6648 replies to this topic

[unluckycharm]

There are compelling arguments (to me) that we can never know what Jesus was truly like, since the writings we have are so far removed from the time in which Jesus lived. It's not really even clear who wrote them (as the gospels were later tampered with by church leaders).

I found this website to be interesting. http://www.vexen.co....ty_nojesus.html

I'm of the belief Jesus did exist, but his teachings (and history) were changed and corrupted by later "leaders" and nutjobs (like Paul of Tarsus).

Eh anyway, I'm not a believer--pretty much an agnostic.

[GENTLYPORKING]

I also believe that Jesus CAN NOT help you hit a curveball.

[Sam]

I'm of the belief Jesus did exist, but his teachings were changed and corrupted by later "leaders" and nutjobs (like Paul of Tarsus).

So, what is the basis for this belief? What changes were made? When? How do you know? I'm curious.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[unluckycharm]

I'm of the belief Jesus did exist, but his teachings were changed and corrupted by later "leaders" and nutjobs (like Paul of Tarsus).

So, what is the basis for this belief? What changes were made? When? How do you know? I'm curious.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

Read through the website I referenced. Unfortunately I don't have the time to flesh out my assertion.

[arise_shine]

There are lots of decent (maybe even good or great) books out there about Biblical textual criticism. A lot of them demonstrate how Biblical texts were corrupted over the first few centuries AD. I seem to remember when I did my own research a few years ago, that it wasn't until somewhere around AD 500 that Christian "scribing" became a careful professional discipline. I think most of our best relatively complete and stable manuscripts date from no earlier than around that time. Prior to that, it was all [amateur] believers copying things themselves, and it's hard to imagine that in the prior 400 years (give or take), some stuff didn't get garbled/added/removed.

Sure wish we had cell phone cameras and Twitter 2000 years ago.

[TheoConfidor]

Ryan, before I respond, I would first like to say that your last response was quite excellent at helping me to better understand your perspective. Now that I undertand your stance, I will agree that you aren't quite in the realm of hypersketicism, so my former categorization was inaccurate. Much of what you wrote I thoroughly agree with, especially this part:

I consider myself to have strong desires for what is true and what reality actually is, but unlike some I don't base truth on what I wish were true and I don't eagerly seek out confirmation bias. I don't jump to conclusions or make appeals to ignorance. I'm simply cautious when it comes to claims that are both wild and have the potential to cause harm or ruin. In the case of exorcisms, I choose to disbelieve them because every case I've read points to fraud, is sketchy on the details, or ended up in someone being killed. I think those are good reasons for doubt.

That perspective is overall quite sound. There are some things that still puzzle me.

I think you're conflating ethereal with supernatural. Things that are ethereal most certainly can be tested, and nowhere did I even imply anything about the scientific method. For instance, aliens can be considered ethereal, and the simple demonstration of their existence would be if they made a formal contact and revelation.

That's a tangential issue of semantics. I used the term ethereal simply because it was the term you used. Aliens can be considered ethereal unless they are objectively shown to be simply the grey men of pop culture or something similar. If aliens exist as some sort of unmeasurable energy field, however, then they would remain ethereal and to a certain extent "undemonstrable." Anything that becomes solid/sound enough ceases to be classifiable as ethereal. Certain supernatural phenomenon are ethereal, but "ethereal" is certainly a more encompassing term which isn't limited to that which is supernatural.

The more relevant point is that only certain kinds of things be demonstrated in certain ways. Attempting to demonstrate one category of things using a different categorical sort of demonstration will result in a misapplication. For example, one cannot demonstrate that 2+2=4 in the same physical, visceral way that one can demonstrate that hitting a lemon with a sledgehammer will cause the fruit to explode.

A basis for demonstration isn't really that hard. Let's take that bigfoot example... I'd say that pretty good evidence for that would be the actual capture or reveal of an actual bigfoot. Because phyiscally seeing is believing.

Categorically, physical existence claims can be easily satified by physical demonstration. I agree with this point. The corollary to this is that non-physical claims cannot be satisfied with physical demonstration.

Now demonstrating the Christian god is a lot harder than that, which is probably why I didn't include that in my list. I've been over and over all of my reasoning before in this thread, but I will mention a couple other things. Even though God is supposedly supernatural, according to the Bible he made many attempts to physically communicate with man, most notably as Jesus. The problem with any of this revelation is that it dates back to ancient times where good records were not kept and history was often falsified or exaggerated. With history, we can accept evidence like Jesus, the man, actually having existed because there really isn't anything extraordinary about that. It's when ancient literature boasts of supernatural claims that we start to realize we don't have sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. In this day and age we have communications that are rapid, the ability to write and store records handily, and the ability to take a picture or video with a cell phone at any time. It's not really too much wonder that you don't hear as often about extraordinary claims anymore because now you can't strictly rely on hearsay. People demand more physical proof given our capabilities.

Here is the crux of where this discussion is going. You don't seem to give much credence for ancient documents/testimony. In your opinion, what makes ancient literature less trustworthy than modern literature? Given that no-one is going to be able to post pictures of God on Facebook no matter at point in history one is, why would you consider ancient claims less valid than present claims? Is there a logical reason to do so?

And a lot of that is dancing around the actual issue, which is that you can't claim that something exists because someone can't prove a negative. The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim. That really is the most basic of logic and has nothing to do with facts, which is why the premises I gave varied.

It would be fallacious to claim that because someone can't prove a negative, therefore (insert positive phenomenon) exists. That would be committing the Negative Proof Fallacy.

Burden of proof only requires an individual making a claim to provide evidence in support of this claim. The issue that you and I have in this regard is that I consider historical record and personal testimonies as a valid sort of evidence, whereas it seems that you do not.

Indeed it was based on a true story, but the truth of that story is very sordid, and ultimately points to the exorcism attempts as being phony and the actual girl had some severe mental disorders. I read on about several of the other famous cases, but no matter where you looked there was a skeptical side to each one, and with good reason.

Since any ethereal matter will definitionally include some inexplicable elements, there is bound to be skeptical side to any such issue. A certain amount of skepticism is indeed healthy and rational. However, given that even after over a hundred years of psychological inquiry, our society still has such a tenuous grasp on the nature and cause of mental illness, wouldn't you say that it is at least possible that non-physical entities could affect a person's psychological state? Isn't it at least conceivable that the severe mental disorders such a girl experienced were not simply a result of mere physical interactions?

[Ryan8bit]

That's a tangential issue of semantics.

I didn't start the tangent on semantics though, you did. Ethereal can have several definitions, and it should have been clear which one I was referring to given the context.

The more relevant point is that only certain kinds of things be demonstrated in certain ways. Attempting to demonstrate one category of things using a different categorical sort of demonstration will result in a misapplication.

Then why did you try to do exactly this? My points were all about truth claims relating to things that are beyond our understanding, and you came in and used a different category of things that are easily understood. Do you not see the inherent contradiction here?

The corollary to this is that non-physical claims cannot be satisfied with physical demonstration.

But all of the claims that I made were physical claims that could be demonstrated.

You don't seem to give much credence for ancient documents/testimony. In your opinion, what makes ancient literature less trustworthy than modern literature? Given that no-one is going to be able to post pictures of God on Facebook no matter at point in history one is, why would you consider ancient claims less valid than present claims? Is there a logical reason to do so?

Would you disagree that the further back history goes, it becomes less reliable? It isn't exactly true for every civilization on the same scale. For instance, Egyptians were excellent record keepers with less of a tendency to forge details, whereas the ancient Chinese were more prone to make things up. And the Jews didn't really keep good historical records at all. But on average, the further you go back, there's less sources, less knowledge, more superstition, and more infrastructure in place to rewrite things. Most historians understand this, so they accept things tentatively and not as any kind of absolute truth. Common standards for historicity include multiple independent sources, authorship during the time which the events took place, corroborating information about the authors' lives, and a focus on less extraordinary claims. If any of these conditions fail to be satisfied, the less reliable the information becomes and the more skeptical historians are of those things. The extraordinary claims part is where exorcisms fall apart, especially given recent study and the more knowledge of neurophysiology that we acquire.

The original question was along the lines of, "If so many people believed in this, how can you just discount this?" There are many things that we know of in history that people believed yet we know to be false today. This is why I mentioned that a plurality of belief doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. That doesn't mean you just discount everything, but it doesn't grant those claims any sort of special immunity either. I can disagree with historical opinions about exorcism the same as I can disagree with claims that the Earth was flat. That's the logical reasoning.

The issue that you and I have in this regard is that I consider historical record and personal testimonies as a valid sort of evidence, whereas it seems that you do not.

I accept those things depending on the claim. If there's a claim that a certain figure existed in history, that's really not asking much. If you start to make claims about things they did in their lifetime, then you start to need a little more evidence. If things they did in their lifetime were great and expansive, then you really need a lot of corroboration. If they claim things that are supernatural or unrealistic by our standards of knowledge today, then you require a great deal of information. You at least need all of those historicity criteria I mentioned earlier to be fulfilled.

given that even after over a hundred years of psychological inquiry, our society still has such a tenuous grasp on the nature and cause of mental illness, wouldn't you say that it is at least possible that non-physical entities could affect a person's psychological state? Isn't it at least conceivable that the severe mental disorders such a girl experienced were not simply a result of mere physical interactions?

What if they were something that is neither physical nor non-physical? What if it's possible that it's not demons, but aliens who have found a way to inhabit people's brains? What if it's not demons, but kind ghosts who just want to be alive again, but something went horribly wrong when they tried to occupy someone's brain? What if a wizard did it?

Basically, you can entertain "what ifs" all day, but they always come back to being appeals to ignorance. I don't know what's going on with this girl, therefore it's demons! That's dishonest and illogical.

Going a little bit further, I don't really believe in anything that is "non-physical" because by the time anything interacts with our phyiscal universe, it has some sort of basis in being physical. Catering to non-physical things which would be beyond our perception seems to be another appeal to ignorance. I'd rather concern myself with what is rather than the infinite possibilities there could be.

[Ashane]

What a futile argument. Trying to argue God's existence and the metaphysical is like trying to explain love to one that has never loved. It cannot be grasped through mere perception, but only felt for oneself. It's indefinable. The answer comes from within, not without. It's a highly personal subject and there is no "one size fits all" argument, so although this discourse you guys are having provides insight into each others' beliefs, you're inevitably just going to end up going in circles as these debates always do.

Say what you will about "lack of evidence" or comparisons to fairy tales, but I see and know the Tao ("God", if you will, though not the Christian interpretation) in everything including myself and the wonderful interconnectedness of nature, not from any book or religion or concepts. Who and where are you really? Where is the universe? There is much that man purports to know, but in reality there's much that we cannot explain, as much as the ego would like to believe otherwise.

It's like kareshi said, nobody is going to change each others' minds on the subject. We can only change our own minds if we choose to, as I have done since finding for myself my relationship with God.

"Wise men don't need to prove their point;
men who need to prove their point aren't wise." -- Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching

[Ryan8bit]

"Wise men don't need to prove their point;
men who need to prove their point aren't wise."[/i] -- Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching

Uh, aren't you here trying to make a point? Aren't you in fact constantly trying to prove points lately?

This was never about convincing anybody about any particular philosophy, or for that matter whether any god exists or not. It's about making more universal claims about what is and isn't true, and as much as you'd like to think so, that brand of truth is not subjective. You can think you know some god all you want, and that's great and I'm absolutely fine with that. But if you go on to profess your beliefs publicly, they are open to critique from others. If you go on to say things that you believe to be true, but have poor evidence and shoddy logic, people are going to call you out on that and demand more proof. Especially if your assertions about truth have potential consequences.

[Ashane]

"Wise men don't need to prove their point;
men who need to prove their point aren't wise."[/i] -- Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching

Uh, aren't you here trying to make a point? Aren't you in fact constantly trying to prove points lately?

This was never about convincing anybody about any particular philosophy, or for that matter whether any god exists or not. It's about making more universal claims about what is and isn't true, and as much as you'd like to think so, that brand of truth is not subjective. You can think you know some god all you want, and that's great and I'm absolutely fine with that. But if you go on to profess your beliefs publicly, they are open to critique from others. If you go on to say things that you believe to be true, but have poor evidence and shoddy logic, people are going to call you out on that and demand more proof. Especially if your assertions about truth have potential consequences.

That quote is in the context of religion and spirituality, as it comes from spiritual book. Sure, I'm here making a point because many here seem to believe this is an intellectual debate that can be "won", but I don't feel compelled in the least to prove or convince anyone of any of my spiritual beliefs, because that's a futile effort as I said. I focus on other things I feel I can make a difference in.

You can argue your points and logic all you want, and I believe you have some strong arguments and agree that religion can be dangerous, but these aren't matters that you can prove or disprove with absolute certainty. Call them crazy or whatever, but people are going to have their beliefs and there's nothing you can do to change that, no matter how convincing you are to a handful of people on a message board.

[Rize]

Nassim Taleb's Turkey Argument:

In today’s keynote luncheon at RIMS 2010, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, best-selling author of The Black Swan, told the story of a turkey who is fed by the farmer every morning for 1,000 days. Eventually the turkey comes to expect that every visit from the farmer means more good food. After all, that’s all that has ever happened so the turkey figures that’s all that can and will ever happen. But then Day 1,001 arrives. It’s two days before Thanksgiving and when the farmer shows up, he is not bearing food, but an ax. The turkey learns very quickly that its expectations were catastrophically off the mark. And now Mr. Turkey is dinner.

Taleb’s advice: “Let’s not be turkeys.”

He referenced this argument when he first took the stage in this debate. He first takes the stage at 47:30. I expect his arguments will not make much sense to atheists here. He is eastern orthodox by the way, and he is definitely not a Biblical literalist.

Friday was Easter for Eastern Orthodox, so Taleb just made a few comments on religion. He is an interesting fellow regardless of what you think of his thinking. http://www.facebook....&id=13012333374

[Sam]

Friday was Easter for Eastern Orthodox

I'm certain that it doesn't work that way.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[Rize]

Pretty sure he said that it was a week later for them, but maybe he was speaking figuratively for himself or I somehow misunderstood in some other way. Maybe he is part of a particular sub-sect where it is different (he is... Levantine(sp?)).

[Sam]

Pretty sure he said that it was a week later for them, but maybe he was speaking figuratively for himself or I somehow misunderstood in some other way.

Well, a week from last Sunday would be this Sunday (today). That's probably the case, because Easter starts on a Sunday.

In general, the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have a different way of computing the date to celebrate Easter.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[Ryan8bit]

Sure, I'm here making a point because many here seem to believe this is an intellectual debate that can be "won", but I don't feel compelled in the least to prove or convince anyone of any of my spiritual beliefs

I don't know, to me it seems like most everybody in this thread is the same. People are asserting their opinions about what they believe, and debating about the particulars, but there really isn't a winner. I've never seen it as any sort of competition or attempt at conversion from either side, which is why kareshi's little remark seemed so disingenuous. There are many things in this thread that are debatable and do concern much more than the metaphysical.

these aren't matters that you can prove or disprove with absolute certainty. Call them crazy or whatever, but people are going to have their beliefs and there's nothing you can do to change that, no matter how convincing you are to a handful of people on a message board.

I don't think I'd call the average believer crazy. Like I said, I believed in a lot of these things before, and I don't think I was crazy. I just wasn't really demanding about evidence, and I wasn't as aware of human biases that are part of our programming. I think it's in human nature to come to a lot of these conclusions, and I think some are more prone to be stuck with those types of thinking than others. On the other hand, I do think these exorcist teenage girls are a little bit nuts, and I'll bet that a good number of Christians might even think the same thing.

And on absolute certainty, I'm not sure I was asserting such a thing. Doubt by it's very nature isn't set in stone, it's just a demand for more evidence. Disbelief because of insufficient evidence isn't the same as saying something absolutely doesn't exist. It's just saying that until there is decent evidence, there really is no need to consider extraordinary claims, especially if those claims require something beyond just belief.