Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?

bbbbbbb · Thursday at 8:44 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
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.

That is absolutely true IMO. That is why I started my post with the disclaimer that I am of the opinion that humans have not significantly changed over time.

stevevw · Thursday at 8:59 PM

bbbbbbb said:
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Or the more things change the more they stay the same. Just a new version of an old age practice to decieve.

Say it aint so · Thursday at 9:04 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
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 ?

I have not a clue what that means.

bbbbbbb · Thursday at 9:06 PM

stevevw said:
Or the more things change the more they stay the same. Just a new version of an old age practice to decieve.

Absolutely! Or, as P. T. Barnum famously remarked, "There is a fool born every minute."

Neogaia777 · Thursday at 9:11 PM

I hope I'm not deceiving anybody, but the way I see it, I'm describing one of the one and only ways that it's still possible, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

Say it aint so · Thursday at 9:12 PM

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)

The point is they didn't exist back then. And specifically not in the time frame of when the gospels were written as Huff asserts.
Later (2nd century) there were people calling into question the mystical claims found within. The argument by early Christians regarding the legitimacy of those gospel claims were "well, our supernatural claims are no different than what you believe of your Gods".

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 9:17 PM

Say it aint so said:
The point is they didn't exist back then. And specifically not in the time frame of when the gospels were written as Huff asserts.
Later (2nd century) there were people calling into question the mystical claims found within. The argument by early Christians regarding the legitimacy of those gospel claims were "well, our supernatural claims are no different than what you believe of your Gods".

So, in essence, not that much different than today.

We still have people making wild claims today (across a wide variety of topics) that don't align with reality, using "feels" as the justification for why their position is equally valid.

bbbbbbb · Thursday at 9:22 PM

Neogaia777 said:
I hope I'm not deceiving anybody, but the way I see it, I'm describing one of the one and only ways that it's still possible, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

It seems to me that, as always, society is composed of those who are deceived, those who intentionally deceive, those who unintentionally deceive, and skeptics.

Neogaia777 · Thursday at 10:28 PM

bbbbbbb said:
It seems to me that, as always, society is composed of those who are deceived, those who intentionally deceive, those who unintentionally deceive, and skeptics.

That's why I try to tell people anymore (especially non-believers/skeptics) that all I'm offering is a (real still) real world possibility still, and nothing more, etc. Err on the side of caution, if I do err, or wind up in error, etc. I think there still might be some people out there who might just want to know how it's still possible at least still? Or at least I hope so, etc?

Take Care.

bbbbbbb · Thursday at 10:46 PM

Neogaia777 said:
That's why I try to tell people anymore (especially non-believers/skeptics) that all I'm offering is a (real still) real world possibility still, and nothing more, etc. Err on the side of caution, if I do err, or wind up in error, etc. I think there still might be some people out there who might just want to know how it's still possible at least still? Or at least I hope so, etc?

Take Care.

Quite so. For many people the quest for truth and reality is very sincere and genuine.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 6:29 AM

Say it aint so said:
I have not a clue what that means.

There's no time like the present in which to begin to become better educated.

Say it aint so said:
The point is they didn't exist back then. And specifically not in the time frame of when the gospels were written as Huff asserts.
Later (2nd century) there were people calling into question the mystical claims found within. The argument by early Christians regarding the legitimacy of those gospel claims were "well, our supernatural claims are no different than what you believe of your Gods".

You're overstating your supposed case about 'what existed back then.'

Say it aint so · Friday at 9:54 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
So, in essence, not that much different than today.

We still have people making wild claims today (across a wide variety of topics) that don't align with reality, using "feels" as the justification for why their position is equally valid.

In essence regarding Huff's claim, it wasn't a thing.

Say it aint so · Friday at 10:18 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
There's no time like the present in which to begin to become better educated.

Or maybe you could be more precise. There is no disconnect from historians, including Greco-Romans from miracle claims seeped within their historical accounts.

You're overstating your supposed case about 'what existed back then.'

Not at all.
No one asked proof of the claim graves opening and saints literally walking out back to Jerusalem to be seen by many. Because the claim being factual is not the point. What's the Native American adage "I don't know if it happened this way, but the story is true". There is no regard to literally truthfulness of the story, but rather what the emotional truth the overarching story conveys. If there is anyone overstating what did or didn't exist; how people would respond to common mythical accounts, it's Huff.

Tinker Grey · Friday at 11:39 AM

Say it aint so said:
Or maybe you could be more precise. There is no disconnect from historians, including Greco-Romans from miracle claims seeped within their historical accounts.

Not at all.
No one asked proof of the claim graves opening and saints literally walking out back to Jerusalem to be seen by many. Because the claim being factual is not the point. What's the Native American adage "I don't know if it happened this way, but the story is true". There is no regard to literally truthfulness of the story, but rather what the emotional truth the overarching story conveys. If there is anyone overstating what did or didn't exist; how people would respond to common mythical accounts, it's Huff.

I've seen responses to him by Paulogia and Dan McClellan on YT. I'm not impressed with Huff. He gives off that "I've been seminary and I know more than anybody in the room" vibe regardless of his "soft" demeanor. And, particularly when it comes to text criticism, he's simply not in the same league as McClellan.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 11:41 AM

Say it aint so said:
Or maybe you could be more precise. There is no disconnect from historians, including Greco-Romans from miracle claims seeped within their historical accounts.

Not at all.
No one asked proof of the claim graves opening and saints literally walking out back to Jerusalem to be seen by many. Because the claim being factual is not the point. What's the Native American adage "I don't know if it happened this way, but the story is true". There is no regard to literally truthfulness of the story, but rather what the emotional truth the overarching story conveys. If there is anyone overstating what did or didn't exist; how people would respond to common mythical accounts, it's Huff.

I wasn't addressing the degree to which Huff was correct or not. I was addressing a specific point about 1st century historiographical tendencies.

Just because Huff may be wrong or overstate his case doesn't mean the center stage defaults to your evaluation.

Tinker Grey said:
I've seen responses to him by Paulogia and Dan McClellan on YT. I'm not impressed with Huff. He gives off that "I've been seminary and I know more than anybody in the room" vibe regardless of his "soft" demeanor. And, particularly when it comes to text criticism, he's simply not in the same league as McClellan.

McClellan? I wouldn't take what he says as solid truth any more than I would of what Huff says.

Say it aint so · Friday at 11:49 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
I wasn't addressing the degree to which Huff was correct or not. I was addressing a specific point about 1st century historiographical tendencies.

Just because Huff may be wrong or overstate his case doesn't mean the center stage defaults to your evaluation.

I understand. The premise of my post was in fact to take exception to a video a poster suggested watched. Right off the bat Huff claims, "well, the miracle claims weren't fact checked, so that leads to proof they were true." Moreover, I don't think there would be much push back against my view that miracle claims and miracle workers back then were a dime a dozen, and it's just the way they saw the world.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 12:07 PM

Say it aint so said:
I understand. The premise of my post was in fact to take exception to a video a poster suggested watched. Right off the bat Huff claims, "well, the miracle claims weren't fact checked, so that leads to proof they were true." Moreover, I don't think there would be much push back against my view that miracle claims and miracle workers back then were a dime a dozen, and it's just the way they saw the world.

...... ok. So, I'm listening to the first few minutes of the Huff/Rogan podcast. At what minute mark in the video is it that you heard Huff say something to the effect, "the miracles claims were not fact checked, so that leads to proof they were true"?

Say it aint so · Friday at 1:12 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
...... ok. So, I'm listening to the first few minutes of the Huff/Rogan podcast. At what minute mark in the video is it that you heard Huff say something to the effect, "the miracles claims were not fact checked, so that leads to proof they were true"?

".....and they're written in this period of time where you have groups of individuals who could have fact checked those things." He is making that point to argue the validity of the gospels. No one is thinking about fact checking if Jonah really did live in a whale for three days just as they are not checking Josephus's claim he say a heftier give birth to a lamb.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 3:39 PM

Say it aint so said:
".....and they're written in this period of time where you have groups of individuals who could have fact checked those things." He is making that point to argue the validity of the gospels. No one is thinking about fact checking if Jonah really did live in a whale for three days just as they are not checking Josephus's claim he say a heftier give birth to a lamb.

Say it aint so · Friday at 4:10 PM

2PhiloVoid said:

The in quotation is the Huff statement from the transcript. :oldthumbsup:

Myth has it's function. Judaeo-Christianity makes use of myth.
Honestly, I am not saying anything outside of common understanding.
Joseph Campbell: The Hero with a Thousand Faces

Do atheists constantly change the goalposts?

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !

Well-Known Member

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !

Well-Known Member

'Cuz Mary Shelley was right !

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose