Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Associated with people like Richard Dawkins...
Well, he is outspoken. Harsh at times. Sometimes wrong.
But arrogant? If you hear him talk, this is a assertion that is untrue.
And he is brilliant!
I am quite honoured to be associated with Richard Dawkins. Or PZ Myers. Or Ophelia Benson. Or Aron Ra... sadly missed on these forums. Or... Or...
There might be atheists that I don't like to be associated with... but this has nothing to do with their atheism. Even atheists can be jerks.
Just like Christians.
A common and uncontroversial stereotype about Christians is that they are all right-bummed holier-than-you autocrats who would like nothing better than stone those evil sinners. Or blathering idiots trying for political power.
But I am sure no one would like to be associated with Christians, would they?
I think he feels we should be ashamed for being associated in his mind with outspoken Atheists...
It's an odd idea.
No. I'm presenting a plausible scenario that is excluded by the trilemma.
We judge them on their own merits, or lack thereof. My point is that the trilemma is a false trichotomy, excluding the possibility of a mundane Rabbi who got some things right and some things (such as his divinity) wrong.
Actually, it would be a tautology, which is completely valid (if, in this case, unsound).
The onus falls on those who claim evidence for the miracles exist, not on those who don't.
I did, and your qualifier just obfuscated the issue. Since the divinity of Christ has not been established, you can't use it to establish his divinity (now that would be circular reasoning). Jesus uttered the words, but whether only God could 'rightfully' say them is irrelevant: anyone can say them, whether 'rightfully' or not, so it's illogical to present his utterance of the words as evidence of his divinity.
You're quite welcome. Now will you give up the charade of Lewis' trilemma, and answer my question?
"The possibility exists that Jesus was simply a sane Rabbi who mistakenly concluded that he was the Messiah (look at Harold Camping or the Millerites for how completely rational people can use specious logic to come to very wrong conclusions). He was sane (so he wasn't a lunatic), he was genuine in his beliefs (so he wasn't a liar), but he was ultimately incorrect (so he wasn't lord). What, then, was he?"
If he was neither lunatic, liar, nor lord, then what was he? Lewis' trilemma fails because it cannot account for viable
And I don't see why you were waiting for this "all along"; it's an obvious statement that goes without saying, and harkens back to pretty much everyone's reply to the OP - namely, that evidence for anything can be dismissed with ad hoc explanations, but that not all explanations are of equal weight.
I know what his intentions were, and I feel they were disingenuous, as he then feigns ignorance.
To suggest that it is the atheist position that exemplifies arrogance is the height of irony. Anti/atheist ambassadors such as Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Carrier, Krauss, Shermer, Dillahunty, AronRa, Thunderf00t and PZ, and others who choose to point out the inanity of religions to be characterized as "arrogant" is laughable. I suppose anyone who exercises free speech is arrogant? What should we say of the Pope, Benny Hinn, Ray Comfort, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Joyce Myers, etc?
That boils down on what evidence are you expecting and/or looking for. The whole absence of evidence is evidence of absence thing just screams argument from ignorance to me. Just because the person doesn't have any evidence doesn't mean the person won't have it in the future, or we simply couldn't find one yet.
It's the same way Carl Sagn famous quote "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in his book Cosmos, I think.
Ah, then you agree that Lewis' trilemma is a false trichotomy. Good.We can add any number of hypotheses to the three to make it a quadrilemma or however many "lemmas" you wish. The question still must be dealt with.
Indeed. And in the absence of evidence for miracles, I recommend we start there.And actually, it is not that difficult at all. We just look at all the evidence and by a process of comparison and elimination we simply get rid of the hypotheses one by one, starting with the weakest and least substantiated.
Nevertheless, we can assume those conditions for the sake of argument and continue analysing the trilemma. The numerous other options, which you agree are viable, render the trilemma a false trichotomy, even to the people that Lewis was addressing. So why do you continue to advocate it?It also must be remembered that Lewis formulated this argument for a specific kind of person. This person is one who believes that the gospels accurately record Jesus' teachings and views of who He Himself was but denies that Jesus is God incarnate.
In other words, this argument is to be presented to the person that interprets Jesus' words to be His, but instead of believing He is God incarnate, kind of just dismiss Him as one of several religious figures.
If anyone here does not fit this description, the trilemma is not for you.
The existence of the fourth possibility defeats Lewis' trilemma, even when we stand in the shoes of the person he is addressing. There are yet more possibilities, of course, but we need only one to demonstrate that the trilemma is a false trichotomy, and therefore doesn't do what Lewis (and you) set out to prove.
Indeed, I'm glad to see you concede that this is a malformed question, then. Perhaps you meant to post it in the "Christian's Only" section? At any rate, at least you are able to recognize it is a false trilemma.We can add any number of hypotheses to the three to make it a quadrilemma or however many "lemmas" you wish. The question still must be dealt with.
And actually, it is not that difficult at all. We just look at all the evidence and by a process of comparison and elimination we simply get rid of the hypotheses one by one, starting with the weakest and least substantiated.
It also must be remembered that Lewis formulated this argument for a specific kind of person. This person is one who believes that the gospels accurately record Jesus' teachings and views of who He Himself was but denies that Jesus is God incarnate.
In other words, this argument is to be presented to the person that interprets Jesus' words to be His, but instead of believing He is God incarnate, kind of just dismiss Him as one of several religious figures.
If anyone here does not fit this description, the trilemma is not for you.
Oooh, I like itFor example, there would be the option: Jesus did indeed do miracles and did indeed believe he was God, but was in fact an unwilling pawn of Satan trying to undermine the true Jewish faith.
Oooh, I like it
Why am I reminded of this...I guess that would make it Lewis' "pentalemma" question?
For example, there would be the option: Jesus did indeed do miracles and did indeed believe he was God, but was in fact an unwilling pawn of Satan trying to undermine the true Jewish faith.
Except Satan doesn't exist as a physical being in Judaism, the whole lovely concept of eternal torment and hell and all that is a Christian invention. Satan in Judaism is nothing more than someone's natural inclination to misbehave. There's no supernatural connotation to it.
Still, I got a good chuckle out of your idea
You mean to tell me all this stuff Christians say about Satan was a lie?
Cue :58
Guy starts to fight with chris pontius (FULL VIDEO) - YouTube
Associated with people like Richard Dawkins...
Well, he is outspoken. Harsh at times. Sometimes wrong.
But arrogant? If you hear him talk, this is a assertion that is untrue.
I guess that would make it Lewis' "pentalemma" question?
Personally I'm steering clear of those ones. Elioenai26 is referring to Lewis' trilemma, which was only ever meant to convince those who broadly accept the truth of the Bible (Jesus was real, said basically what's recorded in the Bible, etc) but who reject the authenticity of his more supernatural claims. The trilemma itself predates Lewis, but Lewis himself only used it to convince those who believe the Gospels were (broadly) accurate in what was said. So by disputing the authenticity of the Bible, you end up talking about a strawman of Elioenai26's argument.What, and exclude mistranslated, mythology, misunderstood and made up? That should make it a non-lemma, so to speak.
So by disputing the authenticity of the Bible, you end up talking about a strawman of Elioenai26's argument.
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I AM the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."I don't believe it, and I don't know why to believe it. I used to believe, and it might be nice if it were true. I often get nostalgic for my former faith, God, and worship, but I don't know why to believe in it. The world doesn't look to me like the God I once loved made it.
"The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor."I don't see God anymore. I see nature and I see feeling creatures.
The Roman Catacombs, 600 miles in length dating 30 A.D. to 313 A.D. show early Christians believed in the resurrection and Jesus as central, as God...Oh well...
What is the evidence? To be honest I still wonder about the apparent case for the resurrection.
You haven't seen Him directly as if walking around today as a human, but He, God, did show Himself to all of humankind. As He had showed Himself to Adam and Eve in the Garden, to Jacob when wrestling with Him "face to face" and to Moses when He showed His back, then ultimately in Jesus. His appearances are rare. Jesus was the final, and ultimate theophany. God showing Himself to all of us.I haven't seen Jesus, and would I believe a man claiming to be God?
Jesus's words are from God, as He is God, however. His words were witnessed by many and shown in archeological findings, as in the Roman Catacombs, dating 30 A.D. onward.I'm sorry, but I don't believe the Bible to be from God, so I don't accept what it says as necessarily true.
"However, the similarity with modern concepts of science can be confusing when trying to understand where the hypothesis came from. It is obvious that classical atomists would never have had a solid empirical basis for our modern concepts of atoms and molecules. Bertrand Russell states that they just hit on a lucky hypothesis, only recently confirmed by evidence."Before there was evidence for atoms why should people have believed in them? It would have been more speculation than anything else. It would make more sense to have claimed ignorance than to have made up that atoms existed. If they didn't have that evidence then it doesn't make alot of sense to claim it to be true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?