As a conservative with federalist tendencies, I tend to appreciate and applaud the sentiment of those engaging in “tea parties,” especially on yesterday on “tax day.” However as a Christian, my political philosophy must come under the teachings of Scripture. Are the protests biblical?
I’m especially inclined to defend them when I see the unfair and inaccurate labels and slurs being thrown at many individuals who are simply fed up with paying too much in taxes. Despite that, those tendencies cannot rule the way I view philosophical choices.
So many passages in Scripture speak about submitting yourselves to earthly authorities, going to the point of saying they were established by God. Lest you think our current leadership is somehow disqualified from that standard, Paul wrote to the churches when they were under the persecution of Nero. Christians were being covered in tar, hung up on posts in his garden and lit on fire. That’s a bit more being than overtaxed.
I’m not saying that the tea parties and protests against the government are automatically anti-scriptural, but I am saying that many right-leaning Christians should remember these verses and really think about them before they engage in any protest. Our theology should always trump our politics. Jesus is much bigger and more important than an elephant or a donkey.
We should also remember that the “people” are not infallible. Conservatives have no problems with understanding the evil tendencies of governments, but sometimes we forget that the populace is not always right. They (we) are sinful, just like the people who run the government.
Those on the Christian Left need to remember the reverse. The government may be ordained by God, but they often act in ways that are not godlike (and are often godless). Our government, in its founding, understood this dilemma and dichotomy – the need to limit the power of both the private and public spheres. That principle is drawn from the idea that humanity is both created in the image of God and yet fallen from that state with a sinful nature.
So with an understanding of both the people and the government having the propensity to sin, how and when should a Christian rebel or protest the God-ordained government? One thing that we should always remember is that neither Jesus or the first century church actively protested the blatantly evil government. They recognized that the change that society needed was not going to come through governmental means. It would come through the Gospel.
Preeminent theologian, John Calvin, who believed in a strong relationship between church and state, saw three areas where the Christian could rebel against the government:
- Divine intervention
- Tyrannical rule blatantly opposed to the Gospel
- Conflicts of obedience between Christ and the state.
It would be hard for me to justify rebelling against the current government when considered the examples of those in the first century and the bar suggested by Calvin and others.
However, the question becomes is protesting tantamount to rebelling? I’m not sure I have that answer. I would think it would lie somewhere in the realm of Christian freedom – if you feel the need to do and feel no conviction against it, then it is acceptable. However, any action against the government should not be taken lightly when we take the examples from Church History and Scripture into account.
We are a government of people, and our first amendment allows and encourages us to speak or minds, so yes, protests of the nature of yesterday are not unbiblical.
Lying is unbiblical, bearing false witness is unbiblical. So it is quite possible to behave unbiblically while protesting, but there is still plenty of legitimate issues that are protestable.
Don't forget about the three views mentioned in Uneasy Neighbors – Church and State.
there are actually at least three distinct New Testament doctrines governing the Christian approach to government, not just one simplistic "all or nothing" approach (i.e. theocracy or secularism); submissive confidence, deep resistance, and critical distancing.
I wanted to turn this question around and ask, "Can atheists protest the Bible scientifically?" What could be done? Here is the answer…
What Would Jesus NOT Do?
Jesus had no objections with the OT, and since He is the God of the OT, and will come in fiery judgment, I'm sure he would do all that stuff. Enjoy.
Huh?
In answer to 'what would Jesus NOT do' I argued that all of the things they object to in that article Jesus might NOT object to, since he in no way repudiated the OT.
And further, since He talked about coming back in fiery judgment, the latter judgment will be in some ways worse than the 'crimes' of the OT for those who reject Him. So Jesus was behind all that stuff.
Cin, do you honestly just look for a place to post the latest popular atheist video on YouTube, having no mind to interact with what has already been said. Thread hijacker! :)
As to the video, I had already seen it and felt sorry for the guy who put it together. Atheists really have no concept of what Christians believe about anything apparently. It is amazing to see the ignorance on display in that video, which is compounded by the maker thinking that he knows so much by throwing the Scripture references.
After seeing that I was so convinced that God should bow to all of my requests and demands of him that I burned all my Bible and quit seminary. LOL!
Seriously, the whole video operates on a faulty preconception and mistaken ideas about who God is or even who Christians say God is and why Jesus did actually come.
Why do you say that? Wouldn't those have been good things Jesus could have done, but didn't?
Also, I thought the point at the end where Jesus said Mary's consent was neither requested nor required was ironic. You have to admit, it's a lot like when Zeus turned himself into a swan and [raped?] got Leda pregnant. Not sure if they teach you about the similarities between your religion and others in seminary though. If not, I can fill in the gaps.
For starters, Jesus didn't come to make our life easier here on Earth. He didn't come to give us some new medicine to slap on top of our existence here. He didn't come do to do tons of miraculous things (though some signs were involved). He didn't come to give us some special scientific knowledge. He came to cure the sin problem, which separates us from God. That is the biggest problem man faces (this is from the Christian perspective, obviously).
The video proposes that God come and do all the things that we want him to do. It says, "God this is how I will believe in you. Now do it!" If there is a God, do you honestly think you can demand Him to respond to you the exact way you want him to? If he is that much above us, do you think you (or I) are going to dictate to him how he should reveal himself.
It's funny that atheists think if God just did this thing, I would believe in him. No you wouldn't. You would explain that away just like everything else. If Jesus had come and given some scientific answers, atheists would simply explain that away as much later additions to the text (as they do with other prophecy) or they would claim it was a lucky guess or who knows what other excuse would be there. You (and the guy who did the video) don't believe because you don't want to believe. That's your position and that's fine, but don't blame God for not giving you enough evidence.
No, I didn't think the part at the end was ironic. I thought it was intentionally offensive, especially to Catholics. I'm not easily offended, so I didn't get upset about it, but obviously the guy through that in there to be offensive and in-your-face.
There is a large difference between Greek mythology developing over hundreds of years and then erotically describing the rape or seducing of a woman by a swan which results in her laying eggs (in some versions) and the extremely vague, nonsexual language pertaining to the event by the NT with a few dozen of years after.
Sure, you can find similarities between all religions, but that does not make one (or the other) automatically false. I'm sure you have dozens from atheists talking points and blogs that you can share, but none of them positively prove anything. That are nice talking points that atheists can discuss among themselves to sound smart. If you notice, no atheist actually uses those in scholarly debates with philosophically trained Christians.
They simply fit the sound bite culture of today. They sound pithy and cutting, but the reality does not match the semantics.
And again, you throw a little jab at my seminary education. I wonder how many atheist professors assign students Christian apologetics books to read and evaluate? I know tons of highly respected liberal universities around me that do not require the intensive training and study that my seminary does. I have to study original languages, while those at the liberal schools do not. My degree also requires much more hours than most masters degrees. I know guys that studies at Oxford, etc. who said their work at my school was much more academic and stringent.
But hey, you've got myths about swans rapping women in ancient Greece, so what I can say?
"Jesus didn't come to make our life easier here on Earth. He didn't come to give us some new medicine to slap on top of our existence here."
Wouldn't educating the ignorant help alleviate sin and suffering? A small example, if people knew that witches aren't real, that would have prevented the sins perpetrated during the Salem Witch trials.
"It says, "God this is how I will believe in you. Now do it!"
Isn't this just your interpretation? Isn't what are presented in the video proposals and not demands? In either case, weren't they denied anyway?
"If there is a God, do you honestly think you can demand Him to respond to you the exact way you want him to?"
Nope, but of there is a God I'd certainly propose that He alleviate needless suffering.
"If he is that much above us, do you think you (or I) are going to dictate to him how he should reveal himself."
If I was one of the arch angels from the video, and I was being asked what I thought at a meeting, I'd tell him many of the same things that were mentioned like, why don't you tell them about viruses instead of telling them sickness is caused by demons?
"You (and the guy who did the video) don't believe because you don't want to believe. That's your position and that's fine, but don't blame God for not giving you enough evidence."
WTH are you talking about? How can I blame a god I have no believe in? Explain how that's possible. It's like saying, "Don't blame the tooth fairy for not giving you enough evidence. You just don't want to believe in her. If the money under your pillow doesn't convince you nothing will!"
"I thought it was intentionally offensive, especially to Catholics. I'm not easily offended, so I didn't get upset about it, but obviously the guy through that in there to be offensive and in-your-face."
That's fine but does he have a point, Aaron? Is it true that Mary's consent was neither required nor requested? She was just told by an angel after Jesus got her pregnant?
"Sure, you can find similarities between all religions, but that does not make one (or the other) automatically false."
Of course not, but it does look like Christian mythology borrowed from Greek mythology since Greek mythology came first.
"I wonder how many atheist professors assign students Christian apologetics books to read and evaluate?"
Wouldn't that be counterproductive, Aaron? I can point to similarities between the Greek and Christian mythology but atheism has no mythology, no Gods, creation stories, etc.
"I have to study original languages, while those at the liberal schools do not. My degree also requires much more hours than most masters degrees. I know guys that studies at Oxford, etc. who said their work at my school was much more academic and stringent."
Latin and Hebrew might be tough but really, what else do you actually study aside from the Bible and what's hard about that? Is it mostly just memorizing scripture?
"But hey, you've got myths about swans rapping women in ancient Greece, so what I can say?"
Aaron, see? Now you are just being asinine. You must realize that I don't "got myths about swans rapping women" since I don't believe in them. You must also realize that Greek myth is much much closer to what you believe than what I believe. You said yourself that it was similar. So, why try to foist this on me when in reality it's closer to your own beliefs. Jesus (Zeus) impregnated a mortal named Mary (Leda) without her consent. True? Be honest now.
>> CIN: Nope, but of there is a God I'd certainly propose that He alleviate needless suffering.
So, you have a theology after all. I think it's interesting that God must meet your requirements or not be real.
To use your own words Daniel, "I think it's interesting that the tooth fairy must meet your requirements or not be real."
This comparison to the tooth vary is invalid, as I pointed out in Pascal's Wager – Part II: debunking the 'all religions are equally improbable' ruse
Quoting yourself as an authority and linking to your own posts on the subject in question as if they have any value shows that you are a moron, IMHO.
A small example, if people knew that witches aren’t real, that would have prevented the sins perpetrated during the Salem Witch trials.
Good example. My contention is that if those in charge of Salem had correctly understood and applied the Bible and the NT teachings, they would not have engaged in those sins. If you’d like, I can give you numerous Biblical examples that show that they were wrong. God had already taken care of that. They just didn’t listen.
Nope, but of there is a God I’d certainly propose that He alleviate needless suffering. … why don’t you tell them about viruses instead of telling them sickness is caused by demons?
Again, you are telling God what He should do with His creation. If you follow the thinking of the video, the “angels” were telling God to do it as a sign. He did signs, they didn’t help people believe Him. Neither would what you are suggesting.
Also, who in the world would believe some 1st Century Rabbi and his fisherman followers when they go around telling people that tiny living things are getting inside them and making them sick. They would have no way of understanding or processing that information. You are asking God to make the 1st Century like ours. Why would He make ours like the 22nd Century, when they know even more? This is an essentially endless and impossible request, as we learn more – why didn’t God tell us sooner?
How can I blame a god I have no believe in? Explain how that’s possible.
I’m discussing things from the perspective of the video. His argument (though the voice of God/angels) is that if God had done this and that as Jesus, then people would have believed Him. Because He didn’t tell them about viruses, end slavery and the whole list of other things, then He could not have been God. Jesus didn’t meet your (or the video maker’s) requirements for believing Him to be God.
Is it true that Mary’s consent was neither required nor requested? She was just told by an angel after Jesus got her pregnant?
Again, this is where the video display it’s total ignorance. From the Biblical passage:
So Mary “gave her consent,” although again I totally reject the idea of it being a sexual issue. It was not, hence the virgin birth. Which again, I know you don’t believe in, but you should at least know what Christians believe (so should the guy making the video, if he wants to attack it legitimately and educatedly.)
… but it does look like Christian mythology borrowed from Greek mythology since Greek mythology came first.
Do we often not see similarities in historical events to past mythology? Again, this is not an true argument against Christianity. It merely says that because there is similarities, there must be copying. That’s not always the case.
I keep repeating this, but it never really gets incorporated into the discussion – Greek mythology developed over hundreds of years, with the story still changing. That is not the case with the story of Jesus’ birth. It was established in written tradition with a relatively small period of time. It was only about 100 years later when mythology started to creep in – with the Gnostic Gospels and such. The original Gospels and the other books of the NT do not have the same fanciful, legendary literary feel as those do.
Wouldn’t that be counterproductive, Aaron? I can point to similarities between the Greek and Christian mythology but atheism has no mythology, no Gods, creation stories, etc.
I was given an atheist book (god is Not Great) to read at my Christian seminary. That was my point.
To atheism, it could be argued that the mythology is natural selection and evolution, the god would be humanity and the creation myth is different depending on who you are talking to (most atheists don’t like to discuss how life started), could be aliens, crystals, etc.
Latin and Hebrew might be tough but really, what else do you actually study aside from the Bible and what’s hard about that? Is it mostly just memorizing scripture?
I don’t blame you for your ignorance of seminary. Most people who grew up in Christianity don’t know what goes on at seminary. I have 3 semesters of Greek, 2 of Hebrew, Philosophy, Critical Thinking, Epistomology, 3 semesters of Theology, 3 of History, Problem of Evil, Ethics, World Religions, American Religious Groups, plus studies of the Bible (NT, OT, Hermeneutics, Exposition, etc.) There is also several other classes, but that gives you a feel for it.
Nearby Duke University Divinity School requires just over 70 hours. I have to have at least 96. They don’t study original languages.
I don’t say that as a “hey, look at me,” but just as an explanation that the studies are nothing to sneeze at. I’m not learning about how to memorize Scripture. I’m supposed to do that on my own. The studies are almost strictly academic, though some would contain portions of personal disciplines and piety.
You must realize that I don’t “got myths about swans rapping women” since I don’t believe in them. You must also realize that Greek myth is much much closer to what you believe than what I believe.
My somewhat sarcastic (okay, very sarcastic! ;)) response was that you were resting your argument on the similarities of the stories, where as I was arguing that there are numerous academic and historical reasons to demonstrate the differences and the reason why the NT would not fall under the mythological category.
“They just didn’t listen.”
I think they were listening all too well. Does it mention witchcraft in the Bible? If so, see? Why misled people like that?
“Again, you are telling God what He should do with His creation.”
That’s simply not true. How is it even possible someone has the authority to tell a god what to do? The only thing they can do, and this is what they did in the video whether you admit it or not, is make proposals and ask, “why not?”
“Also, who in the world would believe some 1st Century Rabbi and his fisherman followers when they go around telling people that tiny living things are getting inside them and making them sick.”
If Jesus wants it done, it will be done. Right? As the video said, instead of telling people shellfish is unclean, he could have told them to wash wounds.
“This is an essentially endless and impossible request, as we learn more – why didn’t God tell us sooner?.”
Well, that’s a good point. Why did Jesus wait? Why didn’t he come sooner? In your religion [Baptist, Calvinist?], there was a long time before Jesus came when there was lots of sin, right? What was the deal with the delay?
“Because He didn’t tell them about viruses, end slavery and the whole list of other things, then He could not have been God. Jesus didn’t meet your (or the video maker’s) requirements for believing Him to be God.”
Umm, no, Aaron, that is not why I, or the video maker, don’t believe in god. You can come up with a better straw man than that! The question is, why didn’t Jesus do those simple things? Why? They are very reasonable requests. Just to let you know, and you haven’t accepted this after 4 years of me telling you, I don’t believe in god for the same reason I don’t believe in the tooth fairy. It’s not that the tooth fairy doesn’t do as I ask or that the tooth fairy does not meet my ideological requirements, it’s simply that there is very little evidence of the tooth fairy’s existence. Oh, and yes, I’ve red Strobel’s book. It was geared toward reinforcing religious beliefs already held.
“Greek mythology developed over hundreds of years, with the story still changing. That is not the case with the story of Jesus’ birth.”
It is the case with the story of Jesus. In fact, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John tell different versions. You also know, as a seminary student, that there were mistranslations of the Bible. Bart Ehrman, an evangelical scholar (remember our discussion?), has some interesting tidbits about that. Anyway, it looks to me, that one borrowed from the other. Zeus, and many other gods, preceded Jesus in getting their virgins pregnant.
“So Mary “gave her consent,” although again I totally reject the idea of it being a sexual issue.”
I’m sorry but I really didn’t read the passage you quote like you do. Does that make me ignorant? Hardly. To me she sounded resigned, like a servant taking orders. She was told this was going to happen by an arch angel. She was going to be the mother of a god! Did she really have any choice in the matter? What do you say to that? “Excuse me Mr. Gabriel but tell God, NO!” Imagine how Joseph must have felt. The ultimate cuckold. As far as not being a sexual issue, which do you think is more likely, that a virgin gave birth to the son of god or that a Jewish Minx told a lie. My reason says the latter. Your faith says the former.
“(most atheists don’t like to discuss how life started)”
That’s because they don’t know and so don’t want to speculate. What Christians do is pretend they DO know when they really, honest to goodness, don’t know. You do not know that god made man out of mud. You believe it though. Then put forth your belief as knowledge.
“I have 3 semesters of Greek, 2 of Hebrew, Philosophy, Critical Thinking, Epistomology, 3 semesters of Theology, 3 of History, Problem of Evil, Ethics, World Religions, American Religious Groups, plus studies of the Bible (NT, OT, Hermeneutics, Exposition, etc.)”
Then why does it seem your education is so lacking when you speak here about philosophy and epistemology? Just being honest here, your response to the problem of evil discussion we had was quite unlettered. It also seems to me that I have more knowledge of other religions and schools of philosophy than you do, yet you say you study them? You didn’t know very much about Spinoza’s god either, if I recall. When I was in college [I attended a well known Military Academy] I met a girl from a neighboring school and I asked her what her major was. She said, Equestrian Science. Basically, she was going to school to ride horses. I think of seminary as having comparable academic rigor as that in relation to the bible stuff. If you know how to speak Greek, Hebrew and Latin though, then I can see that as being a worthwhile academic pursuit and I’ll give you credit for that.
“…there are numerous academic and historical reasons to demonstrate the differences and the reason why the NT would not fall under the mythological category.”
Only Christians accept them though. To all non-Christians, Christianity is indeed mythology, right?
>> CIN: Christianity is indeed mythology, right?
It has the POWER of myth, as Campbell would say, in that it has the qualities of archetypal characters that typify humanity. It is, however, not mythical in the "it's not true sense." It is historical.
>> CIN: Anyway, it looks to me, that one borrowed from the other. Zeus, and many other gods, preceded Jesus in getting their virgins pregnant.
The idea that Christianity is false because it is similar to previous mythologies entails a genetic fallacy. Did Martin Luther King not die because others had been murdered previously? I understand that he supernatural element makes it somewhat more likely that the miraculous of the Bible was made up, but the similarities do not prove the link you offer – can you show evidence of such copying, other than the similarities? No. Nor do they invalidate the historic evidence for such claims, which are LACKING in the other mythologies.
Also, it has been refuted pretty soundly in many places. That argument is weak, and certainly not a reason to doubt the historicity of the Scriptures.
Does it mention witchcraft in the Bible? If so, see? Why misled people like that?
It does because people did and do practice witchcraft. Again that is a supernatural issue which you dismiss out of hand, but the issue is not does it mention it, the issue is how the Bible (as a whole) teaches to respond to it. The NT revelation shows us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us and numerous other passages that should have prevented them from doing that to the "witches," whatever they may have been.
Well, that's a good point. Why did Jesus wait? Why didn't he come sooner? In your religion [Baptist, Calvinist?], there was a long time before Jesus came when there was lots of sin, right?
You miss my point, but raise another one. My point was that we will learn things in the future that we do not know now. The atheist can always say, "Why didn't God tell us this sooner."
But to your point, the Bible says that Jesus came "in the fullness of time." It was at the exact right point to fulfill OT prophecy and to spread in the most effective manner. Also, you have the use of Greek in the NT which, as I'm learning now, was the best choice for the language.
The question is, why didn't Jesus do those simple things? Why? They are very reasonable requests. Just to let you know, and you haven't accepted this after 4 years of me telling you, I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in the tooth fairy.
Because, as I already told you. The problem facing humanity (from the Christian perspective) is not about viruses. As Jesus said, what would it benefit a man if you gain the whole world, but lose your soul. The spiritual and eternal is more important than the temporal. Jesus had a set goal in mind, which He accomplished.
You keep repeating the line about the tooth fairy and I get it. But those issues are obviously not the same. There is no evidence for tooth fairies and much evidence for God. You don't accept it and I accept that, but there is a difference. No adults believe in tooth fairies. The majority of the world believes in God. There is a LARGE difference there and it weakens your arguments and stance when you try to compare the two. I know it's part of your tactics (as which politics) to substitute the silliest possible thing for something serious to the other side in order to make their serious beliefs seem ridiculous.
In fact, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John tell different versions. You also know, as a seminary student, that there were mistranslations of the Bible. Bart Ehrman, an evangelical scholar (remember our discussion?), has some interesting tidbits about that.
In all honesty and humbleness, the agnostic Ehrman doesn't know what he is talking about. The Gospels give varying accounts, but they do not show any signs of legendary material, aside from the supernatural. You reject a priori simply because of the supernatural material. You beg the question in the discussion with circular reasoning. Supernatural can't be true because it is legendary. It is legendary because it contains the supernatural.
As far as not being a sexual issue, which do you think is more likely, that a virgin gave birth to the son of god or that a Jewish Minx told a lie. My reason says the latter.
Your assumptions against the supernatural say the latter.
That's because they don't know and so don't want to speculate.
Except that is a fundamental question which would prevent evolution from happening. If no life began it can't evolve. If you want to propose an explanation about how life developed, you have to answer that question.
Oh and they don't speculate, except when they do about aliens and crystals, etc.
Then why does it seem your education is so lacking when you speak here about philosophy and epistemology? Just being honest here, your response to the problem of evil discussion we had was quite unlettered. It also seems to me that I have more knowledge of other religions and schools of philosophy than you do, yet you say you study them?
First of all, those are the classes I have to take for my degree. I have not taken all of them. Secondly, I believe you are bit biased in your evaluation of my knowledge and argumentation. Lastly, I will acknowledge that I am not as well versed in every area as I should be. That's why I'm at school – to learn. But I think you overstate your own expertise a bit at the expense of my own because we disagree.
Only Christians accept them though. To all non-Christians, Christianity is indeed mythology, right?
That's like saying only atheists believe that there is no God, so they must be wrong, right? Of course only Christians believe the NT to be true and accurate. By definition, once you believe that you would be a Christian. Again, circular reasoning. If you believe the NT to be true then you are a Christian. If only Christians believe the NT, then it must be mythology.
Oh, I forgot. As you display your superior knowledge of other religions. Baptist is a denomination, not a religion. Calvinism is a theological paradigm, which is held by people from numerous Christian denominations. But I'm sure you knew that. ;) (Sorry, but I had to bust you a little, after you the whole "I'm-more-knowledgeable-than-you speech.)
I really am joking with you, but I hope you do understand that we all are lacking in our understanding and knowledge. None of us here has complete understanding of everything, so we all can learn a bit (at least) from each other.
" Again that is a supernatural issue which you dismiss out of hand…"
Well ya, witchcraft is an ignorant belief. Surely Aaron, you agree with that. So, don't argue the point. Makes you look silly when you argue for witchcraft. I get on Seeker because of his ridiculous belief in witches. Do they teach that witchcraft is real in the seminary? If so, that should tell you it's time to leave.
"But to your point, the Bible says that Jesus came "in the fullness of time.""
Only Christians believe what the bible says. So, no one takes your reply seriously except for your fellow Christians.
"Because, as I already told you. The problem facing humanity (from the Christian perspective) is not about viruses."
Then why does the bible state that Jesus healed the sick? He could have healed many more with just a little good advice, right?
"There is no evidence for tooth fairies and much evidence for God."
As I said, only Christians themselves buy that "evidence." Non-Christians obviously don't believe in Jesus just as they don't believe in the tooth fairy.
"No adults believe in tooth fairies."
That's not true. A great many adult Icelanders believe in fairies. Tooth fairies included. In fact, they have to inspect mines for fairies before the miners will enter. You learned just something new. :)
"In all honesty and humbleness, the agnostic Ehrman doesn't know what he is talking about."
That's very arrogant, IMHO. Ehrman is a very respected biblical scholar and he knows much more than you about the the history of the Bible, right? You dismiss his expertise simply because his research doesn't square with your ideology. If his research agreed with your ideology, you'd be citing him as an authority to me.
"Supernatural can't be true because it is legendary. It is legendary because it contains the supernatural."
Dude, that's retarded. Give me a break. Is that why you don't believe in the tooth fairy? Lack of evidence, right? Well, same here. You're argument is awful.
"That's like saying only atheists believe that there is no God, so they must be wrong, right?"
No, wrong.
You do agree with this, "Only Christians accept them [Aaron's numerous academic and historical reasons] though. To all non-Christians, Christianity is indeed mythology, right?" You did say, after all, that, "By definition, once you believe that you would be a Christian."
"Sorry, but I had to bust you a little"
Aaron, where did you bust me? Are you a Baptist? Calvinist? Both? Do you believe in predestination? What? You seem to only have knowledge of Christianity. You don't seem have a broad knowledge of religion(s), history and philosophy. That's why seminary seems to be a waste. But, since you say you can speak Greek, Hebrew and Latin, I'll give you credit there. If they teach you in seminary that witchcraft is real, well… cuckoo cuckoo.
Cin, honestly there's not much I can say in this discussion. You ask a question about why Jesus came at a certain time and not earlier. I answer it from a Christian perspective using the Bible and other reasons to explain why theologically and logically Jesus came when he did. And you dismissively respond that only Christians believe the Bible.
I dismiss Ehrman and you dismiss all the scholars that agree with me, so now we are at square one on that issue.
The argument you said was awful and retard was exactly what you said. You dismissed the Bible as legendary because it contained supernatural material, then you claimed it contained supernatural material because it was legendary. That's circular reasoning and that's been your argumentation in this thread.
Just because I know you'll think you "got me" and you'll keep hammering it down: witchcraft. I do think witchcraft is an ignorant belief. It is stupid to believe that you can harness dark power to your benefit that's why Christianity teaches against it. But again you have an a priori disposition against any supernatural. If one allows for God, then it is not a big issue to allow for an evil supernatural being. There was a good debate recently on the existence of Satan.
At this point, you start ascribing to me numerous superstitious beliefs and believe that I believe so many things that I do not. You can go ahead and be dismissive. Attack and assume!
Yes I did by definition you would be a Christian if you believed those things, that is my point. If I stopped believing in God, I would by definition be an atheist.
You can't argue circularly that because only Christians believe something it must be false, when those beliefs define who Christians are. Again, that's like saying Christianity is false because Christians believe Christian things. Again, atheism is false because atheists believe atheist things. It's not an argument, it's a statement of opinion.
I "busted" you because you called Baptist and Calvinists religions. I was just joking with you a little, but you deserved it a little based on the arrogance in your statement praising your own knowledge. You always bust on Daniel for posting links to his own articles, but you essentially do the same. You claim your own expertise as the final judge of the intelligence and rationale of others and their arguments.
I have a knowledge of other religions and belief systems, but again not as much as I would like – hence me going to school to learn more. I've only been in classes less than a year. You call it a waste, but in these discussions the only way I could demonstrate my intelligence and therefore the value of my seminary education would be to agree with you. Again, since we are throwing the arrogant card down, would that not apply in this case?
"And you dismissively respond that only Christians believe the Bible."
Aaron, you call this dismissive yet it's the truth. Moreover, you agree with me that only Christians believe in the Bible.
"You dismissed the Bible as legendary because it contained supernatural material, then you claimed it contained supernatural material because it was legendary."
No. you are the one who claimed I dismissed supernatural material because it was legendary. That's you putting words in my mouth. I actually said that there is not enough evidence to believe in the supernatural. You agree with me there as that's why you don't believe in the tooth fairy; not enough evidence.
"That's circular reasoning and that's been your argumentation in this thread."
Again, no. I've not made that argument. That's the argument you attribute to me.
"It is stupid to believe that you can harness dark power to your benefit that's why Christianity teaches against it."
So Aaron, you believe witchcraft is stupid because it doesn't exist or is it stupid because it's futile to think one can harness dark power for their own benefit? Do you believe witchcraft exists, Aaron?
"But again you have an a priori disposition against any supernatural."
No, not at all. I don't have an a priori disposition against the tooth fairy either. If there was good evidence for the tooth fairy's existence, I'd believe in her existence. The same applies to your god.
"If I stopped believing in God, I would by definition be an atheist."
No. Muslims believe in god and they are not atheists.
"You can't argue circularly that because only Christians believe something it must be false"
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that only Christians believe the "evidence." All I said was, "To all non-Christians, Christianity is indeed mythology." You must agree because you said that, "By definition, once you believe that you would be a Christian."
"Again, atheism is false because atheists believe atheist things."
Atheist things? Such as? The one thing all atheists have in common is that they have no god(s) belief(s). Other than that, to each his own.
"You always bust on Daniel for posting links to his own articles, but you essentially do the same."
Hardly. If Daniel says that "gay marriage is wrong" I'll only believe him if he links to a post where he says, "gay marriage is wrong." LOL!
"You claim your own expertise as the final judge of the intelligence and rationale of others and their arguments."
Oh no, Aaron. I'm far from the sharpest tool in the shed. That's why I reference people who are more learned than I am on certain subjects, like Bart Ehrman.
"…the only way I could demonstrate my intelligence and therefore the value of my seminary education would be to agree with you."
No, don't ever think that. I do think you're a smart guy. Just really misguided and that's what I think is very sad. I really do think you're wasting you're education and that concerns me. Does the seminary teach you witchcraft is real? You can demonstrate what you learn by applying it in your arguments. Have the vision to see my point of view, opposite as it as from yours. For example, don't keep attributing arguments to me that I haven't made. When you understand where your opponent is coming from, you can respond to his points more effectively. I think I see your point of view clearly. If you think I don't, then tell me where I've erred. I'll use the corrected information against you for sure. :)
>> CIN: I get on Seeker because of his ridiculous belief in witches. Do they teach that witchcraft is real in the seminary? If so, that should tell you it's time to leave.
You have no idea what I believe about witchcraft, much less what the Bible does and does not teach on it, yet you continue to parade your straw man about what I believe. Incredible. On this point, you are the ignorant one. I think your knowledge of such things, including the historical events, comes from the cinema.
>> CIN: Then why does the bible state that Jesus healed the sick? He could have healed many more with just a little good advice, right?
Because his healings were SIGNS confirming his teaching and identity. He taught that full healing doesn't come until He returns. He wasn't here to heal everyone physically – death and sickness don't disappear yet, sorry to say. But in the life to come, they do.
>> CIN: As I said, only Christians themselves buy that "evidence."
No, only atheist materialists who limit what evidence they will consider are unable to evaluate the differences between faith claims. I addressed this failing in full in the series on Pascal's Wager.
>> AARON: Ehrman doesn't know what he is talking about.
I have to disagree with you a little Aaron. He's done a lot of work in his field, and is entitled to his opinions. He asks some good questions, challenges illogical stances on inerrancy, but unfortunately, throws the baby out with the bathwater, in part, not because of his intellectual acumen, but as he admits in God's Problem, because the problem of suffering, in his experience and mind, contradicts the idea of the Omni God. That's his prerogative, but he's not ignorant, just, in our opinion, mistaken.
>> CIN: Do you believe in predestination? What? You seem to only have knowledge of Christianity. You don't seem have a broad knowledge of religion(s), history and philosophy. That's why seminary seems to be a waste.
I agree that seminary ought to have some comparative religion thrown in, if for no other reason than to make us effective in understanding those we plan to evangelize, and perhaps even learn from ;). However, you have an assumption about what you think seminary OUGHT to do, but that really depends on what we think the purpose is.
>> CIN: Do you believe witchcraft exists, Aaron?
a. We believe that people PRACTICE witchcraft, and whether or not it has supernatural power, it does hold sway over them through superstition and fear.
b. We believe that nature worship, which is what 'white' witchcraft (Wicca) is about, is bogus because it worships the creation instead of the creator, and keeps people from saving faith in Christ.
c. We believe that there ARE supernatural, evil powers which men try to marshal, but I believe that mostly, such people have no external power over others, but rather, end up being oppressed and bound themselves. Whether or not you attribute that inner bondage to mere psychological factors, or also believe that there ARE spiritual forces at work, which I think can happen, is up to the individual Christian.
The Bible does not talk too much about witchcraft, except to admit that it is a religious system, like divination or spiritism, which hurts the people involved in it, in part because they get involved with demonic powers. However, there is little evidence in the Bible that people can actually martial these powers to hurt others, as the movies claim.
>> CIN: I'm arguing that only Christians believe the "evidence." All I said was, "To all non-Christians, Christianity is indeed mythology."
Not true. Atheists that come to believe the evidence BECOME Christians. Also, not all of Christianity is mythology. Huge swaths of the Bible are corroborated by history and archaeology. The only part that could be considered 'mythology' is the 'revealed' truths, and the supernatural claims – did Jesus rise? Is there a life to come?
But not all of xianity is mythological in a materialist sense.
I apologize if I misstated your argumentation, I will try better to more accurately respond to what you said.
Moreover, you agree with me that only Christians believe in the Bible.
You are combining and confusing two different points I was making.
The reason why I said you were being dismissive of me referencing the Bible, was that you asked why Jesus came at the specific time he did? If you are going to ask a question like that, which presupposes the Biblical story of Jesus (not that you believed it, just that you were stating it for a hypothetical situation), you have to let me respond in a like manner. If you ask questions about Jesus that concern theology, etc. then it should be expected that a Christian (or even a scholar like Ehrman) would respond with a reference to what the Bible teaches on the subject.
The whole video and discussion was about why Jesus did or didn’t do certain things. Again, I provided both a Biblical and a secular reason for why God would choose to send Jesus at the time he did.
The other point, which you were quoting me from was our about why you cannot dismiss argumentation simply because “only a Christian believes it.” My point is that, and I think Daniel perhaps cleared it up, is that once a person goes from being skeptical about what the Bible teaches to believing it then they become a Christian. The information and evidences do convince non-Christians or else the faith would never grow, but once they are convinced they become part of the faith.
Again, it is like you convincing me to be an atheist. Once I agree with you I’m an atheist, so only atheists believe those points you just argued. That doesn’t make them true or not true. It just makes them atheist beliefs. Same for Christianity. Their origin in Christianity doesn’t make them true or not true. It just makes them Christian beliefs.
Do you believe witchcraft exists, Aaron?
Again, you like this question because it allows you to assume ignorance and make rash generalizations. But again, as I said, if you allow for a God and “good spirits” (though that is a dangerously imprecise term), it should not be illogical to accept those that are not.
Again, I think Daniel gave a pretty good overview of Christian belief on the demonic. No one is arguing that every time a person has a headache or worse a mental illness that a demon is on them. And no one here is supporting some silly Halloween notion of witches, brooms and the sort.
I’m merely stating that as a logical and rational Christian, I believe that their is a spiritual side to life.
If there was good evidence for the tooth fairy’s existence, I’d believe in her existence. The same applies to your god.
Again, this is where you sound silly and frankly out of touch with history and philosophy. It is inconceivable to assert that there is as much evidence for God as there is for tooth fairies. There’s a reason why no serious atheist philosopher would ever make such a point in a true academic debate. They would get destroyed.
I’m not nearly as skilled as I want to be in rhetoric, philosophy, etc. but when true academic scholars debate God both acknowledge that their is evidence on either side. The only ones who make silly arguments about fairies are the ones who aren’t actually engaged in a scholarly debate or are more concerned with making emotional and rhetorical points than philosophical ones (like Hitchens). A person like William Rowe is one that comes to mind (he is a lot like Ehrman, having left the Christian faith after studying to be a minister).
I don’t know of any scholar and intellectual who would dare say that some one like Alvin Plantiga, J.P. Moreland and to some extent Antony Flew believed in something that was the philosophical equivalent of fairies.
You can argue that the evidence doesn’t meet your threshold and there’s nothing I can really argue with you about that. We can discuss the issues and I can try to change your mind about the evidence, but your decision is your own. It is a much different matter to state that the majority of the world’s citizens presently and historically, including some of the brightest minds the world has ever known, are so infantile as to believe in something with the same amount of evidence as fairies.
No. Muslims believe in god and they are not atheists.
Agreed, which is why I said if someone stops believing in God (any and all “gods”), then they would by definition be an atheist, since an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. Again, my point the moment I stop believing in a god I become an atheist so the evidence that convinced me is only believed by an atheist.
I’m arguing that only Christians believe the “evidence.”
But you are missing my point that, while true to an extent it doesn’t prove anything because if you believe the evidence then you are by definition a Christian at that point. An atheist can be converted to Christianity through the evidence, but once they pass that point of belief they become a Christian. None of that has any standing on whether the information is true or the evidence is compelling.
"An atheist can be converted to Christianity through the evidence…"
I'll respond to the rest of your post later as I am pressed for time.
I just wanted to say that this has never and can never happen. There is no evidence you can point to. Evidence for god(s)/supernatural entities does not exist. That is why Christianity is a FAITH; one of many. It is not knowledge. That is why there is exactly the same amount of evidence for the tooth fairy as there is that Jesus is god. It's not an assertion, it's a fact. By definition, there is no evidence for the supernatural. There is no evidence the tooth fairy exists. There is no evidence Zeus exists. There is no evidence wherever god someone believes in exists.
It's impossible for an atheist to be converted to Christianity by evidence. It is also impossible to convert a Christian to atheism by evidence. No evidence exists either way!
"There's a reason why no serious atheist philosopher would ever make such a point in a true academic debate. They would get destroyed."
I just destroyed your argument. We'll get to witches when I get get back.
It's impossible for an atheist to be converted to Christianity by evidence. It is also impossible to convert a Christian to atheism by evidence. No evidence exists either way!
In many of these discussions, you often speak of arrogance and telling someone else what they believe or what their motivations are or have been. You do realize what you are saying here – that you know better than millions of people why they became a Christian (or even those who became an atheist).
You are saying that 100's of years of philosophical discussions and debates have been rendered worthless because of your pronouncement that no evidence exists. You are saying that some of the most intelligent philosophical minds in the history of the world had no evidence for their beliefs.
Again, I'm trying to back you off this arrogant, essentially non-existent philosophical ledge. If you are saying that there is no proofs for either side, then perhaps we can agree. If you are saying that the level of evidence does not rise to the standard you have, then that is a legitimate assertion.
To maintain your statement, you have to demonstrate why people change beliefs based on no evidence. You have to demonstrate why you know better than the individuals involved. You have to demonstrate why you know better than countless philosophers and theologians and even atheists who debate and discuss the evidences for and against the existence of God.
I just destroyed your argument.
No, it seems you made very strong, audacious assertions that require you to prove that you know more than so many of the experts that we have constantly cited in this and other discussions.
I do hope that I misconstrued the point you were making. If so, please clarify.
Oh my, this has gotten your panties in a wad!
"It is inconceivable to assert that there is as much evidence for God as there is for tooth fairies."
You sound like Vizzini from "The Princess Bride." "Inconceivable!!" My dear Aaron, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. :) It's not an assertion at all, Aaron. It's a fact. There is as much evidence for Allah as there is for Zeus as there is for the tooth fairy as there is for the FSM as there is for Jesus being divine.
"Again, I'm trying to back you off this arrogant, essentially non-existent philosophical ledge."
I am just dying with laughter now! By definition, there can be no evidence for the supernatural. All evidence for existence is material.
Think of it this way. How is it possible for something immaterial to leave material evidence? Just tell me how that's possible. Magic? If one believes in the supernatural, then by definition, it's a belief not based on evidence. By the same token, the belief of a strong atheist [there is no god(s)] is also a belief not based on evidence.
You make seem like I'm saying something that's extraordinary when I'm just stating an obvious truth. Here is what the dictionary says…
faith (fath) n. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
"You are saying that 100's of years of philosophical discussions and debates have been rendered worthless because of your pronouncement that no evidence exists. You are saying that some of the most intelligent philosophical minds in the history of the world had no evidence for their beliefs."
Name one thing, one little piece of hard evidence, for the existence of any supernatural being. Fairy Rings are not evidence of fairies.
Also, did you know that atheists are not atheists because of evidence for no god? Atheism, aside from strong atheists, is the DEFAULT logical position. One needs no evidence AT ALL to be a an atheist. For example, if you tell me there is a leprechaun perched on your left shoulder, I'd be a leprechaun atheist until you showed me evidence. If you point out that, I have no evidence that there is not a leprechaun perched on your shoulder I'd reply that's true, but I still don't believe in your leprechaun. That's just the natural default position that rational people take.
I almost forget, witches. "But again, as I said, if you allow for a God and "good spirits it should not be illogical [instead of saying it should not be illogical, you could have used the word "logical"]…" Aaron, it sounds like you believe in witchcraft. I can't resist. Here is the evidence for witches. "There are ways of telling if she's a witch, ROTFLMAO! " I think this sums up my entire argument regarding evidence for the supernatural and witches.
Oh my, this has gotten your panties in a wad!
No, but I am a bit surprised that you would make such huge statements and claim to destroy hundreds of years of philosophy with assertions and quotes from Nietzsche and Sagan.
There is as much evidence for Allah as there is for Zeus as there is for the tooth fairy as there is for the FSM as there is for Jesus being divine.
OK, to help me understand where you are coming from: can you define evidence as you are using it?
In a philosophical argument, I would define evidence, as Alvin Plantinga does. There is 1)propositional evidence and 2)experiential evidence. Propositional evidence can further be divided into deductive and inductive. All of this is Philosophy 101.
Simply because you do not accept an evidence as conclusive does not mean that it is not an evidence. The cosmological and teleological arguments are evidences. Religious experience is an evidence. The existence of common morality, the existence of truth, the fact that we have an idea we call God, human consciousness, etc. are all evidences for God. As far as the divinity of Jesus: the change in the lives of his disciples, the very existence of the church today (indicating that the early critics could not demonstrate the continued death of Jesus), the historical accuracy of the NT, the earliness of Christians accepting Him as God, etc. all are evidences.
You don't have to believe them for them to be an evidence.
Atheism, aside from strong atheists, is the DEFAULT logical position.
I would disagree. Philosophically, you are begging the question. Your assumption is that there is no God and you demand I prove otherwise. That's shifting the burden of proof and in a proper philosophical debate, that wouldn't happen. We would each have to demonstrate evidences for our beliefs, not simply assert that the other guy is crazy for holding that irrational belief.
Historically and anthropologically, it is not the default position that people have held. Humans are inclined to belief in the supernatural. They always have been. If it was, as you say, the default position than people would have to be taught to believe in God. Civilizations in jungles would be atheists, if it is the default position of people.
Also, you aren't proposing atheism, you proposing skepticism. There is a difference although the two are often connected.
To demonstrate the fault philosophical underpinnings of ideas like Nietzsche, let's evaluate his statement:
If that is true, then what evidence from the senses does he have for that statement? What material evidence is there for that philosophical claim? It's a philosophically self-defeating truth. It's like "there is no absolute truth." Is that absolutely true? You cannot assert that evidence of the truth only comes from the senses, when that statement itself has no evidence from the senses. Therefore, according to the statement itself, it must therefore be false.
How is it possible for something immaterial to leave material evidence? Just tell me how that's possible.
Again, we must disagree if you believe the only evidence that can be accepted is material. But aside from that, it is quite possibly for something immaterial to leave material evidence. Why would it not be?
If the immaterial is something supernatural and it is a person with the free will to act upon the natural, what would prevent it from doing so? It is exists outside of the material, but that does not require it from acting within the material.
In a way, it is like a writer with a story. The writer does not exist within the frame work of the story, but he most certainly can effect the happenings within the story – he is the creator of the story.
Your ideas are immaterial, yet they can have material consequences. I have been reading your responses (material) which give me evidence as to both the existence and the make-up of your ideas (immaterial).
What evidence from the senses, since that is how you defined it, do you have to assert that the immaterial cannot leave material evidence?
"There are ways of telling if she's a witch, ROTFLMAO!"
And here you sum up my problem with this discussion and my hesitation to try to discuss any issue of this vein with you. You did exactly what I said you would do.
You assert that you have the judgment to dismiss hundreds of years of philosophical work and pass judgment on the rationality of some of the brightest, most intelligent minds in the history of our civilization and you do this partly by quoting from The Princess Bride and linking to a Monty Python clip. Great movies both, but you seem to want to engage in a similar type of debate as Hitchens. Assume the ignorance of your opponent, toss out some pithy sound bites, while never making an actual philosophical argument all the while declaring that all the philosophers who disagree with you have no evidence.
I'll give you one thing Cin. You are brash.
Please excuse the typos. I'm dead in the middle of a 15 page research paper, so I'm a bit disjointed in this discussion.
“I am a bit surprised that you would make such huge statements and claim to destroy hundreds of years of philosophy with assertions and quotes from Nietzsche and Sagan.”
I did no such thing, sir!
“I would define evidence, as Alvin Plantinga does.”
Material evidence. There is none.
“All of this is Philosophy 101.”
Inductive and deductive are forms of reasoning, not evidence. Inductive reasoning, the sun will rise tomorrow because it’s risen a million times before. Deductive. 2 + 2 = 4.
“Simply because you do not accept an evidence as conclusive does not mean that it is not an evidence.”
It would be nice if some evidence existed that we could evaluate.
“The cosmological and teleological arguments are evidences.”
No, those are only logical arguments which can be argued against with other logical arguments.
“Religious experience is an evidence.”
No. If it was then the religious experiences of the Celts would be evidence for fairies.
“The existence of common morality, the existence of truth, the fact that we have an idea we call God, human consciousness, etc. are all evidences for God.”
ROTFL, No! Farts exist, that’s evidence for god?
“…the change in the lives of his disciples”
My life has changed to. That’s not evidence for the supernatural.
“…the very existence of the church today (indicating that the early critics could not demonstrate the continued death of Jesus)”
Don’t churches of other religions still exist today? Do you take their existence as evidence for their gods as well?
“…the historical accuracy of the NT”
A Tale of Two Cities is very historically accurate. Is that evidence that it’s not a novel?
“…the earliness of Christians accepting Him as God”
Zoroastrianism is the first monotheistic religion. Is the age of the religion evidence for it’s truth value?
I love this! Keep ’em coming and I’ll knock em down as fast as you can set ’em up!
“I would disagree. Philosophically, you are begging the question. Your assumption is that there is no God and you demand I prove otherwise. That’s shifting the burden of proof and in a proper philosophical debate, that wouldn’t happen. We would each have to demonstrate evidences for our beliefs, not simply assert that the other guy is crazy for holding that irrational belief.”
No, actually. You’ve got this completely wrong. If someone is making a claim like “a leprechaun is perched on my shoulder” or “Jesus is the son of god,” that person has the burden of proof. The person who makes the claim is obligated to provide evidence. The atheist is making no claim about the leprechaun. Also, the atheist is not asserting that the guy who claims there is a leprechaun perched on his shoulder is crazy for holding an irrational belief. The atheist simply does not believe in the leprechaun until evidence is presented.
“Historically and anthropologically, it is not the default position that people have held.”
As I showed you, it is the default position, the logical position to take until the burden of proof is met.
“Humans are inclined to belief in the supernatural. They always have been.”
Humans are also inclined to believe in superstitions like astrology. that’s not evidence for astrology. Fairies are supernatural. So what if people are inclined to believe in them?
“To demonstrate the fault philosophical underpinnings of ideas like Nietzsche… All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses… Therefore, according to the statement itself, it must therefore be false. “
LOL! Oh, Aaron. You should publish a paper debunking Nietzche. Seriously, what evidence does not come from your senses? I’d say it’s prima facie.
“Again, we must disagree if you believe the only evidence that can be accepted is material.”
That’s what they guy who claimed there is a leprechaun sitting on his shoulder said, “I can provide lot’s of immaterial evidence for my leprechaun but I have to disagree with your unreasonable request for material evidence.”
“If the immaterial is something supernatural and it is a person”
Stop there. A person is by definition neither immaterial nor supernatural. Do you mean a ghost or spirit?
“…with the free will to act upon the natural”
By what means? Wouldn’t a ghost pass right through you?
“…he is the creator of the story. “
Is a writer natural or supernatural? Natural.
“What evidence from the senses, since that is how you defined it, do you have to assert that the immaterial cannot leave material evidence?”
Huh?
“You assert that you have the judgment to dismiss hundreds of years of philosophical work and pass judgment on the rationality of some of the brightest, most intelligent minds in the history of our civilization and you do this partly by quoting from The Princess Bride and linking to a Monty Python clip.”
You keep saying this but I’m sorry Aaron, an argument for witchcraft is not what I’d call “rationality of some of the brightest, most intelligent minds in the history of our civilization.” I can’t help but mock it because it’s so ridiculous. Jesus Christ Aaron, witchcraft! Think about that. If the seminary is teaching you that witchcraft is not just a superstitious practice, but real, leave! You’re being suckered.
“…while never making an actual philosophical argument all the while declaring that all the philosophers who disagree with you have no evidence.”
Do I really need to do this for witches? Why not the FSM while I’m at it?
Inductive and deductive are forms of reasoning, not evidence. Inductive reasoning, the sun will rise tomorrow because it’s risen a million times before.
And that’s not evidence for the sun rising tomorrow? You seriously do not include reasoning as evidence?
It would be nice if some evidence existed that we could evaluate.
All those things I listed are evidences, again they do not meet your standard to convince you but that does not mean they are evidences.
Also, the arguments behind them are much more indepth and lengthy than we have time for here. So sure you can look at the one line and rhetorically dismiss them, but the philosophical arguments behind them build a case. It is a cumulative argument. What best explains everything?
The atheist simply does not believe in the leprechaun until evidence is presented.
That’s skepticism and it doesn’t work as a philosophy for life. Why trust anything if you do not have evidence?
How can you trust that when you sit in a chair it is not going to collapse? Sure, it hasn’t collapses all the other times you sat in it, but that’s only deductive reasoning, not evidence according to you.
If you operate totally as a skeptic who only accepts material evidence, you could not trust anything or anyone.
Humans are also inclined to believe in superstitions like astrology. that’s not evidence for astrology.
I didn’t say that our belief inclination was evidence for anything. I was merely refuting your assertion that atheism is humanity’s default position.
Seriously, what evidence does not come from your senses? I’d say it’s prima facie.
Based on what? What sensual evidence do you have to support both the statement and your assertion that it’s prima facie?
According to you, something cannot be true unless it has evidence from the senses. Does Nietzche’s statement have evidence from the senses? If not, according to you, I can dismiss it without considering it.
A person is by definition neither immaterial nor supernatural. Do you mean a ghost or spirit?
You do know that Christians do not believe in some Casper the Ghost force for God, don’t you?
By what means? Wouldn’t a ghost pass right through you?
Where did I say anything about a ghost? Whose arguing about that? I’m speaking of a supernatural God, which has free will to act upon the material which he created.
Is a writer natural or supernatural? Natural.
Are you even examining my analogy or are you just looking for quotes to pull out and ridicule? I fear this discussion is degenerating because you don’t seem to want to engage in it, except to make generalizations and negative assumptions.
As far as the analogy goes, the writer is not natural by any means that the characters in the story would define him as (if they had thoughts). Yes, I understand this is an imperfect analogy, but if you consider this world and the material as a story, if a “writer” exists outside of this and has influence over the events unfolding. He would seem immaterial to us. You would maintain that he cannot have a material impact on this world because he is not material as you define it, but to Him, the writer, he is more material than you are. Just as the writer of a story is more material than the characters he is writing.
Huh?
I’m simply applying your definition for evidence to your statements. You claim that the immaterial cannot leave material evidence, what is your material evidence for that claim?
Again for something to be true, you maintain that it must have material, sensual evidence. What is that evidence for your claim about the immaterial?
You keep saying this but I’m sorry Aaron, an argument for witchcraft is not what I’d call “rationality of some of the brightest, most intelligent minds in the history of our civilization.”
I’m not talking about witchcraft, I’m talking about God in the context of our discussion here.
That’s why I didn’t even want to respond to your inane questions about witchcraft, because I knew and I said what would happen. You would pull quotes and ridicule that one point and become a bulldog attached to the generalizations in your head and we would never get anywhere in a serious discussion.
Forget witchcraft, one can believe in God without considering any of that. My only point was that it is entirely logical, through deductive reasoning to assume that if God is real and he revealed himself in the Bible, then the Bible is true when it speaks of fallen angels and the demonic. None of that means that all witchcraft is true. That probably the vast majority of it is not some crazy, make-believe superstition. It has no bearing on the current discussion.
Do I really need to do this for witches? Why not the FSM while I’m at it?
No, because neither of those has the significant, philosophical ramifications as the question of God does. Neither of those has been debated and discussed for centuries by the brightest minds in the world.
You continue to make no real philosophical arguments. Your debate tactic seems to be ridicule and asking mocking questions. If that is all you have time for, then I’ve got better things to do than continue this discussion. We can discuss other topics at a later time. I hope you can come to the table and actually discuss the proposals we both are making.
>>> And that’s not evidence for the sun rising tomorrow?
Ask Keith for a second opinion then, Aaron. We went over this. The sun rising a million times in the past is not actual evidence that it will rise in the future. That’s also philosophy 101.
>>> All those things I listed are evidences, again they do not meet your standard to convince you but that does not mean they are evidences.
They are actually NOT evidence at all by anyone’s standard except Christians themselves. I pointed out why.
>>> It is a cumulative argument. What best explains everything?
And the solution is to insert a something supernatural to explain what we don’t know. Anyway, you are right that it’s an argument. Arguments are not evidence.
>>> That’s skepticism and it doesn’t work as a philosophy for life.
LOL! Atheism doesn’t work as a philosophy of life either. It’s not a philosophy.
>>> Why trust anything if you do not have evidence?
I guess I could trust the word of the guy who says that there is a leprechaun sitting on his shoulder but it wouldn’t be logical to do so without some evidence to satisfy the burden of proof.
>>> How can you trust that when you sit in a chair it is not going to collapse? Sure, it hasn’t collapses all the other times you sat in it, but that’s only deductive reasoning, not evidence according to you.
That’s actually inductive reasoning, not deductive. I’d have to make an inference. An assumption.
>>> I was merely refuting your assertion that atheism is humanity’s default position.
I never asserted that atheism is humanity’s default position. Again, you are attributing arguments to me which I never made and putting words into my mouth. I said that atheism is the default logical position to take until the burden of proof is met.
Let me give you an example. If I wanted to make an argument that atheism is actually humanity’s default position I would have said something like, if atheism simply means having no beliefs in god(s) then all babies are born atheists since they don’t believe in god until they are taught to do so.
>>> Seriously, what evidence does not come from your senses?
Aaron, answer this, or not.
>>> According to you, something cannot be true unless it has evidence from the senses.
Totally wrong! You keep putting words in my mouth. Maybe you just misunderstood. Nietzsche said that all EVIDENCE of truth comes from the senses.
>>> You do know that Christians do not believe in some Casper the Ghost force for God, don’t you?
Then what does the term “Holy Ghost” mean?
>>> I’m speaking of a supernatural God, which has free will to act upon the material which he created.
What’s the difference? If you are intangible, what is the mechanism for moving material matter? No matter how much I use my free will to move the glass in front of me, it won’t actually move until I physically touch it.
>>> As far as the analogy goes, the writer is not natural by any means that the characters in the story would define him as (if they had thoughts).
I don’t think your writer analogy is valid because it can not be reconciled with reality. I know what you are talking about though. Like in the Princess Bride. As the story is read out loud, the kid makes edits that change the events in the film. Vizzini has no idea that his story is really the imagination of a little boy. So ya, I get it. Keith made a similar point like what if we are all just living within the dream of a butterfly? That didn’t pass muster either.
>>> You claim that the immaterial cannot leave material evidence, what is your material evidence for that claim?
I infer it from the definition of supernatural.
>>> Again for something to be true, you maintain that it must have material, sensual evidence.
That’s totally wrong, again. Quote me where I maintain that. If I actually held that view I could sink it by asking… 2 + 2 = 4. True? What’s the material evidence for 2 + 2 = 4 then? Don’t attribute these ridiculously simple straw man arguments to me.
>>> if God is real and he revealed himself in the Bible, then the Bible is true when it speaks of fallen angels and the demonic.
Let’s follow the reasoning. In the next sentence you say, “None of that means that all witchcraft is true.” So, if “None of that means that all witchcraft is true,” why do you conclude that it IS true for fallen angels and the demonic? And, WTF Aaron? You said, “None of that means that all witchcraft is true” which implies that you believe SOME witchcraft is true. Of course I’m going to hound you about that. Yes, witches do have a bearing on the current discussion because gods and witchcraft are both supernatural phenomena. Presumably, you believe in Satan which is where witches get their powers from, right?
>>> No, because neither of those has the significant, philosophical ramifications as the question of God does.
Substantively, they are all the same thing. Supernatural.
>>> If that is all you have time for, then I’ve got better things to do than continue this discussion. We can discuss other topics at a later time. I hope you can come to the table and actually discuss the proposals we both are making.
Not a problem. Here is my conclusion…
1. Aaron believes in witchcraft
2. The seminary he attends teaches that witchcraft exists.
3. Therefore, that’s the same education that he could have gotten 800 years ago in the medieval ages.
They are actually NOT evidence at all by anyone’s standard except Christians themselves.
Actually, I’ve already pointed you to one atheistic philosopher who believes they are – William Rowe. Then there is the case of Antony Flew who became a theist (not a Christian) because the evidence he saw.
And the solution is to insert a something supernatural to explain what we don’t know.
No, that’s a God of the Gaps theory, which supplies a God to things that we don’t have an answer for. That’s not what I’m proposing or arguing. I’m speaking of evaluating the evidence and coming to the conclusion that a designer (God) is the best possible explanation for all the questions of life.
It’s not a philosophy.
Are you saying that skepticism is not a philosophical system?
…it wouldn’t be logical to do so without some evidence to satisfy the burden of proof.
Forget this specific instance of a leprechaun. Do you consider testimony to be evidence?
I never asserted that atheism is humanity’s default position. Again, you are attributing arguments to me which I never made and putting words into my mouth.
I apologize if that was not the argument you were making. But I don’t think that atheism is the logical default position either. Your a priori assumption against supernatural makes it your position, but not the one of others.
If someone you trusted told you something unbelievable, is your default position to always distrust them?
Seriously, what evidence does not come from your senses?
You need to define the question a little better for me. Something like a testimony from someone else would use your senses in that you hear them, but you did not have direct sense experience of what is being testified.
Also, I have already said that I believe logic and reasoning can provide evidence that is not material. Is motive not a type of evidence? It is not conclusive evidence, but it is often used as a kind of evidence in a trial?
Nietzsche said that all EVIDENCE of truth comes from the senses.
OK, do you consider Nietzsche’s statement to be true? How do you know it to be true? What evidence from the senses do you have to assert the truthfulness of the statement?
Then what does the term “Holy Ghost” mean?
The better term from the Greek is Holy Spirit, but regardless it is an imperfect, imprecise term to describe Someone beyond material description.
No matter how much I use my free will to move the glass in front of me, it won’t actually move until I physically touch it.
What evidence do you have that it cannot happen? All you have is reasoning? ;)
Besides, you are comparing yourself (natural) with Supernatural that exists outside of the natural realm. That doesn’t mean the supernatural cannot interact with the natural, just that he cannot be defined and contained by it.
That didn’t pass muster either.
It’s an imprecise analogy, but besides what evidence do you have that it is wrong?
That’s totally wrong, again. Quote me where I maintain that. If I actually held that view I could sink it by asking… 2 + 2 = 4. True? What’s the material evidence for 2 + 2 = 4 then? Don’t attribute these ridiculously simple straw man arguments to me.
I apologize for asserting a wrong idea about your concept of truth (care to do the same about me and witchcraft or still want to just make vague, uninformed assumptions?).
If you can know something is true theoretically, like math, then why must all evidences for truth be from the senses? You asked me “Seriously, what evidence does not come from your senses?” By this I took you to be saying that all evidence does come from the senses, if I’m wrong please correct me.
So if all evidence comes from the senses and evidence is who we know the truth of something, how do you know the truth of things like 2+2=4 or Nietzsche’s statement?
I infer it from the definition of supernatural.
I don’t believe an inference is evidence and also what definition of supernatural says that it cannot interact with the material?
You said, “None of that means that all witchcraft is true” which implies that you believe SOME witchcraft is true. … Presumably, you believe in Satan which is where witches get their powers from, right?
I do not believe that any witchcraft is technically true. I do not believe that witches have any power from Satan.
I do believe, in line with traditional, orthodox Christianity that the demonic exists and have the ability to interact with the material. No person or “witch” is going to get power from them.
Again, this is why you like bringing up the concept of witchcraft, it allows you to chase unrelated rabbits (one does not have to believe in the literal demonic to be a Christian or a theist) and make sweeping negative generalizations about the person with whom you are discussing. It allows you to paint with a broad brush and assume the craziness of the other person without ever having to address real philosophical points.
As to your conclusion. All three of those are wrong, so you have a faulty logical statement with every proposition being wrong on some level. Not to mention the fact that you make a wild leap from 2 to 3 that is beyond the pale even if 1 and 2 were correct. Again, more generalizations that allow you to avoid real discussion.
But on the back end of this, I was thinking last night. I really do enjoy conversing with you, Cin. You challenge me. I like that. I think you’re crazy. You thing I’m crazy. But it challenges me to defend my beliefs and think, so I like that. ;)
>> AARON: OK, do you consider Nietzsche's statement to be true? How do you know it to be true? What evidence from the senses do you have to assert the truthfulness of the statement?
Actually, D'Souza answers this ably in his discussion of Hume and Kant on the limits of reason in What's So Great About Christianity. You are right Aaron, materialism is circular in its reasoning – it can't validate it's own assumptions – well, something like that.
Oh, I forgot to ask a question that came to my mind when I was thinking about our discussion:
Have your senses ever been wrong? Ever think you saw something, but it really wasn't? Or misheard something? Or (my least favorite) thought you smelled someone grilling a steak but it was something else?
I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. If our senses sometime mislead us, how do we trust them alone to give us reliable evidence about truth?
>>> “Actually, I’ve already pointed you to one atheistic philosopher who believes they are – William Rowe.”
Then that would make him part of that 21% you cite in your poll.
>>>> “I’m speaking of evaluating the evidence and coming to the conclusion that a designer (God) is the best possible explanation for all the questions of life.”
ZERO evidence exists for the supernatural. There is no evidence to evaluate either way, for or against. Since there is no evidence you insert the god of the gaps and dress him up in the guise of your religion, just as other religions do.
>>> “Are you saying that skepticism is not a philosophical system?”
Atheism is not a philosophical system.
>>> “Forget this specific instance of a leprechaun. Do you consider testimony to be evidence?”
I will not. When evaluating the existence of the supernatural, no I don’t. I’d ask for some hard evidence.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – Carl Sagan
Testimony in the Koran that Allah exists is worthless to everyone but Muslims themselves.
“But I don’t think that atheism is the logical default position either. Your a priori assumption against supernatural makes it your position, but not the one of others.”
Aaron, I claim that there is a leprechaun perched upon my shoulder. He only reveals himself to me. The logical default position for you would be non-belief. This principle, the burden of proof, also applies to your god. You are making the claim God exists. You have no evidence though. If you had evidence, you wouldn’t have a faith. As I said, faith is defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. You are conflating what you believe with what you know.
>>> Seriously, what evidence does not come from your senses? You need to define the question a little better for me.
It’s a comment on how we obtain information. We only get information from what we sense. We experience the world through our senses and it’s only through our senses that we obtain knowledge of anything.
>>> Is motive not a type of evidence? It is not conclusive evidence, but it is often used as a kind of evidence in a trial?
Motive can be used at a trial but to do so you need hard evidence for the motive.
>>> OK, do you consider Nietzsche’s statement to be true?
I do. I go in detail above.
>>> How do you know it to be true?
I don’t but from what I’ve experienced from my own interactions with the world, I believe it’s highly probable. So much so, that I count it to be true though I don’t know with 100% certainty. I’m confident enough to challenge you to name just ONE thing that can be considered evidence that does not come to you through your senses.
>>> The better term from the Greek is Holy Spirit, but regardless it is an imperfect, imprecise term to describe Someone beyond material description.
Substantively speaking, what is the difference between a spirit and ghost?
>>> Besides, you are comparing yourself (natural) with Supernatural that exists outside of the natural realm.
And you are assigning abilities to the supernatural for which you have No knowledge and No evidence of. You are simply asserting that the supernatural can interact with a glass. What is the mechanism by which something supernatural could interact with a glass by? You don’t know. You just say that the supernatural entity can. That’s the whole point isn’t it? You say that the supernatural entity exists outside of the natural realm so how can the supernatural interact with the natural realm without being part of it; without being natural itself?
>>> It’s an imprecise analogy, but besides what evidence do you have that it is wrong?
I don’t need any. You’re like the guy with the leprechaun demanding evidence the there is NOT a leprechaun perched upon his shoulder.
>>> (care to do the same about me and witchcraft or still want to just make vague, uninformed assumptions?)
Then clear the air. Do you believe witchcraft is just an ignorant superstition or not?
>>> So if all evidence comes from the senses and evidence is who we know the truth of something, how do you know the truth of things like 2+2=4 or Nietzsche’s statement?
This is where we get into really nitty gritty epistemology like my disagreement with Keith on how we arrive at 2 + 2 = 4. I wish I could pull up what I wrote about it but I can’t seem to find the thread. It was earlier this year. I recall linking to a really good paper on the subject if you want to pursue this.
>>> I don’t believe an inference is evidence…
Oh, you’ve been paying attention! :) This is also from the conversation I had with, Keith. The sun rising a million times in the past is not evidence that it will rise tomorrow. However, I think it’s a pretty darn good indication. Science itself works by induction. Experiments are all based on induction. That said, some inferences are better than others. I have no hard evidence, I can’t observe, that you Aaron have a beating heart in your chest. Yet, I can infer it. I am not 100% sure though. You could be a supernatural entity mentally using free will to push keys on your keyboard. :)
>>> what definition of supernatural says that it cannot interact with the material?
I don’t see how. Neither can you.
>>> I do not believe that witches have any power from Satan.
Okay, wait. Then where do they get their evil powers from if it’s not from Satan?
>>> (one does not have to believe in the literal demonic to be a Christian or a theist)
That’s a big sticking point though because, it seems you do believe in witches and demons though you don’t need to be a Christian.
>>> It allows you to paint with a broad brush and assume the craziness of the other person without ever having to address real philosophical points.
Then the best way to shut me up about this is say that witchcraft is an ignorant superstition. Until you do that then of course I will hound you about it in the same way you would hound me if I told you that the FSM was real.
>>> As to your conclusion. All three of those are wrong
I admit I should have structured it so the conclusion follows but hey, it was the end of the post and I rushed it. Just take them as bullet points. So, all three are wrong?
1. Witchcraft is an ignorant superstition?
2. Your seminary teaches witchcraft does not exist?
3. You couldn’t have learned that witches exist 800 years ago?
>>> I really do enjoy conversing with you, Cin. You challenge me.
Likewise, Aaron.
>>> Have your senses ever been wrong? If our senses sometime mislead us, how do we trust them alone to give us reliable evidence about truth?
Aaron, check this out, please.
This is from a blog debate between Atheist Sam Harris and Christian Andrew Sullivan.
So, have our senses ever been wrong? Absolutely! They are flawed and limited and can be manipulated.
So, how do we trust them alone to give us reliable evidence about truth?
What else do we have to evaluate the world? They are all we have. Imagine a person who can't feel, taste, touch, see, or hear anything from birth? How knowledgeable would such a person be? Helen Keller was deaf and blind and think about what it took to get through to her.
This whole bold, not bold thing is really getting on my nerves.
Hi Cin:
You wrote" Ask Keith for a second opinion then, Aaron. We went over this. The sun rising a million times in the past is not actual evidence that it will rise in the future. That's also philosophy 101.
I think I wasn't clear enough in our previous discussion then. My point was that the VALIDITY of inductive reasoning could not be supported by evidence (even though it often IS valid). In the case of the sunrise, the fact that it has risen every day for the last zillion years WOULD be evidence that it would rise tomorrow as long as it is true that tomorrow will be relevantly similar to the last gazillion mornings. What you can't find evidence for is the needed relevant similarity. When we use inductive reasoning we ASSUME relevant similarity without proving it (we can falsify relevant similarity though if the sun quit rising regularly). I claimed that we are justified in accepting induction even though we can't find evidence for its validity, which means we are SOMETIMES justified in accepting things even without evidence, which means POSSIBLY we'd be justified in accepting Christian claims without evidence. You claim that IN FACT we are not justified in accepting Christian claims without evidence; if there's a burden of proof it seems to me you have it for this particular claim of yours (that we can't justifiably accept Christian claims without evidence).
your friend
keith
>>Then that would make him part of that 21% you cite in your poll.
You misunderstand the point. He doesn’t believe IN the evidence. He simply believes it IS evidence.
That’s been my point the whole time. Something does not have to convince you in order to be evidence. I think there is evidence for atheism, but it does not convince me.
>>Since there is no evidence you insert the god of the gaps and dress him up in the guise of your religion, just as other religions do.
We fundamentally disagree on the nature of evidence. So for you there is no evidence for theism or atheism. That’s not very fun! ;)
However, if that’s the case, why do people change? Why do atheists become Christians. Why do some people who grew up as Christians become atheists? If there is no evidence either way, why wouldn’t one simply stay what they have always been?
>>I will not. When evaluating the existence of the supernatural, no I don’t. I’d ask for some hard evidence.
That wasn’t my question. My question was do you accept testimony at all as evidence to the truthfulness of any claim?
>>The logical default position for you would be non-belief. This principle, the burden of proof, also applies to your god. You are making the claim God exists. You have no evidence though. If you had evidence, you wouldn’t have a faith.
If I defined evidence as you do, then you may have a point. But I include testimony and I include logical reasoning as evidence to the truthfulness of claims.
Also, you misunderstand faith. I would describe it as informed belief. It is not a blind leap with no information. God has given me plenty of reasons to trust him and put my faith in him. The point where faith comes in is when I make the choice to rely on those reasons.
It’s like the example of the chair I gave. I put “faith” in my chair when I sit down in it. It is an informed belief. I have reasons to trust that when I sit down it will hold me up, but it is still a matter of faith when I sit down.
Of course, the issue of God has many more implications than sitting in a chair, but the concepts of faith and evidence are similar – at least to me.
>>I don’t but from what I’ve experienced from my own interactions with the world, I believe it’s highly probable. So much so, that I count it to be true though I don’t know with 100% certainty.
Well, I’m atheistic about your statement. ;) Can you please provide evidence for it?
>>I’m confident enough to challenge you to name just ONE thing that can be considered evidence that does not come to you through your senses.
I’m sure you are, since you define evidence as coming through your senses. It would be hard for me to give you something outside your senses as evidence, when that is all you consider to be evidence.
>>You just say that the supernatural entity can. That’s the whole point isn’t it?
You just say the supernatural entity can’t without any evidence of your own. What evidence do you have that a supernatural entity cannot interact with the material? Again, if the immaterial created the material, why could it not interact with it?
>>I don’t need any.
See that’s my point about a philosophical debate going both ways. It’s a bit hard for me to play by your rules when you can make statements that need no evidence and I have to provide evidence for all mine and my evidence is judged based on your definition. The scales are weighted just a little bit in your favor when you don’t have to provide evidence and you get to pick what is considered evidence.
>>Do you believe witchcraft is just an ignorant superstition or not?
Define witchcraft.
As to your current proposition, I would agree. If all I believed and all my school taught was that witches exist then that would be on par with what people taught 800 years ago.
>>Imagine a person who can’t feel, taste, touch, see, or hear anything from birth? How knowledgeable would such a person be?
Good question, but what about the person who loses all of their senses at the age of 30. Would they know anything at all?
>>Evidence from senses (in general)
Here is a thorny issue. Is testimony from our senses? We “heard” the testimony, but it is not something we personally experienced, so does it count? We can see photos of events, but not actually see the events themselves, do they count? Or video?
I guess the question would be is evidence only things that are directly sensed by the individual? Can I trust your senses as evidence for something?
What about memories? They exist only in our mind. Can they be relied upon as evidence because while they used to be sensual experiences, they no longer are?
Also, if as you say, you can’t know for certain that Nietzsche statement is true because there is no material evidence for the truthfulness of it, why do you impose it’s restrictions on me? You don’t even know if it is true (you can’t), so why should I accept it as truth and follow the guidelines it lays out for what is true, what is evidence, etc.?
>>> I think there is evidence for atheism, but it does not convince me.
Such as? I don't think there is any.
>>> So for you there is no evidence for theism or atheism. That's not very fun! ;)
There is no evidence for the existence of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus either although it would be fun if there was.
>>> why do people change? Why do atheists become Christians. [Why do Christians become atheists.]
I think different individuals have their own reasons. Human beings are sometime irrational, IMHO. In my case it was because Christianity made less and less sense to me as I grew older.
>>> My question was do you accept testimony at all as evidence to the truthfulness of any claim?
Oh, sure. It depends upon the quality of the testimony though. If someone was testifying that she saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in all his glory, I wouldn't view her testimony as evidence at all. Her testimony would need to have hard evidence to support it before I would consider he testimony as evidence. She could be delusional or simply mistaken.
>>> I include testimony and I include logical reasoning as evidence to the truthfulness of claims.
I do too.
>>> Also, you misunderstand faith. I would describe it as informed belief.
I'm just going with how this word is defined. faith (fath)
n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
>>> God has given me plenty of reasons to trust him and put my faith in him.
Christians often say such things.
>>> I put "faith" in my chair when I sit down in it. It is an informed belief. I have reasons to trust that when I sit down it will hold me up, but it is still a matter of faith when I sit down.
I have that same kind of faith too. But, I have more reason to have faith in the chair than in the existence of the tooth fairy. That reason is based upon material evidence that I get from my 5 senses.
>>> Well, I'm atheistic about your statement. [All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses.] ;) Can you please provide evidence for it?
It's prima facie, Aaron.
>>> It would be hard for me to give you something outside your senses as evidence, when that is all you consider to be evidence.
This is a blatant dodge. The question was, "name just ONE thing that can be considered evidence that does not come to you through your senses." Take heed of the verbiage, "come to you through your senses."
>>> You just say the supernatural entity can't without any evidence of your own.
I don't need to. Burden of proof, remember? It's like you are the guy claiming there is a leprechaun perched on your shoulder. The person who doubts the claim asks for evidence. You respond, "What's your evidence that there is not a leprechaun sitting on my shoulder?" There is no evidence either way but the default logical position is atheism toward your leprechaun [supernatural entity in your case, Aaron].
>>> It's a bit hard for me to play by your rules…
Burden of proof is a standard convention in any debate. Yes, it's much harder on the person doing the convincing than it is on the person who they are trying to convince.
>>> Define witchcraft.
2. Power more than natural; irresistible influence.
>>> Good question, but what about the person who loses all of their senses at the age of 30. Would they know anything at all?
I'd imagine that they would remember their prior experiences. All those prior experiences came from sensing the world with their 5 senses.
>>> I guess the question would be is evidence only things that are directly sensed by the individual?
No.
>>> Can I trust your senses as evidence for something?
Hehe, that's your decision.
>>> What about memories?
Memories fade. I'd say it depends on the situation.
>>> Why should I accept it [All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses.] as truth.
Nietzsche statement seems to be prima facie. As to whether you want to accept it or not, that's up to you. You haven't been able to think of an exception, even by your own standards, so there is that.
Aaron, could you please answer this…
Substantively speaking, what is the difference between a spirit and ghost?
Notice the Biblical Witches definition – now you know, and I concur. Most witchcraft is about potions (poisons) and perhaps trying to court the power of Satan, but all that does is enslave the practitioner, whether or not real spirits are involved.
DEFINITIONS OF "WITCH" AND "WITCHCRAFT" FOUND IN DICTIONARIES
Keith,
I don't believe that you have successfully shifted the burden of proof to me. Your claim doesn't make sense to me. Plugging a different supernatural being into your argument might clarify…
As I said, supernatural claims are not all the same, and naturalists who approach the argument from this tack have jettisoned intellectual discernment.