Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote: I am not angered by what people choose to believe but philosophy has been my life's work and I am infuriated by people who accord themselves the right to make a mockery of it.

You must get very angry when someone expresses a philosophical idea that opposes your pet theory.

thedoc wrote: What makes you think that you can paint all Christians with the same brush and deny the possibility of a christian that accepts these stories as metaphors.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm addressing the question posed in the OP by questioning the evidentiary status of such metaphors if an attempt is made to use them as proof of the existence of god. No such proof exists and to a believer no such proof should be necessary.

thedoc wrote: Also what is wrong with accepting the possibility of the miraculous when there is no proof that it didn't happen, only the evidence of everyday experience.

The convention in philosophy is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No claims regarding supernatural events have ever managed to satisfy this proof burden.

thedoc wrote:Just because something has not been observed to have happened, is not proof that it could not have happened.

Does the phrase "physically impossible" mean nothing to you? No man has ever flown to Mars merely by flapping his arms and whistling dixie. What proof would satisfy you that such an event could never occur?

thedoc wrote: Can you prove or disprove free will or determinism?

Most people can't even define them.

thedoc wrote: What philosophy do you debate that is not science and therefore not testable?

None.

Dubious wrote:One would have thought that a 'God" or Son of... would have stood out above those who merely claimed a god as their pappy. Genealogy was so simple in those days. Simply rewrite scripture or narration and you don't even have to ask who your grand pappy was.

Your point is not clear.

Obvious Leo wrote:Consider the "virgin birth" story. In ancient Aramaic the word for "virgin" and "young woman" were the same word. How easily is a miracle made after the event? A virgin giving birth to a child is truly a miraculous event but any young woman can do it if Daddy can't stop the young bucks sniffing around.

Parthenos was a common enough epithet to several goddesses in those times I feel no obligation to believe Mary was one, anymore than I have to believe Athene was one.
And its not as if virgin birth was unusual or even remarkable in those time (not literally of course), literarily.

thedoc wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

thedoc wrote: It would depend on whether you read the "virgin birth" as a biological event or a spiritual one.

This is very much the point I'm making. A teenage girl does not get pregnant unless some randy young bugger jumps her bones. This is hardly a controversial proposition for an educated 21st century person to accept at face value, so trying to sell the "miracle" story to such a person is just not going to work. The same goes for the dead bloke drifting up into the sky.

What the hell is wrong with regarding these stories as the metaphorical fables they were intended as? The existence of god can neither be proven nor disproven but if such bullshit is offered as proof of his existence then you deliver an insult to human reason and declare philosophy to be a farce. I am not angered by what people choose to believe but philosophy has been my life's work and I am infuriated by people who accord themselves the right to make a mockery of it.

What makes you think that you can paint all Christians with the same brush and deny the possibility of a christian that accepts these stories as metaphors. Also what is wrong with accepting the possibility of the miraculous when there is no proof that it didn't happen, only the evidence of everyday experience. Just because something has not been observed to have happened, is not proof that it could not have happened. Absence of proof, is not proof of absence. You claim to champion philosophy, yet there is little in philosophy that is backed by solid testable evidence, it is mostly the opinion of one philosopher over another. Can you prove or disprove free will or determinism? What philosophy do you debate that is not science and therefore not testable?

If the Bible is just a collection of metaphors why, and how, do you chose to cherry pick the things you decided are literal truths?
You might just as well use Lord of the Rings, its truths about loyalty and friendship are more applicable to modern life than anything in the out-of-date bible.

Gentlemen, one and all:

To quote the Bard, "...this wind blows us from our purpose..."

We could argue all day about the evidence for the existence of Christ, the rationality of a First Cause, and so on. But that work has been done for us, abundantly, in print, by others. There is little value for us to recycle it all here, it seems to me. We can turn to the literature and decide that better.

The point of the thread, when posted originally, was clearly supposed to be this: it was supposed to be a devastating demonstration of historical factuality and logic, entailing the failure of Christianity with regard to evidence.

However, even a cursory look shows the original argument offered here to be nothing of the kind...instead, it is factually wrong and logically fallacious.

For example, the Bible does not claim a mere 2 or 4 witnesses to the resurrection, but rather at least 504 who met with Christ after his death, to say nothing of the claim of the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus, the (purported) vision of John, or the many, many opponents of Christianity who proved so incapable of refuting what was surely a most extraordinary and easily-falsifiable claim if it were not true. The poster got a basic number wrong by hundreds (and potentially thousands, if we include the Jewish Authorities, the crowds, the Romans and so on, each of whom witnessed part of the events at least). Yet he was not questioned on it. No one even asked if he had his facts straight.

And then there's his time-claim. Surely logic 101 would be sufficient to acquaint any of us with the irrelevance of mere time passage in the establishment of truth. And yet the poster was allowed to get away with that howler. Everybody just rolled into congratulations and / or piling on, as if something truly wonderful had been achieved. That seems a remarkable failure of critical thought.

To me, then, the interesting question is why no Atheist or Agnostic here, so proud as they may be of their critical faculties, grasp of logic and devotion to truth, found themselves so unable to detect the rudimentary errors of the original poster.

Why did so many miss something so obvious? Can anybody explain?

Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

Well, if you're referring to the Bible, the first 65 books are merely wrapping paper for the book of Revelation, the 66th, an Ouzo combination that mankind adds up to in English gematria simplex (A=1 to Z=26). Mankind is positioned between Christ and Satan in Ouzo combinations.

Said this before in-forum (no one listened then; no one will listen now...*shrug*).

If you're a religionist, go be the best damned religionist you can be and leave all the damned souls to their fates.

If you're a non-religionist, go be the best damned non-religionist you can be and leave the deluded to their delusions.

In short: mind your own friggin' business and keep your stinkn' hands to yourself.

That most of you won't (cuz you're RIGHT and the other guy is WRONG) plays into my point about human nature made over in the socialism thread.

Motherfuckers just can't leave the other guy be...all the time with the directing and coercing.

You ought to tend to your own garden and leave the other to his...but you won't.

Immanuel Can wrote:
For example, the Bible does not claim a mere 2 or 4 witnesses to the resurrection, but rather at least 504 who met with Christ after his death, to say nothing of the claim of the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus, the (purported) vision of John, or the many, many opponents of Christianity who proved so incapable of refuting what was surely a most extraordinary and easily-falsifiable claim if it were not true. The poster got a basic number wrong by hundreds (and potentially thousands, if we include the Jewish Authorities, the crowds, the Romans and so on, each of whom witnessed part of the events at least). Yet he was not questioned on it. No one even asked if he had his facts straight.

The criteria of 'evidence' always seems to depend on what you're willing to accept as rational data. You made your position clear its source being the Bible. You're certainly not alone. Others defined it as being contingent on history, science and logic - the latter in its most prosaic form: can what's dead be resurrected? Paul/Saul knew if this singular event was doubted the whole Jesus movement would implode. It's your choice to believe as Paul did the ONE unconditional imperative of Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead...the reason Easter remains the most important event in the Christian calendar.

An inherent problem with logic, which can make it thoroughly misleading, is that one can apply it expertly to any false premise creating brilliant but false thought crystals in its wake. No amount of artful apologetics can convey credibility once informed about the misinformation and obvious incongruities contained in the Bible but it still remains a personal choice in how you grant credibility.

One thing is clear. Once absurdities get rooted in the brain for too long they nullify virtually every attempt to expurgate it. Religions depend on this being true to verify its lies - which wouldn't be lies if acknowledged as myth and metaphor instead...but that wouldn't be good business when one can trade M & M consisting of nothing but scripture for power and wealth.

bobevenson wrote:I guess you would have told John on the isle of Patmos the same thing after he wrote the prophetic book of Revelation in the year 96AD.

So, one guy writes down his fantastic psychedelic experiences, and the common folk add it to their religion... for thousands of years. This is a good reason not to write down such things with a fixation... but rather, be transformed by the revelations of each moment and move on.

Dubious wrote:The criteria of 'evidence' always seems to depend on what you're willing to accept as rational data.

What standard of rational data did the original poster of this strand meet, in your estimation?

Logic? No. Factual accuracy? No.

It appears, then, that the supporters of his original post were prepared to waive every normal standard of evidence in a desperate rush to embrace his conclusion. What rational justification can they find for that?

henry quirk wrote:You ought to tend to your own garden and leave the other to his...but you won't.

Hi, Henry. Good to catch your cantankerous voice again.

It's interesting: the guy who started this strand was clearly not of your mind. He felt he would like to make a point about Christianity, though I very much suspect he had no stake in Christianity himself. His supporters likewise, I suspect. And yet here they are, all eager to take their turn chewing on other people's beliefs, and they're happy to do it on a website devoted to philosophy.

Now, let a Christian speak for himself, and they are all irate. How dare he speak! Doesn't everybody know that Christians don't do philosophy? (Well, except everybody from Paul to Plantinga, but never mind that.) How dare he occupy our philosophical space? How dare he "proselytize" by refuting something we want to believe...

So who's ringing whose doorbell here?

Immanuel Can wrote:How dare he "proselytize" by refuting something we want to believe...

You've got this arse-about. "To proselytise" is a verb which means to attempt to convert a non-believer to a belief. A non-belief is not itself a belief because these terms are antonymous.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:The criteria of 'evidence' always seems to depend on what you're willing to accept as rational data.

What standard of rational data did the original poster of this strand meet, in your estimation?

Logic? No. Factual accuracy? No.

It appears, then, that the supporters of his original post were prepared to waive every normal standard of evidence in a desperate rush to embrace his conclusion. What rational justification can they find for that?

I'm talking about yours in case you missed it. I've been replying to YOUR posts. Obviously even this was beyond you.

We know the Jesus is your God and Savior. Fine! Now what...or should that be So what and who cares!