lukethethird
unknown member
To answer the questions asked of in the OP would require use of critical thinking.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The testimony of the NT writers
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
Do you find that meaningful? Do you think that supports his belief in the Christian deity (or yours)?
Academia has standards for scholarship. It is limited to the output of critical thinking. That means achieving expertise in a field and adding to its fund of knowledge.
Why is debate so frequently framed in the language of violence and fighting by the faithful? Saying that somebody isn't a critical thinker is a judgment, and in this case, an accurate one.
Thinking that they alone have the truth should be a red flag for you. It's in the cult checklist:
- Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
- The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).
I don't think they'll consider anything seriously that isn't approved by their leadership. That's what your last comment tells me. You're not alone in that.
You'd have to do what you just finished describing that you don't do to learn about that. You'd have to read from non-approved sites, the ones you think are anti-religious even though they're Christian, and which don't contain truth since they didn't come from your elders.
Is that your standard of belief regarding your church elders and their pronouncements to you? Apparently, they have taught you that the Gospels antedate Paul's epistles, since that's what you seem to believe. Did you just believe them without verifying their claims? It seems so.
All of this talk from the faithful about truth and their critical thinking, then you describe how information is curated for you and that you accept it uncritically. You also fail to comment on the information provided in links, so it is assumed that you never opened them. Nobody will be able to convince you that you are wrong without your cooperation and without a certain skill set. You would need to open-mindedly and dispassionately evaluate the evidence, to evaluate a conclusion for soundness, and be willing to be convinced by an argument that convinces other critical thinkers, who use the same tested rules of inference regarding what that evidence implies. You don't have to do any of that, but if you don't, your opinions aren't of value to critical thinkers and you have no persuasive power.
A total off-topic ...
Like Kenny said before
Like Kenny said before
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. Twice. When you refer back to an old loss that you had that is all that you are doing.
I can still see that you do not know how to debate properly. When sources are demanded one has to know what a proper source for the topic is.
For a scientific argument your source has to ultimately rely on scientific concepts that have gone through peer review of some sort.
When one is using historical arguments one need to rely on claims that are supported by history that has also gone through that sort of process. You did not do that. Your sources were all faith based ones. Now they may be valid for a Christian argument, but we were not having one of those. We were discussing the history of the Bible. Not what it meant. None of your sources applied for the history of the Bible.
Your first source even required that authors agree with their statement of faith. That means that they are worthless for anything besides Christian arguments. It is a lot like the statement of faith of creationist sites where they state in so many words that they will ignore all scientific evidence that contradicts them. Such sources are so heavily biased that only the "faithful" believe them. Your second source was just a pastor from three hundred years ago. He was not a scholar. He did not enter into reasoned debate with those that disagreed with him. He was just preaching to you. Again, that is not evidence.
If you really want to be a good debater you should try to learn what evidence is valid for what situation. Here you only made yourself look foolish. You were guilty of what you accused me of.
I could have used Richard Carrier, though he is still a historian. I could have tried to drag up some hack atheist that hates Christianity. That would be pretty much what you did. I did not do that. I quoted from a source that favors Christianity a bit since he used a rather young date for Luke's error. The Gospel of Luke was written about twenty years later than the author of the article that I linked thought
Oh well, this will probably go in one ear and out the other since you did not learn the last time we had this debate and I did your homework for you. I will not do that again. That is why I only rejected your bogus sources or inf other cases I pointed out that you were not providing any.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a non sequitur. And your beliefs do appear to be faith beliefs. You have not supported why you believe the New Testament stories to be "testimony".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Are you serious? It is hard to tell at times if you really mean what you post. Some of it is sooooo incredibly nonsensical.
I remember that in another religious forum, speaking on the subject of evolution and the development of human knowledge, an atheist forum member who also did not know how to defend his beliefs in his own words posted a YouTube video. It was about a woman, an atheist of course, who apparently was highly respected in her "scientific" field. The woman was giving a lecture, exactly the way self-help and other stuff gurus do... The woman was saying that the human brain developed because when primates figured out how to make fire and cook food, then they no longer had to spend so much of their time hunting so they had more time to think and so, their brain grew, LOL LOL LOL.
I couldn't stop laughing. The admirers of that type of "qualification" that atheists give to their specialists, believe these things because those laureates tell them... and that's it.
I couldn't stop laughing. The admirers of that type of "qualification" that atheists give to their specialists, believe these things because those laureates tell them... and that's it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Did she now? I am betting that wasn't the case. You almost certainly misunderstood at the time and now you probably cannot remember.
And sometimes scientists "dumb down" their answers for the "dumb". Sadly that does not work very well either. Creationists tend to embrace their ignorance.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Generally speaking, predatory animals tend to have larger and more effective brains cognitively than grazing animals, and since speed and strength are not our forte, thinking most likely was a major forte. Thus, the fossil record is quite clear, namely that human brain size gradually increased significantly over millions of years.
See: Evolution of the brain - Wikipedia
See: Evolution of the brain - Wikipedia
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Who is the above addressed to, and please quote a person prior to answering?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my! Though size is not everything, when it comes to brains size does matter. And I may check this claim.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I have, so let me quote this:
Ants have brains, though theirs is much smaller than ours. An ant’s brain has about 250,000 neurons compared to humans with billions. These insects might lack the complex human brain structure; however, ant colonies collectively possess brains as large as that of most mammals... -- Do Ants Have Brains? Here's What Science Says (animalvivid.com)
I posted this, just to show you that believers are not the only ones who accept things based on faith.
PS: I quote a post if I answer to that post ... if I feel I need to. If I don't I just don't.
I am not interested on discussing about evolution in here.
PS: I quote a post if I answer to that post ... if I feel I need to. If I don't I just don't.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I saw the same thing. A hive mind is not the same as a single brain, but it does help explain some of the more complex behavior of a colony versus the behavior of a single ant.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, so how does a strawman version of a video that you claim to have watched demonstrate that others believe based upon faith?I posted this, just to show you that believers are not the only ones who accept things based on faith. I am not interested on discussing about evolution in here.
PS: I quote a post if I answer to that post ... if I feel I need to. If I don't I just don't.
leroy
Well-Known Member
I don’t know, do you reject the documents just because they are in the bible?............. or do you have good reasons to doubt it´s authenticity
For example you showed skepticism on weather if Jesus was crucified………..do you have a good reason to be skeptical? Or are you just playing skeptic?
Depending on how you answer to these questions I may or may not label you as a fanatic
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The topic being discussed is whether they are eyewitness accounts or not. There does not appear to be much in the way of confirming evidence that they are eyewitness accounts and there is enough evidence to the contrary to make the claims of "eyewitness accounts" so weak that most Bibles, and definitely the more serious Bibles note that the Gospels are all anonymous and the authors are unknown.