly it's baffling. Rogan asks a question and Huff mentions the events at the time of the NT writings could have been fact checked. Fact checking however just isn't the worldview of those people from that era, and I will give an example. This is from Flavius Josephus one of the most prominent historians at the time as written in his "The Wars of the Jews"

It's one heck of a claim, but within the worldview it was written; the paradigm it was written, rather normal and the point isn't whether it's true or not to be fact checked. But a means to express a greater meaning. If there is anything close to "fact check" within the NT, it's all of Paul's polemic against others who followed Jesus, but not with the same understanding of Paul. Paul didn't fact check them, he just boasted how is gospel is superior to those who he called "super apostles" while mocking them for claiming theirs were superior. So for Huff to even mention things not being real time fact checked is disingenuously taking tools we use in this modern era as evidence applied to a time and people where fact checking really wasn't a thing.

Click to expand...

Huff has found his grift.

Say it aint so said:

I listened to the Huff/Rogan interview, and frankly it's baffling. Rogan asks a question and Huff mentions the events at the time of the NT writings could have been fact checked. Fact checking however just isn't the worldview of those people from that era, and I will give an example. This is from Flavius Josephus one of the most prominent historians at the time as written in his "The Wars of the Jews"

It's one heck of a claim, but within the worldview it was written; the paradigm it was written, rather normal and the point isn't whether it's true or not to be fact checked. But a means to express a greater meaning. If there is anything close to "fact check" within the NT, it's all of Paul's polemic against others who followed Jesus, but not with the same understanding of Paul. Paul didn't fact check them, he just boasted how is gospel is superior to those who he called "super apostles" while mocking them for claiming theirs were superior. So for Huff to even mention things not being real time fact checked is disingenuously taking tools we use in this modern era as evidence applied to a time and people where fact checking really wasn't a thing.

Click to expand...

I wonder how well your assertions here would hold up against a full scale, line by line epistemological survey of every statement we find in the New Testament in tandem with a study of 1st century Jewish and Greco-Roman historiography? I wonder if it would move the needle from 0 to at least .1 ?

Say it aint so said:

I listened to the Huff/Rogan interview, and frankly it's baffling. Rogan asks a question and Huff mentions the events at the time of the NT writings could have been fact checked. Fact checking however just isn't the worldview of those people from that era, and I will give an example. This is from Flavius Josephus one of the most prominent historians at the time as written in his "The Wars of the Jews"

It's one heck of a claim, but within the worldview it was written; the paradigm it was written, rather normal and the point isn't whether it's true or not to be fact checked. But a means to express a greater meaning. If there is anything close to "fact check" within the NT, it's all of Paul's polemic against others who followed Jesus, but not with the same understanding of Paul. Paul didn't fact check them, he just boasted how is gospel is superior to those who he called "super apostles" while mocking them for claiming theirs were superior. So for Huff to even mention things not being real time fact checked is disingenuously taking tools we use in this modern era as evidence applied to a time and people where fact checking really wasn't a thing.

Click to expand...

I would imagine that, if it existed in it's current form (which is didn't), fact checking back then would have met the same response as fact checking today.

Where it ultimately leads to questions of "who fact checks the fact checkers?" (which is a pattern that can be repeated to infinity, because it's not useful in a practical sense when you consider the human element)

ThatRobGuy said:

I would imagine that, if it existed in it's current form (which is didn't), fact checking back then would have met the same response as fact checking today.

Where it ultimately leads to questions of "who fact checks the fact checkers?" (which is a pattern that can be repeated to infinity, because it's not useful in a practical sense when you consider the human element)

Click to expand...

I am of the opinion that humans have been pretty much the same throughout history. The biggest differences I see today are the much higher levels of education and access to information.

bbbbbbb said:

I am of the opinion that humans have been pretty much the same throughout history. The biggest differences I see today are the much higher levels of education and access to information.

Click to expand...

Higher access to information hasn't changed the human desire for confirmation bias for the thing they already wanted to believe.

In fact, the expansion of education and increased access to information has just created a bigger of pool of "credentialed experts" that a person can cherry pick from to galvanize their position.

We're at a point now where, for almost any wacky viewpoint, one can hop on Google and find at least a few dozen write-ups by someone with a degree to agree with them.

Case in point, you can literally find a PhD who believes in flat earth if you opted to do so.

The underlying cause for that is "being a good test-taker" and "being right" are two different things.