Teaser question...

[Nihilist Virus]

He doesn't meet the criteria because he never saw the risen Jesus? I would assume he would have been one of the 500 people who saw Christ after Resurrection. IDK if he is specifically mentioned, but it would seem very plausible he was.

I'm already being very generous with the sources in that I'm allowing literally anything. It could be scribblings on a bathroom wall. If you want to allow speculation, then anyone can prove anything.

 

[Moral Orel]

Depends on how you define what it means to know something.

Do you define them differently?

For instance, would you say that you "know 2+2=4" or would you say that you "believe 2+2=4" or would you use either statement completely interchangeably?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I'm already being very generous with the sources in that I'm allowing literally anything. It could be scribblings on a bathroom wall. If you want to allow speculation, then anyone can prove anything.

Why doesn't James fit the criteria?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Do you define them differently?

For instance, would you say that you "know 2+2=4" or would you say that you "believe 2+2=4" or would you use either statement completely interchangeably?

The difference between them is that I can know I exist, but almost with everything else, it is a belief that I believe to be the case given the circumstances. For example, I believe Christianity is true, but not with the same certainty that I know I exist. So knowledge is a certain sureness about something that doesn't factor in how likely I think something is to be true and belief does have to do with likelihood. I can believe something if I am 51% sure about something, but that doesn't mean I know it to be true for a fact.

 

[Moral Orel]

The difference between them is that I can know I exist, but almost with everything else, it is a belief that I believe to be the case given the circumstances. For example, I believe Christianity is true, but not with the same certainty that I know I exist. So knowledge is a certain sureness about something that doesn't factor in how likely I think something is to be true and belief does have to do with likelihood. I can believe something if I am 51% sure about something, but that doesn't mean I know it to be true for a fact.

Okay, then there's your reason for things like "agnostic atheist": you need separate terms for knowledge claims and belief claims. Also, bear in mind that a lot of people are aware of solipsism and choose to ignore it by assuming axiomatically that things are generally as they appear. That opens up a lot of other candidates for "knowledge" instead of "belief".

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Okay, then there's your reason for things like "agnostic atheist": you need separate terms for knowledge claims and belief claims. Also, bear in mind that a lot of people are aware of solipsism and choose to ignore it by assuming axiomatically that things are generally as they appear. That opens up a lot of other candidates for "knowledge" instead of "belief".

Well, then I would ask what things we can actually know (as in knowledge and not belief) outside of our own existence. To me this is a no-brainier that the answer is pretty much nothing. Even Dawkins himself doesn't say he's a Gnostic Atheist because he doesn't put himself at a 7. Still, he's said even if God opened the skies and came down to speak to him directly, that he still wouldn't believe it was God. To me, that is a special kind of unbelief that means Dawkins is pretty much beyond the point of being saved if he is actually being truthful there. So I don't find the idea of Gnostic knowledge a useful category at all. The result would mean belief then, in almost every instance, has to do with everything. Hence, you can call yourself an Atheist, an Agnostic, or a Theist and that only these categories make sense. I say this because Agnostic here would basically mean you think the probability for God existing is about 50% and not much more or less than that. But if you call yourself an Atheist or Theist, and you believe it with, let's say 55% probability, then that would be your belief.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why doesn't James fit the criteria?

He would if you could show me where he was given the opportunity to recant and go free. I don't see that being mentioned in Acts.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

He would if you could show me where he was given the opportunity to recant and go free. I don't see that being mentioned in Acts.

I'm going to do some digging on this in my Church Fathers material I have. I assume you already know it's not in there, which is why you have the requirements you do for believing. Namely, that you know your criteria cannot be fulfilled which is why you have the criteria in the first place. I could be wrong about this, but I don't think I am. Basically, I don't think you've valued what the evidence is independent to you, but instead based on what we already have.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

@Nihilist Virus, I found this in "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" Book V Section I.


Concerning James the Brother of the Lord, and Stephen the First Martyr.

"VIII. Now concerning the martyrs, we say to you that they are to be had in all honour with you, as we honour the blessed James the bishop, and the holy Stephen our fellow-servant. For these are reckoned blessed by God, and are honoured by holy men, who were pure from all transgressions, immoveable when tempted to sin, or persuaded from good works, without dispute deserving encomiums: of whom also David speaks, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His holy ones;” 66 and Solomon says, “The memory of the just is with encomiums: “67 of whom also the prophet speaks, “Righteous men are taken away.”68

Concerning False Martyrs.

IX. These things we have said concerning those that in truth have been martyrs for Christ, but not concerning false martyrs, concerning whom the oracle speaks, “The name of the ungodly is extinguished.”69 For “a faithful witness will not lie, but an unjust witness inflames lies.”70 For he that departs this life in his testimony without lying, for the sake of the truth, is a faithful martyr, worthy to be believed in such things wherein he strove for the word of piety by his own blood."

Now, it doesn't say explicitly in the text that they were told to recant, but it does elude to that when it says they didn't sin when they could have and were committed to doing "Good works" despite their suffering.

Let me know what you think of this and its implications.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

@Nihilist Virus, I also found this in "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians"

"Chapter III. — The True Doctrine Respecting Christ.

Mindful of him, do ye by all means know that Jesus the Lord was truly born of Mary, being made of a woman; and was as truly crucified. For, says he, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of the Lord Jesus.”11 And He really suffered, and died, and rose again. For says [Paul], “If Christ should become passible, and should be the first to rise again from the dead.”12 And again, “In that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.”13 Otherwise, what advantage would there be in [becoming subject to] bonds, if Christ has not died? what advantage in patience? what advantage in [enduring] stripes? And why such facts as the following: Peter was crucified; Paul and James were slain with the sword; John was banished to Patmos; Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews who killed the Lord? But, [in truth, ] none of these sufferings were in vain; for the Lord was really crucified by the ungodly."

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

@Nihilist Virus, There is also this:

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I disagree. It is always wrong to torture a baby for fun, for example. That's an example of objective morality.

Can you tell us why it is always wrong?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Can you tell us why it is always wrong?

.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

@InterestedAtheist,

I see what you are getting at. You think it says in the Bible that that is okay to do. Guess what? It never says to torture babies for fun in the Bible. That's a fact. Prove me wrong if you can.

The problem you have with the Bible talking about killing children is that it is always wrong to kill children. But it doesn't say to kill children for fun in the Bible. It says to kill them because if they live they will cause more harm by being alive then it would be if they were dead. THAT is why YHWH commanded that. That's the purpose behind it. So I would put it to you this way: If you could go back in time and kill Hitler and prevent him from killing so many people, would you do it? Why or why not?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm going to do some digging on this in my Church Fathers material I have. I assume you already know it's not in there, which is why you have the requirements you do for believing. Namely, that you know your criteria cannot be fulfilled which is why you have the criteria in the first place.

Lol, no. I'm not the one who invented the "Why die for a lie?" argument. Apologists are the ones who did. They then fall flat on their face when trying to actually prove that the martyrs died willingly. Basically, apologists make a case strong enough to be persuasive to those who already believe so that they will get paid in the form of donations. If you already believe, you'll connect the dots yourself. But they've failed to actually connect the dots.

The "Why die for a lie?" argument is persuasive. At least it would be if it merely had the facts to back it up.

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think I am. Basically, I don't think you've valued what the evidence is independent to you, but instead based on what we already have.

I do already know that nothing in canonized scripture meets my criteria. I know little to nothing about non-canonized works and so this is a genuine inquiry.

@Nihilist Virus, I found this in "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" Book V Section I.


Concerning James the Brother of the Lord, and Stephen the First Martyr.

"VIII. Now concerning the martyrs, we say to you that they are to be had in all honour with you, as we honour the blessed James the bishop, and the holy Stephen our fellow-servant. For these are reckoned blessed by God, and are honoured by holy men, who were pure from all transgressions, immoveable when tempted to sin, or persuaded from good works, without dispute deserving encomiums: of whom also David speaks, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His holy ones;” 66 and Solomon says, “The memory of the just is with encomiums: “67 of whom also the prophet speaks, “Righteous men are taken away.”68

Concerning False Martyrs.

IX. These things we have said concerning those that in truth have been martyrs for Christ, but not concerning false martyrs, concerning whom the oracle speaks, “The name of the ungodly is extinguished.”69 For “a faithful witness will not lie, but an unjust witness inflames lies.”70 For he that departs this life in his testimony without lying, for the sake of the truth, is a faithful martyr, worthy to be believed in such things wherein he strove for the word of piety by his own blood."

Now, it doesn't say explicitly in the text that they were told to recant, but it does elude to that when it says they didn't sin when they could have and were committed to doing "Good works" despite their suffering.

Let me know what you think of this and its implications.

This appears to be a modern book. Assuming it is a compilation of ancient literature from within 200 years of Christ, I still don't see the criteria being satisfied. It's just speculation.

@Nihilist Virus, I also found this in "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians"

"Chapter III. — The True Doctrine Respecting Christ.

Mindful of him, do ye by all means know that Jesus the Lord was truly born of Mary, being made of a woman; and was as truly crucified. For, says he, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of the Lord Jesus.”11 And He really suffered, and died, and rose again. For says [Paul], “If Christ should become passible, and should be the first to rise again from the dead.”12 And again, “In that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.”13 Otherwise, what advantage would there be in [becoming subject to] bonds, if Christ has not died? what advantage in patience? what advantage in [enduring] stripes? And why such facts as the following: Peter was crucified; Paul and James were slain with the sword; John was banished to Patmos; Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews who killed the Lord? But, [in truth, ] none of these sufferings were in vain; for the Lord was really crucified by the ungodly."

Again, these facts are not new. The criteria is not satisfied.

@Nihilist Virus, There is also this:

What time stamp in the video?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Lol, no. I'm not the one who invented the "Why die for a lie?" argument. Apologists are the ones who did. They then fall flat on their face when trying to actually prove that the martyrs died willingly. Basically, apologists make a case strong enough to be persuasive to those who already believe so that they will get paid in the form of donations. If you already believe, you'll connect the dots yourself. But they've failed to actually connect the dots.

The "Why die for a lie?" argument is persuasive. At least it would be if it merely had the facts to back it up.



I do already know that nothing in canonized scripture meets my criteria. I know little to nothing about non-canonized works and so this is a genuine inquiry.



This appears to be a modern book. Assuming it is a compilation of ancient literature from within 200 years of Christ, I still don't see the criteria being satisfied. It's just speculation.



Again, these facts are not new. The criteria is not satisfied.



What time stamp in the video?

Do you realized all you have done is say, "Oh, you think martyrdom shows they didn't die for a lie, huh? Well, guess what? You can't prove it!" which I take issue with because you are not actually critically thinking about what evidence would convince you personally outside of what we already have. You have to remember that even if you don't get your EXACT criteria met that, objectively, what I have talked about should at least give you some pause if you are acting in good faith. So while it is probably not stated explicitly whether or not the Apostles had the chance to recant or not, this doesn't actually mean you can't call them a martyr. In 2016, there was a priest who was giving communion when some terrorists came up to him during the service and slit his throat. Both the secular people and the Christian audience and the people from the faith that the terrorists come from all said he was a martyr. So while this person didn't actually have time to recant, he was still called a martyr from multiple parties involved. Plus, IDK what gives you the idea that the texts from the second century or before would even use the kind of language you are requiring. They might be saying the same thing, just putting it in different terms. If that's the case, then you don't believe Christianity based on a technicality rather than whether or not it actually meets your "requirements".

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

@Nihilist Virus, I found this:
Do the Apostles of Jesus Qualify as Martyrs? | Sean McDowell

Now, the question, of course, still stands that you just so happen, by my estimation, not by coincidence, to find a loophole to believing in the Christian faith. So I'd like to ask you now how you came up with the acceptable evidence you have for whether or not you would believe Christianity is True.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What other religions have the same kind of evidence for it?

Okay, first off, that's the wrong question for you to be asking. You shouldn't be thinking "Does my religion have better evidence than all of the others?" or saying "My religion has better evidence than all of the others, therefore it must be true." We do no yet have any evidence that any religion is true.
The question you should be asking is, "Does my religion have good, solid, convincing evidence?"

Islam can't demonstrate itself to be consistent, but there is certainly evidence that there was a guy named Mohamed who wrote about book about things. Buddhism is based on virtually zero historical evidence. Judaism largely pulls from the same sources as Christianity, but they have a bit different view of things currently.

Islam, Judaism and Buddhism are not your only problems. There is also every other religion that has ever existed, plus all the variants of Christianity so different to yours that they would say you are going to hell for heresy. Because all of them have a trump card to play: no matter what the evidence, or lack of it, they have faith that they are right. And really, how can you say that they are wrong? If they say that their God or gods have revealed the truth to them and told them that their religion is the One True Faith, and that any other views on the matter are mistaken, because God works in Mysterious Ways - well, what could you say to prove them wrong?

Plenty of archeology for King David existing currently. Atheists used to say there wasn't any evidence for King David as a way to disprove the Bible and now we have lot's of evidence he existed.

Interesting and perhaps some atheists were surprised by that. But so what? If it turns out that the stories in the Old Testament were at least in part based on real people and events, why should that matter?

Sure, but why should you actually care about that?

Because it makes the world a better place for humanity, and I and the people that I personally care about are a part of humanity.

Do you expect me to change my mind on God because of this if I was to participate? My faith isn't really based on Apologetics, but on personal experience. Apologetics is just the icing on the cake.

I expect you to change your mind about things you are proven to be mistaken about. Euthyphro's Dilemma is perhaps the ultimate counter to theists - including Christians - who believe that their morality is based upon the existence of God. If you don't believe that, if you believe that morality is something that humans are able to construct for themselves, then there is no problem.

In other words, Dawkins has no idea why people invented God. Noted.

You misread it. True, Dawkins is not sure about why people might have invented God (how could he be certain of such a thing?) but he has some interesting and plausible explanations that make sense. In this case, the reason might well be that there is an evolutionary advantage for children in believing exactly what their elders tell them to be true; it is more likely that children who believe what their elders say and follow their directions would live to grow up and produce more children. The unexpected outcome of this is that we also end up with a species that tends to invent stories about the world and tends to believe those stories if they were told in childhood, thus leading to religions.

Yeah, she values that for her children, but practically speaking, she can do her job perfectly well if none of this sophistry existed.

Two points: first, did you just call rational thinking, the scientific method, mathematics, logic and philosophy "sophistry"? Tut, tut, my dear sir!
Second, could she really do her job just as well if she hadn't had a good education? In a world without the scientific or industrial or agricultural revolutions? In a world without democracy? In a world with no computers, smart phones, airplanes? These are all things that thinking rationally has led to.
Honestly, right now I'm not sure what you're trying to say. But it's curious that somebody on a debating forum seems to be denigrating logic and rationality.

Perhaps you are unaware of the underground slave trading going on right now.

Sure I'm aware of it. The underground slave trade. Something of an improvement on the totally-legal and government-approved slave trade in centuries and millennia past, I'd say.

I agree.

Good, because "quoting another person, whose views you understand and can discuss, in order to make a point," is what we do here.

I was thinking your English was pretty good for being from China.

I should, perhaps, find a way to let people know about that. Maybe a note in my signature?

Not sure why you thought I was talking about gnostic knowledge then.

This started when you seemed unaware of what an agnostic atheist was. I trust you now understand why I, and most other atheists, consider ourselves to be agnostic atheists?

Try it and see what happens.

I think I won't. They might think I was being strange. Besides, anecdotal evidence doesn't really count for much, nor should it.
Why don't you see if you can make a case for the supernatural rationally instead?

It's based on historical facts that pretty much every NT scholar agrees with.

It's based on accepting the stories in the Bible as true, and there's your problem, right there. Yes, the story says that these minimal facts happened. That says nothing at all about whether they really did or not.
I often think it would be very interesting if we could take a time machine and go back in time to see what actually happened, and how wrong the Bible turns out to be.

I think it was a prophesy about the death of Christ and this holds completely independent of when you date Isaiah.

You're quite mistaken. Ask the Jews what they think about it; it's their book. They will tell you that it refers not to a single person, much less Jesus, but to Israel. It's talking about how Israel will one day rise up and amaze the world with its success.

When another atheists philosopher is quoted saying something to the effect of the book being "an embarrassment" that is what I was talking about.

First, which atheist philosopher is this? Second, does he or she demonstrate that the apologetics arguments are correct and that Dawkins is wrong in the ways he disproves them?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I see what you are getting at. You think it says in the Bible that that is okay to do.

While that might be an interesting debate, no, that's not what I meant at all. I meant exactly what I said. You say it is always wrong to torture a baby for fun. Can you tell us why?
What I'm interested in is what you base your morality on, you understand. This seems a very good place to ask you. You don't have to answer. Do you have an answer at all? Do you know why it is always wrong to torture a baby for fun?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

While that might be an interesting debate, no, that's not what I meant at all. I meant exactly what I said. You say it is always wrong to torture a baby for fun. Can you tell us why?
What I'm interested in is what you base your morality on, you understand. This seems a very good place to ask you. You don't have to answer. Do you have an answer at all? Do you know why it is always wrong to torture a baby for fun?

The sanctity of human life. That's why. We are made in God's image. And if we are In Christ, we are His workmanship. So it follows that we sould take utmost care for those who can't defend themselves - especially other believers.