Not a sin anymore???

[Wildswanderer]

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.

"Everything was created by nothing" doesn't make sense to anyone intelligent.
Evolution is just a mechanism from point A to point b.... it doesn't explain anything about why everything exists.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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!

Diversions don't change the facts.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

People have understood biological gender for centuries... But suddenly they're all confused about it. It's a political correctness thing, nothing to do with science.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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".

None of which changes what I said... You can not know the conditions were the same as they are now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

And what standards are those?


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

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


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.

That is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is what you're doing - claiming the Bible is true because books in the Bible say the Bible is true.

Not accepting something that is not in evidence is not circular reasoning. It's just plain old logic. You have to first demonstrate the existence of this supernatural realm. You don't just get to declare it exists and accuse those who don't accept your claim as being illogical. That's ridiculous. Anybody could just proclaim anything is true, given that type of reasoning. I guess I have to accept the existence of Bigfoot because some people think he's real. Nah, that's not how this works.

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

No you are not. You're citing the same source over and over again - The Bible.

 

[F1fan]

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

Not when the stories are inconsistent with reality. This is the fatal flaw, the supernatural elelments. Like i said, the stories being repeated is irrelevant. The quality of sources is crucial.

And what standards are those?

You don't know what they are?

Objectivity.

An interest in what is demonstrably true.

That the reports have consistency with reality.

Following the rules of evidence, reason, and probability.

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

Well no one has demonstrated any suvernatural phenomenon is real or could happen, including you.

So you need to demonstrate that 1. a supernatural exists, and 2. that your specific claims of supernatural phenomenon actually happened.

If 2 indpeendnet testimonies report the same event, any court would accept it as strong evidence………

It's called afidavits, or witness testimony. If you studied psychology you would know that witness testimnoy in court is the worst kind, because there are biases and memory flaws. There is a list of problems, and if a witness is challenged in court they could be shown to have made a mistake. For example if Jim insists he saw a victim with a gun in his hand, and this is why he pulled his gun and shot, yet other witneses say no, the victim had a cell phone, and the police found only a cell phone with the victim, it is likely that Jim only thought he saw a gun. But Jim is adamant, he believes he saw a gun. Jim has reasons to reject the more likely scenario that he made a mistake.

.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

If you are going to debate in good faith then you assume the rules of logic and argumentation. You can't get upset because the rules won't let you get away with a position that can't be shown to be true or plausible.

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.

False. It is a fact there is no evidence for a supernatural. There are claims, there are experiences that people assume are supernatural, but they are not conclusive. These are observations, not judgments.

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.

They happen to be inadequate. That is your problem.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

I literally already did that.

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.

 

[F1fan]

"Everything was created by nothing" doesn't make sense to anyone intelligent.

Intelligent people don't assume anything was created.

Evolution is just a mechanism from point A to point b.... it doesn't explain anything about why everything exists.

Are you now accepting evolution as a natural process, and that humans evolved from other, more primitive forms?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Diversions don't change the facts.

What diversions?? Please don't avoid the point again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

People have understood biological gender for centuries... But suddenly they're all confused about it. It's a political correctness thing, nothing to do with science.

Gender isn't biological. Sex is biological. You're still confused.

And you are just plain wrong Try reading some literature some time. Or like I said, take a social studies class or something. I took a university course on gender studies almost 25 years ago. You're obviously completely ignorant on this subject. Luckily, there is a cure for ignorance - education.

 

[leroy]

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.

So I am expected provide historical evidence for a supernatural event………..But I can´t use sources that make supernatural claims. (honestly you don’t see anything wrong with your reasoning)

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.


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

That is naive, the bible is a bunch of multiple independent sources….500 years after the event somebody decided to grab those documents and put them in the same book. But originally each book in the bible was in independent document.

So for example if the book of Corinthians reports an event, and then the gospel of Mark reports that same event, then you do have 2 independent sources ………. Do you understand this ?



.
-

 

[SkepticThinker]

None of which changes what I said... You can not know the conditions were the same as they are now.

That's just some nonsense creationists tell themselves.

It seems you have a lot to learn on this subject as well.

How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth

 

[SkepticThinker]

So I am expected provide historical evidence for a supernatural event………..But I can´t use sources that make supernatural claims. (honestly you don’t see anything wrong with your reasoning)

You are expected to provide evidence of a thing/realm/whatever you claim the existence of. Yes. Why wouldn't you be? Perhaps you could explain what you think is wrong with the reasoning that if you want to claim something exists, you need to provide evidence for that thing. If we didn't reason this way, we'd have to accept every claim anybody ever made. Bigfoot? Must be real because somebody claimed it. Chupacabra? Must be real because somebody claimed it. Magical pixies that control our minds? Must be real because somebody claimed it.

Do you not see the problem here?

That is naive, the bible is a bunch of multiple independent sources….500 years after the event somebody decided to grab those documents and put them in the same book. But originally each book in the bible was in independent document.

Those books were carefully selected (while others were excluded) by a group of men with an agenda.

So for example if the book of Corinthians reports an event, and then the gospel of Mark reports that same event, then you do have 2 independent sources ………. Do you understand this ?

-

And yet neither demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. They just claim it. You must understand the difference between claiming a thing and demonstrating that it's true, right?
The Bible is filled with claims, not actual evidence of the veracity of those claims, especially when you bring the supernatural into it.

I mean, you don't seriously believe that if two different people claim they saw a ghost then that demonstrates the existence of ghosts, right?

 

[leroy]

That is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is what you're doing - claiming the Bible is true because books in the Bible say the Bible is true.

I am saying that a testimony is likely to be true because other independent testimonies report the same event. There is nothing circular about this…… please admit your mistake and remove your false accusation of circular reasoning

Not accepting something that is not in evidence is not circular reasoning. It's just plain old logic

That is a strawman, I am not making that accusation.

Circular reasoning would be

1 Claim that there is no evidence for a supernatural event 2000 years ago

2 reject by default any historical evidence that talks in favor of such supernatural event.

Obviously if all the attempts to provide evidence for the supernatural is rejected by default then you will end up with zero evidence

. You have to first demonstrate the existence of this supernatural realm.
You don't just get to declare it exists and accuse those who don't accept your claim as being illogical. That's ridiculous. Anybody could just proclaim anything is true, given that type of reasoning. I guess I have to accept the existence of Bigfoot because some people think he's real. Nah, that's not how this works.

I am proclaiming that the 4 alleged historical facts that I mentioned earlier are true, because multiple independent sources report those events. These are the normal and uncontroversial standards that scholars use to determine if an event occurred or not. // if you want to make an arbitrary exception and apply different standards to stuff that contradict your world view, go ahead, but why should I also make that arbitrary exception?

No you are not. You're citing the same source over and over again - The Bible.

The bible (new testament) is not 1 source, it´s a bunch of independent documents (independent sources) that where later organized under a single cover………do you understand this? This is simply an uncontroversial fact

 

[F1fan]

I am saying that a testimony is likely to be true because other independent testimonies report the same event. There is nothing circular about this…… please admit your mistake and remove your false accusation of circular reasoning

But it’s not remotely likely true. The supernatural elements of the stories are not consistent with what we know of reality. That’s an extraordinary claim. That means you need extraordinary evidence. And let’s note that your claim comes from the Bible. Your sources can’t be the Bible itself. The Bible is not independent if you are making the claim from the Bible.

That is a strawman, I am not making that accusation.

Circular reasoning would be

1 Claim that there is no evidence for a supernatural event 2000 years ago

2 reject by default any historical evidence that talks in favor of such supernatural event.

Obviously if all the attempts to provide evidence for the supernatural is rejected by default then you will end up with zero evidence

Your evidence is rejected because it is the same source as the claim. And the Bible is not a credible source for true information. So you need credible evidence of a supernatural and that the stories you are referring to actually happened.

I am proclaiming that the 4 alleged historical facts that I mentioned earlier are true, because multiple independent sources report those events. These are the normal and uncontroversial standards that scholars use to determine if an event occurred or not. // if you want to make an arbitrary exception and apply different standards to stuff that contradict your world view, go ahead, but why should I also make that arbitrary exception?

The Bible is not a set of historical facts. It was a collection of stories they were not written with the intention of recording history. So they are in adequate as a source of evidence as required by your argument.

The bible (new testament) is not 1 source, it´s a bunch of independent documents (independent sources) that where later organized under a single cover………do you understand this? This is simply an uncontroversial fact

It doesn’t matter if the Bible is one book or a collection of stories. Your claim that the gospels are true comes from the Bible itself. You cannot use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. That is circular reasoning. That is a fallacy. You cannot use this in an argument. And let’s note that some 2000 years later no one has been able to prove what you are claiming to prove. People think they’re claiming it but they just don’t understand logic and fallacies and the weakness of the Bible as a source for itself proving itself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Gender isn't biological. Sex is biological. You're still confused.

And you are just plain wrong Try reading some literature some time. Or like I said, take a social studies class or something. I took a university course on gender studies almost 25 years ago. You're obviously completely ignorant on this subject. Luckily, there is a cure for ignorance - education.

I've read plenty of literature. And just because a college teaches something doesn't make it so. Public Colleges have a liberal bias in almost every case.

 

[leroy]

Not when the stories are inconsistent with reality. This is the fatal flaw, the supernatural elelments. Like i said, the stories being repeated is irrelevant. The quality of sources is crucial.

the stories are inconsistent with your own personal philosophical assumptions, you haven’t shown that they are inconsistent with reality

So you need to demonstrate that 1. a supernatural exists, and 2. that your specific claims of supernatural phenomenon actually happened.

Which is an impossible task because any attempt to provide evidence for the supernatural will be rejected by default,

It's called afidavits, or witness testimony. If you studied psychology you would know that witness testimnoy in court is the worst kind, because there are biases and memory flaws. There is a list of problems, and if a witness is challenged in court they could be shown to have made a mistake. For example if Jim insists he saw a victim with a gun in his hand, and this is why he pulled his gun and shot, yet other witneses say no, the victim had a cell phone, and the police found only a cell phone with the victim, it is likely that Jim only thought he saw a gun. But Jim is adamant, he believes he saw a gun. Jim has reasons to reject the more likely scenario that he made a mistake.

That is a false analogy, a correct analogy would be “If both John and Jim, testified independently that they saw Peter holding a Black gun with a red trigger “ the point is that if 2 testimonies make the same claim, then such claim is likely to be real, (because it would have been very unlikely for John and Jim to have hallucinated invented the exact same lie with the same details)

If you are going to debate in good faith then you assume the rules of logic and argumentation. You can't get upset because the rules won't let you get away with a position that can't be shown to be true or plausible.

Again all I am saying is that

1 the 4 alleged facts that I mentioned are supported by multiple independent sources

2 scholars accept “multiple independent sources” as strong evidence for the historicity of that claim

So why making an arbitrary exception with my 4 alleged facts?

If we are debating the historicity of a miracle, then it´s obvious that my sources would contain supernatural claims,

 

[leroy]

I literally already did that.

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.

I literally already did that.

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.

Well then why don’t you quote a specific point?

That is a very lazy critique, I can also reject any claim by simply saying “ohhh i´ts an assumption with no evidnece”

 

[F1fan]

the stories are inconsistent with your own personal philosophical assumptions, you haven’t shown that they are inconsistent with reality

It is obvious that gods are not considered as real in the leagl sense. If you were arrested for damaging someone's car, and you went to court and claimed God told you to do it, it wasn't your fault, do you really think the courts would accept your claim?

Why don't the sciences acknowledge gods if they are real? Conspiracy against you and your beliefs?

Do you think the hundreds of Hindu gods are real? How about angels and demons? What about dragons, are they real in your view?

Well informed and educated people do not sruggle to discern verifiably real things from imaginary things. There are many intelligent believers, but if you notice they avoid putting their beliefs into scrutiny in ways they can't defend.

Which is an impossible task because any attempt to provide evidence for the supernatural will be rejected by default,

Which means you don't have evidence.

Again all I am saying is that

1 the 4 alleged facts that I mentioned are supported by multiple independent sources

But you aren't citing any independent sources. Your claims come from the Bible, and you are using the Bible as evidencd it is true. That is circular reasoning. And even if you cite Josephus his writings are not objectivey credible, he was basically just repeating gossip.

2 scholars accept “multiple independent sources” as strong evidence for the historicity of that claim

Biased theologians who have a vested interest, as you do, to try to justify these beliefs about Jesus. They aren't any more credible objectively then your attempt.

So why making an arbitrary exception with my 4 alleged facts?

It's your focus. It's your claim. You can't defend what you insist is true.

If we are debating the historicity of a miracle, then it´s obvious that my sources would contain supernatural claims,

And most likely fiction. We don;t exverience miracles. We have no evidence or experiences with a supernatural. Science has tried to find some. Nothing. Theists do no better.

Have you ever stood back and considered the possibility your religious beliefs are mistaken?[/quote]

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The point that @YoursTrue seems to be making is that Pedifiles cant do anything do avoid feeling sexual attraction towards children..... (it's their nature) but as society we do expect pedophiles to act against their nature and to avoid acting on their desires.

The point is that the "its their nature" argument to justfy homosexuality is stupid. (You might have other arguments, but this particular argument is flawed) agreee ?

The difference is that pedophilia is objectively harmful. There is no way a pedo can act in their desires without harming someone. Pedophiles can be chemically castrated to curb their desires, too. Homosexuality cannot be demonstrated to be objectively harmful in of itself.

No, the "it's natural" argument isn't a good argument by itself.