Why do religious people beleive the author of the scripts but ?

[lewisnotmiller]

I think you've got this whole thing backwards.
Atheism isn't based on evidence. It's based on lack of evidence. It's the non-atheists who have the burden of proof.
Noöne was indoctrinated into atheism. Atheism is the epistemic default. We're born non-believers. It's Religion that's learned.

I mean...one certainly COULD be indoctrinated into atheism. I spent some time considering how NOT to do that to my kids, for example.

Your point largely stands, but I think sometimes we (atheists) have trouble splitting what atheism is, and how atheists act.
Mind you, our theistic friends also commonly have trouble with this.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Pantheists: worshipers of pans?

Or is it pans worshipping theists?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Or is it pans worshipping theists?

Worshipping theists is a bridge too far. I may have found one or two cute in my younger years, but worship? No, no, no.

 

[Valjean]

I would have to give a thousand different answers then.

No, that does not follow.

As for how many opinions, I don't know. Part of that depends on the definition.

The point it, science agrees on things, everywhere, all over the world. It is universal.
Religion agrees on nothing.

Science is a research technique. Science forms hypothesis based on actual observation, then it tests them, ie: attempts to find flaws in them.

Religion is not a research modality. It does not form hypothesis. It has only doctrine, established by tradition, attestation or 'revelation'. It doesn't test its doctrines, indeed, it actively opposes testing.

This is why science is much more reliable than religious doctrine.

 

[Valjean]

No one said that. So that's a strawman.

I said that, and it's common knowledge.
Do you understand what constructing a strawman is?

 

[Valjean]

Or is it pans worshipping theists?

Perhaps it's just another expression of Dionysianism.

 

[firedragon]

I said that, and it's common knowledge.
Do you understand what constructing a strawman is?

Yes. Constructing a strawman is an aunty sally as you did.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Religion is not a research modality. It does not form hypothesis. It has only doctrine, established by tradition, attestation or 'revelation'. It doesn't test its doctrines, indeed, it actively opposes testing.

This is why science is much more reliable than religious doctrine.

Well, it SHOULD test its doctrines.
Why would G-d give us intelligence, and then expect us to believe things without ascertaining their truth?
He wouldn't, imo.

 

[Valjean]

Well, it SHOULD test its doctrines.
Why would G-d give us intelligence, and then expect us to believe things without ascertaining their truth?
He wouldn't, imo.

Hear, hear! I agree. But how to convince the religious? Requiring objective support for religious doctrines would be an existential threat. If people realized the emperor had no clothes, they might become atheists!

 

[Lain]

The point it, science agrees on things, everywhere, all over the world. It is universal.
Religion agrees on nothing.

Science is a research technique. Science forms hypothesis based on actual observation, then it tests them, ie: attempts to find flaws in them.

Religion is not a research modality. It does not form hypothesis. It has only doctrine, established by tradition, attestation or 'revelation'. It doesn't test its doctrines, indeed, it actively opposes testing.

This is why science is much more reliable than religious doctrine.

From my perspective testing is done all the time and is encouraged, I have no idea where you got that idea from. Also, as I would define "religion" it definitely agrees on things, everywhere, all over the world, always, it is universal. Which is why I said much depended on definition before.

 

[Valjean]

From my perspective testing is done all the time and is encouraged, I have no idea where you got that idea from. Also, as I would define "religion" it definitely agrees on things, everywhere, all over the world, always, it is universal. Which is why I said much depended on definition before.

You must have a concept of testing different from the common understanding.
How long has this religious testing been going on? Science revolutionized our understanding of the world and reality, as well as our technology, in only a couple centuries. Religion's been around for thousands of years, yet achieved almost nothing. Indeed, it actively suppressed progress.

Religion agrees on things?! How many different religions are there in the world? Even within religions there are differences. How many different denominations of Protestantism are there, for example?
There is only one science.

 

[Lain]

You must have a concept of testing different from the common understanding.
How long has this religious testing been going on? Science revolutionized our understanding of the world and reality, as well as our technology, in only a couple centuries. Religion's been around for thousands of years, yet achieved almost nothing. Indeed, it actively suppressed progress.

Religion agrees on things?! How many different religions are there in the world? Even within religions there are differences. How many different denominations of Protestantism are there, for example?
There is only one science.

If you look at how often concepts are critiqued and debated or reformed and edited I'd nearly want to claim "always," in response to how long has it been happening. But the written record only goes back so far.

As for how many, only one. In my opinion of course.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thats seems irony to me that you would check a book written by humanity that is a beleif as opposed definite facts . I doubt Jesus was able to prove God was his father and Jesus's death demonstrates he was just a man .

No irony. Obeying the Bible works in life, relationships, finances, mental health, etc. besides prescience (proof of authorship) so why would I avoid checking it?

 

[Sheldon]

No irony. Obeying the Bible works in life, relationships, finances, mental health, etc. besides prescience (proof of authorship) so why would I avoid checking it?

Do you own slaves, stone unruly children at the edge of town, have you ever eaten shellfish, worn blended fabrics, grown any fruit or vegetables alongside a different fruit or vegetable. Do you think people who happen to be gay are an "abomination", what if you had a child who happened to be gay? Have you ever received interest on a bank account, isn't the bible against usury? Have you ever been tattooed?

Could you offer some objective evidence you know who wrote the bible please?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you own slaves, stone unruly children at the edge of town, have you ever eaten shellfish, worn blended fabrics, grown any fruit or vegetables alongside a different fruit or vegetable. Do you think people who happen to be gay are an "abomination", what if you had a child who happened to be gay? Have you ever received interest on a bank account, isn't the bible against usury? Have you ever been tattooed?

Could you offer some objective evidence you know who wrote the bible please?

I've cited the Bible's prescience above. The Sea Scrolls are centuries before Christ and contain the Bible's prescience that the Jewish people would go into diaspora, bring honor and intelligentsia to each of the nations in diaspora, be persecuted in each of those nations in diaspora, return to have their land given to them in one day (as happened by decree of the U.N. in 1948 CE), would STILL be surrounded by enemies and defeat them again and again, holding their land, etc. with dozens more prophecies fulfilled in modern (observable) Israel.

 

[Sheldon]

I've cited the Bible's prescience above. The Sea Scrolls are centuries before Christ and contain the Bible's prescience that the Jewish people would go into diaspora, bring honor and intelligentsia to each of the nations in diaspora, be persecuted in each of those nations in diaspora, return to have their land given to them in one day (as happened by decree of the U.N. in 1948 CE), would STILL be surrounded by enemies and defeat them again and again, holding their land, etc. with dozens more prophecies fulfilled in modern (observable) Israel.

Firstly you ignored the entirety of my post, (see the end where I have repeated with your claim I was responding to). However the fact it might get some things right doesn't make it prescient. You failed to answer my question. Could you offer some objective evidence you know who wrote the bible please? As you claimed of course.

Even IF sufficient evidence that a very specific claim was made, and then afterwards fulfilled exactly as described, to make an unevidenced assumption it was "prophesy" would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. All you would have is something you cannot explain. The same rationale applies to claims for miracles, where of course they aren't outright chicanery, they are defined exactly as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

You claimed:

Obeying the Bible works in life, relationships, finances, mental health, etc. besides prescience (proof of authorship) so why would I avoid checking it?

I responded:

Do you own slaves, stone unruly children at the edge of town, have you ever eaten shellfish, worn blended fabrics, grown any fruit or vegetables alongside a different fruit or vegetable. Do you think people who happen to be gay are an "abomination", what if you had a child who happened to be gay? Have you ever received interest on a bank account, isn't the bible against usury? Have you ever been tattooed?

Care to address that in light of your claim?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why do religious people believe the author of the scripts or books but then instantly disbeleive when somebody of modern times claims to be Gods messenger ?

If the message is already given, it would serve no purpose to send another messenger to simply repeat it.

Why there are no more prophets https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3898883/jewish/Why-Are-There-No-More-Prophets.htm

 

[BilliardsBall]

Firstly you ignored the entirety of my post, (see the end where I have repeated with your claim I was responding to). However the fact it might get some things right doesn't make it prescient. You failed to answer my question. Could you offer some objective evidence you know who wrote the bible please? As you claimed of course.

Even IF sufficient evidence that a very specific claim was made, and then afterwards fulfilled exactly as described, to make an unevidenced assumption it was "prophesy" would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. All you would have is something you cannot explain. The same rationale applies to claims for miracles, where of course they aren't outright chicanery, they are defined exactly as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

You claimed:



I responded:



Care to address that in light of your claim?

You have a false equivocation: "Get some things right". Unique in history, the Jewish people, per the Hebrew scriptures would:

. . . would go into diaspora, bring honor and intelligentsia to each of the nations in diaspora, be persecuted in each of those nations in diaspora, return to have their land given to them in one day (as happened by decree of the U.N. in 1948 CE), would STILL be surrounded by enemies and defeat them again and again, holding their land, etc. with dozens more prophecies fulfilled in modern (observable) Israel.


. . . Therefore, it's useless to pursue this line with you, after all, I could cite hundreds of prophecies about history or the Christ in the Bible and you would say "some things right".

 

[Sheldon]

You have a false equivocation:

Could you quote it please, and explain why you claim this?

. . . Therefore, it's useless to pursue this line with you,

So because someone offers a substantive and rational refutation you think debate is pointless? Well that is your choice I suppose, but I can only infer you don't really want to examine the claims you have made.

after all, I could cite hundreds of prophecies about history or the Christ in the Bible and you would say "some things right".

Could you? making a bare claim about what you could do speaks for itself, and making up a straw man response for me also speaks for itself. Who are you trying to convince here, me or you? Only neither one of us sounds convinced here...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Could you quote it please, and explain why you claim this?





So because someone offers a substantive and rational refutation you think debate is pointless? Well that is your choice I suppose, but I can only infer you don't really want to examine the claims you have made.



Could you? making a bare claim about what you could do speaks for itself, and making up a straw man response for me also speaks for itself. Who are you trying to convince here, me or you? Only neither one of us sounds convinced here...

re: Your final point, you may be right, would it help you (and also me, to escape my delusion) to post here say, 60 prophecies fulfilled in Israel since 1948 CE, and several hundred of more prophecies of the Christ?