Not a sin anymore???

[metis]

Well, Buddhism I think comes closest as it reduces many of those things.

It is also the "religion" that heavily uses objective reasoning like we use in science. One is literally encouraged to question everything and anything, including even Old Sid's teachings.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But what we call a "theory" in science isn't what most people call a "theory":
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. -- scientific theory - Search (bing.com)

Only you can't test what happened in the past, because you can't know that the conditions are the same as the present.

 

[Wildswanderer]

says the world IS getting better, kind of. Like we're living longer, if, of course, we don't starve to death or die in a mass shooting or war, etc.

Who is "we"?
People are starving to death. ... people are dying in mass shootings and wars.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Those who reject evolution exhibit poor judgment,

I think just the opposite is true... To believe that random evolution alone created everything is stupid and nonsensical.
Nature declares the glory of God.

 

[metis]

Only you can't test what happened in the past, because you can't know that the conditions are the same as the present.

But there is oral and written history ("documentation") and sometimes forensics. But we should always be careful and make certain that we use the scientific method to go by and not use our own personal "attachments".

 

[SkepticThinker]

well quote a specific point that you think is valid and explain why is it valid………… to me they seemed points that a flat earhter would make

His points were that you are making a ton of assumptions that are not in evidence. You've got assumption, stacked upon assumption stacked upon assumption. And so your conclusions about Jesus and the Bible were not arrived at by a careful and rational consideration of the evidence, but rather, by stacking up these assumptions that are not in evidence. That's not rational thinking. You just referred to these points as something a "flat earther would make."

Instead of addressing his points, you went to "you obviously hate religion for some reason" and called the poster irrational and close-minded, without explanation as to why you think so. Basically you just said "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Another person repeating falsehoods that go against all common sense and biology, like I said, absurdity.

You're repeating falsehoods here, based on your inability (or lack of education on the subject) to understand the dynamics of social constructs, customs and norms.
Take a social studies class or something. Sheesh. It's not everybody else's fault that you can't wrap your mind around these concepts that people have been discussing for decades.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So for Christians to say that God does not want gay sex practiced by His followers is hateful and homophobic?
Or are you talking about taking that further and wanting to ban homosexuality and punish homosexuals?

Yes to both.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only you can't test what happened in the past, because you can't know that the conditions are the same as the present.

Oh shoot! We should probably alert all the scientists and experts that are working on this stuff, as we speak, that they don't know what they are doing and are just wasting their time. Wildswanderer over here on the RF board knows better!

We should let cops and forensic analysts know as well, so they can stop investigating crimes. Hey guys, Wildswanderer says you can't know what happened in the past, so we'll never know who the murderer is!

 

[F1fan]

I think just the opposite is true... To believe that random evolution alone created everything is stupid and nonsensical.
Nature declares the glory of God.

Thanks for being such a good example of my points. There is a massive amount of evidence that evolution is real and still happens, and no evidence of any gods existing. Your views are contrary to the evidence. It is anti-reason, anti-knowledge, and pro-dogma.

 

[F1fan]

In fact I was thinking about Paul and the Gospels

These are my independent sources that corroborate the 4 points

So you are using the Bible to prove the Bible is true. That is circular reasoning, and invalid. This is even worse than using Josephus.

This means you have no evidence for your 4 points. You are just assuming the Gospels are true.

Well you have a different Epistemology than I, I dont reject supernatural claims by default.

This is your error. This is why your claims and arguments fail. Anyone can believe what they want to believe when their standards are suited to their own conclusions. This is why reason, logic, debate, science, etc. has high, objective standards for truth. You seem to understand your beliefs and thinking can't meet a high standard, so you use an unreliable and flawed process. That's fine for you, but for the rest of the world? Useless.

But an argument doest automatically becomes invalid just because it doesn't presuposes the same philosophical assumptions that you personally do.

Arguments have to earn credibility. they do this bu following hiogh standards. You can't. You want your arguments to be given something it hasn't earned.

 

[leroy]

His points were that you are making a ton of assumptions that are not in evidence. You've got assumption, stacked upon assumption stacked upon assumption. And so your conclusions about Jesus and the Bible were not arrived at by a careful and rational consideration of the evidence, but rather, by stacking up these assumptions that are not in evidence. That's not rational thinking. You just referred to these points as something a "flat earther would make."

Instead of addressing his points, you went to "you obviously hate religion for some reason" and called the poster irrational and close-minded, without explanation as to why you think so. Basically you just said "I know you are, but what am I?"

So you were unable to quote a specific valid point…………I wonder why?

 

[leroy]

So you are using the Bible to prove the Bible is true. That is circular reasoning, and invalid. This is even worse than using Josephus.

This means you have no evidence for your 4 points. You are just assuming the Gospels are true.

Paul and the Gospels are independent sources written by people who live within 1 generation after the event who have most of the verifiable data correct.

I can’t do anything if this is not good enough for you, the problem is that most of the historical facts that you learned in school are supported with less evidence than this, so by your logic you should reject most of the stuff that you learned at school.

see @SkepticThinker this is flatt earth logic

Arguments have to earn credibility. they do this bu following hiogh standards. You can't. You want your arguments to be given something it hasn't earned.

Well we have Paul and the gospels confirm the 4 points that I made, why isn’t this good enough to meet your standards?

My claim is that 2 or more independent sources reporting an event count as strong evidence in support of the historicity of that event. ………… why is this claim wrong?

--
Besides there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural, for example I have the supernatural ability to predict the future, I can predict that you will not answer the question, but rather make a whole bunch of conspiracy theories and a bunch of boring and unrelated claims on how much you hate religion.

 

[Brian2]

Why did God put lust, anger, greed, pride in the heart of men? And then say, 'I do not allow it'. Design failure.

They are all good things unless we use them wrongly or let them overpower us or blind us to God's will for us and we do not or cannot control them in us.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you were unable to quote a specific valid point…………I wonder why?

I literally just spelled out the point(s).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Paul and the Gospels are independent sources written by people who live within 1 generation after the event who have most of the verifiable data correct.

I can’t do anything if this is not good enough for you, the problem is that most of the historical facts that you learned in school are supported with less evidence than this, so by your logic you should reject most of the stuff that you learned at school.

see @SkepticThinker this is flatt earth logic

No, it is not flat earth logic. It's just regular logic. You should try employing it.

Most of the historical facts I "learned in school" are actually supported with more evidence than a an old book filled with supernatural claims. Your supernatural claims are supported by nothing, other than your desire for them to be true.

Well we have Paul and the gospels confirm the 4 points that I made, why isn’t this good enough to meet your standards?

Because they don't actually support your assumptions. As another poster pointed out, you're using the Bible to prove the Bible. That's circular logic.

My claim is that 2 or more independent sources reporting an event count as strong evidence in support of the historicity of that event. ………… why is this claim wrong?

You don't have 2 independent sources. You have 2 sources from the same place - the Bible.
--

Besides there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural, for example I have the supernatural ability to predict the future, I can predict that you will not answer the question, but rather make a whole bunch of conspiracy theories and a bunch of boring and unrelated claims on how much you hate religion.

If this were true, than the supernatural would be considered a fact of reality. It isn't.

I don't know what else you're going on about, but I think you just demonstrated that you have zero supernatural abilities. You have yet to demonstrate the existence of a supernatural world at all. Apart from your desire for there to be one.

 

[F1fan]

Paul and the Gospels are independent sources written by people who live within 1 generation after the event who have most of the verifiable data correct.

There is no logical reason to conclude the Gospels, and what paul wrote, is true at face value. It's not history. You offer no evidence to support a conclusion any of it is true, or even plausible.

I can’t do anything if this is not good enough for you, the problem is that most of the historical facts that you learned in school are supported with less evidence than this, so by your logic you should reject most of the stuff that you learned at school.

That is your problem. Your claims and beliefs can't meet the basic standard of reason and debate.

Well we have Paul and the gospels confirm the 4 points that I made, why isn’t this good enough to meet your standards?

Because it includes ideas that are not consistent with what we understand is true. This is the supernatural bits. There is no way for people to come back to life from brain death. There are no gods known to exist. To interpret these stories as literal is not logical or rational.

And they aren't "my" standards, they are the basic standards of logic and debate, and including court.

My claim is that 2 or more independent sources reporting an event count as strong evidence in support of the historicity of that event. ………… why is this claim wrong?

You could have 1000 independent sources, and that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the credibility of the sources. Again, this is a matter of basic standards. You cited the Bible itself as evidence that the Bible content is true, and this is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. It's your mistake.

Besides there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural, for example I have the supernatural ability to predict the future, I can predict that you will not answer the question, but rather make a whole bunch of conspiracy theories and a bunch of boring and unrelated claims on how much you hate religion.

You aren't debating in good faith.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They are all good things unless we use them wrongly or let them overpower us or blind us to God's will for us and we do not or cannot control them in us.

They are good in no way good. They are outright evil. Hinduism asks us to purge them completely - Lust, anger, pride and greed (Kama, Krodha, Mada, Lobha). This is where evil resides.

 

[leroy]

There is no logical reason to conclude the Gospels, and what paul wrote, is true at face value. It's not history. You offer no evidence to support a conclusion any of it is true, or even plausible.

You could have 1000 independent sources, and that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the credibility of the sources. Again, this is a matter of basic standards. You cited the Bible itself as evidence that the Bible content is true, and this is a l. It's your mistake.

Again multiple independendent documents reporting the same event provide good reasons to affirm the historicity of such event.

That is your problem. Your claims and beliefs can't meet the basic standard of reason and debate.

And what standards are those?

Because it includes ideas that are not consistent with what we understand is true. This is the supernatural bits. There is no way for people to come back to life from brain death. There are no gods known to exist. To interpret these stories as literal is not logical or rational.

Ok so the problem are not the sources, but the “supernatural bits” so the problem is your own personal epistemology that states that supernatural stuff can’t happen

And they aren't "my" standards, they are the basic standards of logic and debate, and including court.

If 2 indpeendnet testimonies report the same event, any court would accept it as strong evidence……….if you want to make an arbitrary exception with stuff that contradict your own personal philosophical assumptions, go ahead, but don’t expect others to assume the same things

You aren't debating in good faith.

logical fallacy called circular reasoning

That is funny, you are the one who is saying

1 there is no evidnece for the supernatural

2 I won’t accept any source that claims supernatural

This is circular reasoning.



What I am doing is sharing multiple independent sources that report the same event, this is not circular reasons but standard methodology that historians and courts use to determine the historicity of such event.

So please apologize for your false accusation of circular reasoning

 

[leroy]

I literally just spelled out the point(s).

I literally just spelled out the point(s).

Do not vaguely spell out the points

1 select a specific point (just one)

2 quote it

3 explain why is it a good point