Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
#26

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 03:17 PM)brewerb Wrote: I'm getting the impression that JAG will spend most of his time talking at us (preaching) than to us.

This is why I tend not to engage with these types anymore.
God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking. 
Reply
#27

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 03:32 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(10-04-2020, 03:17 PM)brewerb Wrote: I'm getting the impression that JAG will spend most of his time talking at us (preaching) than to us.

This is why I tend not to engage with these types anymore.

It can still be a useful mental exercise.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Reltzik
Reply
#28

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
According to a staff note at AF, this thread's OP has been posted verbatim at multiple forums.
[Image: afo-sig-009%20copy.jpg]
The following 5 users Like Dānu's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, mordant, skyking, Cheerful Charlie, Reltzik
Reply
#29

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 06:30 AM)Cavebear Wrote:
(10-03-2020, 03:13 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Either Jesus arose from the dead or He didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if He did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

H. L. Mencken


That's the hump that both you and Craig have to get over.

Yeah, up to them to prove their claim.  And I seriously doubt they can.

Actually Mencken didn't get it right, at all. But he can be forgiven. It's not is field. 
Jewish Apocalyptic heroes were said to be "raised up", or sometimes said to be "exalted". 
The word used in Paul to describe this, is the same Greek word used in Luke in the prophecy of Simeon the Prophet, when in the story of Jesus being presented in the temple, he said "this child shall be responsible for the *rise* and fall, of many in Israel. It's a change in relative position, (not a rising from the dead). The tradition of Jewish heroes being "exalted' for their extraordinary deeds,  goes back quite a way, but is thought to have been reflected where the 7 sons of Hanna are tortured and refuse to give in to their captors. They are "exalted" to a position of high esteem. They are granted a form of "immortality", in the same sense Babe Ruth is a "baseball immortal".

I was aware in grad school that several Christian New Testament scholars (one a seminary professorr) were writing and teaching about this before Bart Ehrman wrote his (great) book, "How Jesus Became God, or the EXALTATION of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee" There are things in it I disagree with, but the basic points are quite true. What is even more interesting is the lame attempt of a set of Fundy Christian figures and *academics* (cough) to try to refute Ehrman. in "How God became Jesus" ... or some such nonsense. It more than shows the pathetic level of scholarship in Fundy Christian academic circles. I wrote a long piece for TTA about the "resurrection" just before I graduated ... I might post it somewhere.
The following 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Peebothuhlu, Gwaithmir, Reltzik
Reply
#30

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
I doubt that Mencken gave a flying fuck about the jews.  He was addressing the fundie shitheads of his day.  Remember that Mencken covered the Scopes Monkey Trial for the Baltimore Sun.  He'd had his fill of those morons.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#31

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 06:19 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
(10-03-2020, 04:44 PM)Dānu Wrote: What does the phrase, "Christianity is true," mean?

Generally it means whatever sect the "True Xtian" who is asking happens to be.

In Bart Ehrman's book "The Lost Christianities" he spells out what early jesus freaks thought in the 2d and 3d centuries.  (It doesn't seem that there were any jesus freaks in the first century which is another major problem they have.)

Quote:The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological
beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of
Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who
believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two.
Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that
God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created
by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled
with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than
that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a
place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering.
In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that
the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one
true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not
the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed
it was not inspired.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that
Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians
who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them,
divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a
man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was
a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself
divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two
things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ,
who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him
prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering
in its aftermath.

In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that
Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians
who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the
world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died.

Pg 2.

So I have to laugh when xtians claim that jesusism grew in leaps and bounds.  What seems to have grown were the varieties of what passed for xtianity but this was composed of isolated groups each with their own vision of what their godboy was.  It led to lots of problems later on but when the Romans finally noticed them in the late 2d century we get this from the philosopher Celsus c 180.

[Image: 3fbc6e89a4a398b947e7f1227877863d.png]

The myth of a universal church which was the font of all wisdom came much later.

The notion of modern Christians that they have the most fidelity to some imagined "pure" or "primitive" Christianity never seemed credible to me even when I was a Christian. The whole point of Darbyism and the various flavors of fundamentalist Christianity that it gave rise to, was to restore vibrancy and orthodoxy to faith and practice. That was also the impulse behind somewhat later groups like the Mormons, JWs and SDAs. The central conceit of all such groups was that they were restorative movements to lead the church back to its long-abandoned roots.

Most modern Christians, even if the language and cultural barriers could be magically swept aside, would feel acutely uncomfortable if transported by time machine to some house church of the 1st, 2nd or 3rd centuries. Only after Nicea would they even start to see familiar aspects, or at least Catholics would. If they could visit such early gatherings of believers in many different locations over a period of many generations, they'd see massive variations, as Ehrman points out. It would fly in the face of the idea that there was an original pure doctrine and practice that has been fairly universal ever since. They'd have to admit that the pure dogma was corrupted almost at once, at the very least. But the unforced explanation is that it never existed to begin with. There was just the cult of Jesus, at first a sect within Judaism, later expelled by the orthodox Jews and left to its own devices. It evolved, and certain factions won out, mostly through political means, just as modern fundamentalists are trying to make an unholy alliance with the political far right.
Reply
#32

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 04:46 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-04-2020, 06:30 AM)Cavebear Wrote:
(10-03-2020, 03:13 PM)Minimalist Wrote: That's the hump that both you and Craig have to get over.

Yeah, up to them to prove their claim.  And I seriously doubt they can.

Actually Mencken didn't get it right, at all. But he can be forgiven. It's not is field. 
Jewish Apocalyptic heroes were said to be "raised up", or sometimes said to be "exalted". 
The word used in Paul to describe this, is the same Greek word used in Luke in the prophecy of Simeon the Prophet, when in the story of Jesus being presented in the temple, he said "this child shall be responsible for the *rise* and fall, of many in Israel. It's a change in relative position, (not a rising from the dead). The tradition of Jewish heroes being "exalted' for their extraordinary deeds,  goes back quite a way, but is thought to have been reflected where the 7 sons of Hanna are tortured and refuse to give in to their captors. They are "exalted" to a position of high esteem. They are granted a form of "immortality", in the same sense Babe Ruth is a "baseball immortal".

I was aware in grad school that several Christian New Testament scholars (one a seminary professorr) were writing and teaching about this before Bart Ehrman wrote his (great) book, "How Jesus Became God, or the EXALTATION of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee" There are things in it I disagree with, but the basic points are quite true. What is even more interesting is the lame attempt of a set of Fundy Christian figures and *academics* (cough) to try to refute Ehrman. in "How God became Jesus" ... or some such nonsense. It more than shows the pathetic level of scholarship in Fundy Christian academic circles. I wrote a long piece for TTA about the "resurrection" just before I graduated ... I might post it somewhere.

Most of that doesn't make any sense and I'm ACCUSTOMED to theists making poor arguments...
I came to a fork in the road, and I took it!
Reply
#33

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 03:39 PM)Dānu Wrote: According to a staff note at AF, this thread's OP has been posted verbatim at multiple forums.

From the font size and style, it's obvious it's copy-pasta.

The OP does seem more interested in monologue than dialogue.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
Reply
#34

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
Looks as if he abandoned ship.  True Believers have a hard time with flagrant denials of their fairy tales.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Cavebear, Szuchow, Gwaithmir
Reply
#35

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 09:07 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Looks as if he abandoned ship.  True Believers have a hard time with flagrant denials of their fairy tales.

Yeah, you poke a hole in a balloon, and POOF!
I came to a fork in the road, and I took it!
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#36

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 09:12 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(10-04-2020, 09:07 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Looks as if he abandoned ship.  True Believers have a hard time with flagrant denials of their fairy tales.

Yeah, you poke a hole in a balloon, and POOF!

Not unexpected, though he did interact a bit on the Introductions thread.

Might be another believer in a manic phase, posting to multiple boards (also just a naive / gauche thing to do in general) and realized he bit off way more than he can chew.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply
#37

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
You all have poked holes in WLC arguments for a long time now. That is one of the things we miss from the old forum, a simple search would show that quoting him is a complete waste of time.
The following 1 user Likes skyking's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#38

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 09:19 PM)mordant Wrote:
(10-04-2020, 09:12 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(10-04-2020, 09:07 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Looks as if he abandoned ship.  True Believers have a hard time with flagrant denials of their fairy tales.

Yeah, you poke a hole in a balloon, and POOF!

Not unexpected, though he did interact a bit on the Introductions thread.

Might be another believer in a manic phase, posting to multiple boards (also just a naive / gauche thing to do in general) and realized he bit off way more than he can chew.

Theists often face a hard reality when they run into atheists. Usually, for the first time in their lives, they get asked real questions that can't be answered by bible quotes and references.
I came to a fork in the road, and I took it!
The following 2 users Like Cavebear's post:
  • mordant, SYZ
Reply
#39

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 05:42 PM)Minimalist Wrote: I doubt that Mencken gave a flying fuck about the jews.  He was addressing the fundie shitheads of his day.  Remember that Mencken covered the Scopes Monkey Trial for the Baltimore Sun.  He'd had his fill of those morons.

I agree. Jewish Apocalypticism was not in his scope of knowledge, but it is important if one wants to get what this "rising" was all about. 
Read Ehrman's book. It will open your eyes about " resurrection", although Ehrman says that the early Chrisrians did buy into a "resurrection" .. and I disagree. A Jew would have understood what a martyred hero being "raised up", meant (not from the dead), but exalted as other Jewish heroes were. Also Dr. BB Scott's "The Trouble With Resurrection" (he is one of the Christian seminary professors writing on the topic), will forever change your mind about what they meant by "resurrection".
Reply
#40

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
Quote:Read Ehrman's book. It will open your eyes about " resurrection", although Ehrman says that the early Chrisrians did buy into a "resurrection" .. and I disagree.


Not too long ago I was watching Ehrman give a discussion about this bible bullshit and he made the point that "early xtians" believed it because "real people" testified that it was so.

And who were these "real people?"

Peter, Paul and Mary.... and I bet they couldn't sing either.

Obviously the flaw in Bart's argument is that these are nothing more than characters in the same book.  It would be like Rhett Butler testifying that Scarlett O'Hara was real!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • mordant, Cavebear
Reply
#41

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-03-2020, 03:03 PM)JAG Wrote: JAG Writes:

An alternative title for this thread: Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Plausibility)

My view is (and has always been) that with regard to arguments that deal with
the spiritual unseen world and with moral values and with the supernatural, that
there are no arguments that can rise to the certainty-level of 5 + 5 = 10, and
that the very best anyone can ever hope to establish is probability, not certainty.

What I just said deals with showing Christianity to be true as opposed to knowing
Christianity to be true. William Lane Craig makes this point in his book Reasonable
Faith.

What that means is we Christians hold that we can know Christianity to be true
based upon the inner witness of the Holy Spirit that lives in us and tells us that
Christianity is true. It is utterly impossible for us to prove this to be true with
intellectual arguments that rise to the certainty-level of 2 + 2 + 4.

_________________


So I admit (as does William Lane Craig) that we can not demonstrate with logical
arguments that Christianity is true, with proof that rises to the certainty-level of
the following syllogism:

All men are mortal.
Socrates was a man.
Therefore Socrates was mortal.


So?

So it is impossible to establish certainty (as noted above).

We have to be satisfied with establishing probability.
But when we attempt to establish probability, we immediately enter the realm
of the subjective and that is where the constant bickering and arguing back and
forth occurs, because one man's probability is another man's improbability.

For example, the Teleological Argument for the existence of God seeks to establish
probability based on the obvious order, design, and complexity that we see in the
natural world, in the human body, in the Hubble Deep Field, and for that matter on the
shelves of Walmart and Sam's Club --- all evidence of endless variety of products made
from endless varieties of raw materials. Intelligent Design.

The very best anyone can do with the Teleological Argument is to establish probability,
and thereby enter into the world of the subjective. Most Christians find the evidence
for Intelligent Design to enjoy high probability. It ought to be safe to say that all atheists,
by definition of atheism, will find the Argument from Intelligent Design to be improbable.

________________


Certainty vs. Probability In Argumentation.

Says William Lane Craig:
"The Christian apologist may employ both deductive and inductive arguments in defense
of Christian theism. In order for the arguments to be good ones, the premises need to have
a particular epistemic status for us. 
But what sort of status is that? Certainty is an unrealistic
and unattainable goal. 
Were we to require that we have certainty of the truth of an argument's
premises, the result 
for us would be skepticism. What we're looking for is a comparative
criterion: the premises in a good argument will have 
greater plausibility than their respective
denials."___William Lane Craig

__________

Then Craig makes this statement:
"Plausibility is to a great extent a person-dependent notion.
Some people may find a premise plausible while others do not.
Accordingly some people will agree that a particular argument is a good one, while
others will say that it is a bad argument. Given our diverse backgrounds and biases,
we should expect such disagreements. 
Obviously, the most persuasive arguments will
be those which are based on premises 
which enjoy the support of widely accepted
evidence or seem intuitively to be true." 
___William Lane Craig,

All quotes above are from Reasonable Faith, Third Edition, by William Lane Craig, page 55
`
__________


Definitions of what I mean when I use the following words in the Opening Post:

Plausibility - the quality of seeming reasonable
Probability - the likelihood of something happening
Epistemic - relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation

JAG

The probability of Christianity being true never rises to credibility.   There is no credible evidence, just hand-waving arguments.
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#42

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-04-2020, 10:36 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Read Ehrman's book. It will open your eyes about " resurrection", although Ehrman says that the early Chrisrians did buy into a "resurrection" .. and I disagree.


Not too long ago I was watching Ehrman give a discussion about this bible bullshit and he made the point that "early xtians" believed it because "real people" testified that it was so.

And who were these "real people?"

Peter, Paul and Mary.... and I bet they couldn't sing either.

Obviously the flaw in Bart's argument is that these are nothing more than characters in the same book.  It would be like Rhett Butler testifying that Scarlett O'Hara was real!

Some people LOVE circular reasoning...
I came to a fork in the road, and I took it!
Reply
#43

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
Looking like we have yet another one-and-done christer "argument" from someone who has no interest in supporting his bullshit claims.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply
#44

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
Bullshit claims are hard to support!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#45

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-05-2020, 04:37 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote: Looking like we have yet another one-and-done christer "argument" from someone who has no interest in supporting his bullshit claims.

Well, that's about all they have to offer. If I had a nickle for every rational argument a theist offerred I'd be a nickleaire.
I came to a fork in the road, and I took it!
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#46

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
True, more from my boy Celsus.

[Image: civuwV8Sgot_NQWjVjQV3r7hichhiYUajGZALJIM...YRVSvEzmIw]


Some things never change!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#47

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
Unfortunately JAG seems to be just another proselytizer *sigh*

...and then he brings weakest possible arguments:

#1 WLC ROFL2
#2 "Christianity is most probably true*

Probably????? ROFL2 ROFL2

#3 Design and complexity *yawn*
#4 Assorted BS Dodgy
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 2 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • TheGentlemanBastard, SYZ
Reply
#48

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
When someone's one and only thread is simply a massive wall of religious text
cut and pasted from another site, without any additional input, I'm immediately
certain the poster is a religious proselytiser who has no intention of engaging in
any meaningful dialogue—other than force-feeding us theist dogma, and/or telling
us how wrong atheism is, and/or why we should see the light.

I'm thinking we can say goodbye to JAG, as another drive-by.      Thumbsdown
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Deesse23, Gwaithmir
Reply
#49

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
(10-05-2020, 05:15 AM)Cavebear Wrote: ... If I had a nickel for every rational argument a theist offered I'd be a nickelaire flat broke ...

This seems much more probable.

That's my five cents Tongue
Reply
#50

Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability)
JAG, hmm.  Just Another Garbageman, it appears.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)