Lines of Evidence

[TLK Valentine]

And did the Holy Spirit reveal to you that Hitchen's Razor was right?

Me? Nah... I don't listen to random voices in my head.

The question is, is"Hitchen's Razor" a good rule of thumb or not?

Lacking anything substantial to the contrary, I'll work with it. There are certainly no shortage of blithering idiots who would love nothing more than to have me accept, hook, line, and sinker, whatever they can come up with off the top of their heads without thinking.

If I'm going to dismiss their babblings, I should be able to succinctly explain why.

 

[[serious]]

Ahh but there are things you can assert without evidence.

I assert, for example, that it's not possible for an apple to be all green and all red at the same time. Do I need to provide evidence for that?

I would accept that postulate.

If John is taller than Mary and Mary is taller than Carlos, then John is taller than Carlos. Do I need to provide evidence for that?

Math is based on a well defined set of postulates that I accept.

Every effect has a cause and the cause precedes the effects temporally. Do I need to provide evidence for that?

That one starts getting a little fuzzy. As a general rule, I accept the postulate, but at high energy or small scales, we can only really describe things as probabilities. What caused a vase to fall works, what caused a thorium atom to spontaneously decay at a given moment, not so much.

I do not because these things are known a priori.

Hitchens, on the other hand, proclaimed that he could know a priori that a priori knowledge was impossible.

No, he stated a postulate, as I've already pointed out.

I'll ask again:
Is it more productive to debate with evidence or without?

 

[bhsmte]

I doubt it it was ever conceived that way. It's many different things, to many different people. It's got a ton of different sorts of literature in it, and it's far from any sort of systematized theology -- though there is some sort of correlation between the two testaments.

Doesn't matter whether it was conceived that way, when the powers at be were deciding which stories would make the cut. What matters is how the stories stand up to objective historical scrutiny.

In regards to the NT specifically, parts of it can be regarded as historically credible, but much of it is not.

When you add it all up, it is a work of theology, that each person interprets in their own way (usually driven by what suits their personal needs) and likely why you have so many denominations and interpretations of the same.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Let me, let me!

 

[bhsmte]

I wouldn't accept advice from someone who thinks that the word someone is a valid antecedent for the personal pronoun they.

Then don't.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Doesn't matter whether it was conceived that way, when the powers at be were deciding which stories would make the cut. What matters is how the stories stand up to objective historical scrutiny.

In regards to the NT specifically, parts of it can be regarded as historically credible, but much of it is not.

When you add it all up, it is a work of theology, that each person interprets in their own way (usually driven by what suits their personal needs) and likely why you have so many denominations and interpretations of the same.

You can have your objective historical scrutiny, and historically credible -- I'll rub a healthy does of fiction in and call it historical fiction.

It may seem that way to you, but to me it more like a slowly emerging something.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Not an earlier post, but rather a later post.

Whatever -- are you going to answer the question?

I smell religion.

 

[bhsmte]

You can have your objective historical scrutiny, and historically credible -- I'll rub a healthy does of fiction in and call it historical fiction.

It may seem that way to you, but to me it more like a slowly emerging something.

For much of the NT, fiction is a good word to apply.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The real question is what conclusions do we draw from the gathered evidence? Do we use logic, or do we let God off the leash?

Speciation is not known to occur.

That's all folks!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

For much of the NT, fiction is a good word to apply.

It always starts that way. Even the crowds that gathered around him, thought he was just a fiction -- but then that's how we are.

 

[RickG]

Ahh but there are things you can assert without evidence.

Put this one in your pipe ans smoke it. If evolution were false, we would find fossils of a flora and fauna in all layers of geologic strata. The fact is we don't. That is not an assertion nor an assumption, rather an observed verifiable fact.

 

[bhsmte]

It always starts that way. Even the crowds that gathered around him, thought he was just a fiction -- but then that's how we are.

Well, when personal psychological needs provide enough motivation, what appears to be fiction, can become fact to some.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well, when personal psychological needs provide enough motivation, what appears to be fiction, can become fact to some.

Oh you are so vague.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh you are so vague.

Do you believe that personal psychological needs plays a role in what an individual believes or does not believe?

 

[PsychoSarah]

All humans who have not reached an age at which they are capable of making decisions concerning their eternal life, go to heaven. You cannot be accused of something you cannot comprehend. This, for some, may be younger than others. Some, with mental issues, may never reach it.

And what of those who were never exposed to any biblical teachings before they died, regardless of age?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Do you believe that personal psychological needs plays a role in what an individual believes or does not believe?

'a role' -- sure, yet there's more to the picture than meets the eye. Have you ever read the Gospel of John?

 

[PsychoSarah]

'a role' -- sure, yet there's more to the picture than meets the eye. Have you ever read the Gospel of John?

Most of the atheists on here have read the bible. John is considered to be one of the most flawed biblical texts in the NT.

 

[JacksBratt]

Far be it for me to claim that the Bible is inaccurate about all the things it mentions. I readily accept that the Bible does describe events and people who really existed.

But that doesn't mean it is accurate. The TV show MASH correctly states that there was a Korean War, yet we'd hardly consider it to be a valid source for it.



Ah, my bad, I misunderstood.

Still, I'm curious as to what evidence there is that some people claim supports the Bible and yet others claim supports evolution.

Here is one that is argued.

Polystrate fossils: evidence for a young earth - creation.com

 

[bhsmte]

'a role' -- sure, yet there's more to the picture than meets the eye. Have you ever read the Gospel of John?

Not sure how the anonymous gospel that was later given the title of John, has to do with how personal psychological needs develop in people.

Certainly, one's personal psychological needs, could have great impact on how one interprets and perceives the gospel of John.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not sure how the anonymous gospel that was later given the title of John, has to do with how personal psychological needs develop in people.

Certainly, one's personal psychological needs, could have great impact on how one interprets and perceives the gospel of John.

Do note that belief isn't influenced enough by what a person wants or would be happy believing to be a determining factor by itself. Case in point, myself: being an atheist sucks for me mentally, but despite 6 years of seeking belief, I have yet to attain it.