Atheism

[juvenissun]

That's not an atheist. That's a skeptic. Those aren't perfectly overlapping categories.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So, you mean that an atheist only does not recognize god. He may recognize any other unproven idea, includes ghost.

If so, could you tell me what is the difference between a ghost and a god?

 

[juvenissun]

Your dictionary? Which one would that be?

Mine. Any objection?

 

[stiggywiggy]

Popularity is not an indicator of the truth. Just because millions believe it doesn't make it true.

Who said it did???

The fact remains that anyone who would give equal weight to the remote possibility of the reality of phenomena allegedly experience by millions, as he would to that experienced by a mere five is a philosophical moron, not even fit for jury duty.

Ya know; if you wanna believe it, knock yourself out; but don't be surprised if someone else implies the same skeptism to your unsubstantiated claims of a trancended Holy Spirit as you apply to my unsubstantiated claim of trancended fairies.

Surprised? You are precisely wrong. I would be surprised if people who have not experienced a transcendent moment in their lives would NOT be skeptical. I sure was once.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Which of course means that if something is untestable (transcendent) we can make whatever claims we want and no one can gainsay us.

Not.

What do you mean you CAN?? Of course you can IF you feel that it was real. No honest man would make such a claim in order to secure a safeguard from being gain-sayed (gainsaid?).

 

[hollyda]

I just assumed you KNEW that most believers ARE adults. My bad.

You are contradicting yourself and being snobbish about it.

Really? You and I hang out with a different circle of people. Personally, I've never met an adult who believes in Santa Claus.

 

[Ken-1122]

Who said it did???

The fact remains that anyone who would give equal weight to the remote possibility of the reality of phenomena allegedly experience by millions, as he would to that experienced by a mere five is a philosophical moron, not even fit for jury duty.

I disagree! After years of study and observation, I give zero (0) weight to the possibility of the reality of phenomena allegedly experienced by millions and I give zero(0) weight to the possibility of such claims by the mere five, thus they are given the same weight.

Your claim that I should give some weight to one claim simply because millions believe it is suggesting that you believe popularity should be considered as some sort of an indicator of truth.

Ken

 

[RobinRobyn]

I doubt it. I have read a lot of writings by ancient Greeks and never ran across that. But perhaps you'd like to share what you found in regard to ancient Greek testimonies involving experiences with Zeus.

Read any book on Greek Mythology.

Sorry. That would not be a transcendent claim. These people think the empirical Elvis Presley is still alive.

You didn't specify that. All you said was "hundreds who claim to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ." And hundreds, if not more, also claim to have experienced the reality of Elvis.

I see. You're on record as saying we should give equal weight to the claims of Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, Jimmy Carter, George Washington, and millions of others, as we do to the claims of people who say they have seen Elvis.

Sure. Anyone can claim anything they want, but until we see something more than just the claim, we have nothing to "weigh" the claim by.

Hopefully, most atheists are not that irrational.

What's irrational about it?

 

[stiggywiggy]

You are contradicting yourself and being snobbish about it.

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to point out the alleged contradiction. Call the first quote of mine Statement #1,. then supply statement #2, and we'll see if they contradict.

Really? You and I hang out with a different circle of people. Personally, I've never met an adult who believes in Santa Claus.

OK, you want that to be staement #1?

You can take it from here.
​

 

[stiggywiggy]

I disagree! After years of study and observation, I give zero (0) weight to the possibility of the reality of phenomena allegedly experienced by millions and I give zero(0) weight to the possibility of such claims by the mere five, thus they are given the same weight.

Well, there you go. Not much more can be said about such blind stubborness, other than how you remind me of the stereotypical scientist in 50's B sci-fi flicks, who scoffs at even the remote possibility that all those citizens can be anything other than delusional.

Your claim that I should give some weight to one claim simply because millions believe it

Yes. I sure do. But don't take the "should" as a moral imperative, but rather what would be in line with commmon sense.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Read any book on Greek Mythology.

I don't think Edith Hamilton will tell me if any ancient Greek citizens claim to have had a transcendent experience with Zeus.

You didn't specify that. All you said was "hundreds who claim to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ."

Wrong. I never said that. I'm very aware that more than a hundered people claim to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ. That would be more like hundreds of millions.

And hundreds, if not more, also claim to have experienced the reality of Elvis.

So in weighing even the remote possibility of inexplicable phenomena which you've never experienced, you'd give equal consideration to the testimonies of one group of people as you would to another group who outnumbers them by a factor of a million? I don't believe that is very rational.

 

[RobinRobyn]

I don't think Edith Hamilton will tell me if any ancient Greek citizens claim to have had a transcendent experience with Zeus.

They believed Zeus was real, you believe Jesus Christ is real.

Wrong. I never said that.

I quoted you saying it. Here's the full quote:

I have never met anyone who claims to have experienced the reality of Zeus. And yet we have both met hundreds who claim to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ. Should both testimonies be given equal weight, i.e. ZERO, when contemplating the POSSIBILITY that there might be a realm that transcends the empirical?

All I said was that people believed, and some still believe, that Zeus is real. Should I believe them? Should I believe them more if more people agree with them?

So in weighing even the remote possibility of inexplicable phenomena which you've never experienced, you'd give equal consideration to the testimonies of one group of people as you would to another group who outnumbers them by a factor of a million? I don't believe that is very rational.

It's very rational. Let me put it another way: if one Nigerian prince says he's going to let you have some of his money if you send him some of yours, do you believe him? If two Nigerian princes say this, do you believe it more? How about if a hundred Nigerian princes say it? A hundred million? If you say it's irrational to not give more credit to claims made by large groups of people you would have to.

 

[Davian]

Who said it did???

The fact remains that anyone who would give equal weight to the remote possibility of the reality of phenomena allegedly experience by millions, as he would to that experienced by a mere five is a philosophical moron, not even fit for jury duty.

Surprised? You are precisely wrong. I would be surprised if people who have not experienced a transcendent moment in their lives would NOT be skeptical. I sure was once.

How can you be sure that what you, or *anyone* else, has experienced was a "transcendent" moment? Is all we have your word for this?

How can you demonstrate this 'transcendence' to me?

There may be other far more parsimonious explanations for these experiences.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think the point (not that I necessarily agree with it) is that one is transcendent, and the other is not.

No, you believe one to be transcendent and the other not. You clearly assume that Jesus wasn't a mere human being, and you lack faith in the Risen Elvis.

To atheists, Jesus and Elvis surviving the grave are equally absurd. Sightings of either are not rational reasons to view either as suprahuman beings. It doesn't matter how many famous people you name as witnesses. People can see things that aren't really there, such as Elvis, and such as Jesus Christ.

That is why Elvis is mentioned as an example of someone who has been seen after his alleged death. To someone who does not assume that Jesus is a divine being, sightings of that figure are dismissed just as readily as with Elvis sightings.

I wonder what you think of the rationality of Thomas -- you know, doubting Thomas. Was he rational to doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, even though there was some alleged "500" individuals who claimed to have seen Jesus Christ again in the flesh? Were the apostles rational to think that others would believe merely on someone's say-so?

Also, if someone were to claim that Elvis was supernatural, would that make sightings of Elvis a rational reason to believe in his.. supernatural nature? Wouldn't that strike you as circular?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Cabal]

No, you believe one to be transcendent and the other not. You clearly assume that Jesus wasn't a mere human being, and you lack faith in the Risen Elvis.

As I said, I don't actually believe this. I think that was stiggywiggy's distinction between the two cases, but as you say it is perfectly questionable.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As I said, I don't actually believe this. I think that was stiggywiggy's distinction between the two cases, but as you say it is perfectly questionable.

Sorry, I meant that as a reply to one of stiggywiggy's posts. A lack of morning coffee made me reply to yours by accident.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Cabal]

Sorry, I meant that as a reply to one of stiggywiggy's posts. A lack of morning coffee made me reply to yours by accident.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Nae bother

 

[KCfromNC]

Seems like his "asumption" has become quite a dogma for him. He's made a career out of declaring his assumptions.

This has nothing to do with the fact that you're claiming he says something different than he actually says. Which one of you two is lying?

 

[KCfromNC]

How can you be sure that what you, or *anyone* else, has experienced was a "transcendent" moment? Is all we have your word for this?

How can you demonstrate this 'transcendence' to me?

There may be other far more parsimonious explanations for these experiences.

Yeah, it's not like non-believers don't have the same feelings as believers. We just don't pretend that they're a magical door to lands of wonder and amazement which transcend reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

So in weighing even the remote possibility of inexplicable phenomena which you've never experienced, you'd give equal consideration to the testimonies of one group of people as you would to another group who outnumbers them by a factor of a million? I don't believe that is very rational.

Sure. This is why the testimony for Buddhism, Catholicism and Islam are obviously superior to that of Evangelical Protestant Christianity.

Or was that not what you wanted to demonstrate here?

 

[hollyda]

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to point out the alleged contradiction. Call the first quote of mine Statement #1,. then supply statement #2, and we'll see if they contradict.

[/B]

OK, you want that to be staement #1?

You can take it from here.
​

Apparently it's too much to ask you to read and comprehend what is being said, even if you are the one saying it.

I'll put this in one place to make it easy for you.

Do explain. Why should we discount the claims of people who have seen Elvis, and yet count the claims of people who have seen Jesus?


eudaimonia,

Mark

My response:

I've seen Santa every year at my local mall since I was little. He's there now, actually. And there are witnesses. Lots of them. And many are ardent believers.

Your response:

Really? You and I hang out with a different circle of people. Personally, I've never met an adult who believes in Santa Claus.

My response:

Please quote where I said the believers were adults. I don't recall writing it.

Your response:

I just assumed you KNEW that most believers ARE adults. My bad.

I was following the conversation -- your first claim that I indicated the believers in Santa to which I referred were adults (and I didn't -- you inferred it), and then contradicting that statement when you again responded to me.

The point I was making in the first post, and you were dodging was that eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. You don't know this as a child, but then you realize that the man at Christmas isn't mythological and move on. Some people merely forget to look for the strings when they get older. Those people who see Elvis or Big Foot or Nessie genuinely do see something, but to use that as support of those things existing when other venues haven't been explored is disingenuous. Yet you expect skeptics do the same based on the firsthand experiences of a highly biased claim of "millions" experiencing Jesus.