PROOF AND TRUTH - DEPENDS ON WHO YOU'RE TALKING DO, DOESN'T IT..??
Offline I have to confess that I am really enjoying the numerous responders who are asking for "proof" -that if I was actually able to provide "proof", the naysayers would suddenly pause and revise their way of thinking.
Look at the world we live in right now - you have millions and millions of people around the world who, despite the historical records, admissions of guilt and whatever else, claim that the Holocaust was a hoax.
You have millions of people who believe that it was the Mossad / unmaned drones / aliens who flew planes into the WTC.
There are people who SERIOUSLY believe Elvis is still alive - that OJ Simpson didn't murder his wife - that Iraq still has vast stockpiles of WMD's - that Paris Hilton is a celebrity for something she's accomplished.
And everyone who believes in the above can provide "proof".
If Christ came down tomorrow and parted the Pacific Ocean, you'd have millions / billions of people who didn't see it hammering out blogs on the Internet that Hollywood can do anything with special effects - that it didn't really happen - blah - blah -blah.
- Login to post comments
Are you saying that truth is just a matter of opinion?
And you have billions who believe in a god. Just as irrational.
And what do we do to these people, we chastise them - why? Because we have verifiable, falsifiable proof that these events did happen. Those who disbelieve expouse the opposite, irrational claims of conspiracies that ofcourse have no 'proof'.
More conspiracy theories that are inherently irrational. I also think some of these theories come from lack of trust in the current administration. But yet again these ideas are on the fringe.
Some people have such a strong emotional bond to something, they simply cannot let it go. Why do we consider these people crazy, because they lack 'proof'.
All it takes to aquit someone is just one small bit of reasonable doubt. OJs super legal team raised enough doubt to aquit him. But don't forget he was found guilty in the civil trial.
If you ask conservatives, they will tell you that all the evidence is burried by the mass liberal media conspiracy. Where is the 'proof' one may ask.
WHAT! WHO? WHERE.
I think that would include Christians as well. I mean, whos not to say its an Alien or even the devil fooling us
"Are you saying that truth is just a matter of opinion?"
No - not at all. The truth is NEVER a matter of opinion. It is what it is.
I'm saying that people can manipulate and distort facts or put forward their own "truths" to acheive a certain end.
Again, I have to chuckle at the number of posters asking for "proof" as if presenting proof would actually make a difference.
Look at the Scriptures - they state that a man named Thomas spent alot of time with Jesus - saw the miracles - was witness to it all - and still he didn't believe.
Human nature really hasn't changed all that much in 2,000 years, has it..??
I am a bit confused. In a previous thread you stated you had no evidence to justify your belief that Jesus was God. How do you expect someone to believe in Thomas if you have admitted that there is no real conclusive proof that it happened at all? Or am I misunderstand your previous statements.
You've either misunderstood or I've not expressed myself clearly.
The existence of Jesus Christ is a no-brainer for me. I have no problems wrapping my mind around the idea that a man named Jesus walked the earth 2,000 years ago and claimed to be the Son of God.
In fact, if it wasn't for Christ, I probably would have a difficult - if not impossible - time buying into the concept of God.
As I mentioned previously, God is too big a concept for the human mind to conceive of.
But Jesus - the man - isn't.
You might want to read the "Jesus Mythicism" forum. Most of us don't believe he ever existed and that forum explains why. The whole Jesus Myth was copied from earlier myths - Tammuz, Dionysus, Mithra, etc.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
If you really believe that, then why are you here? Why post at all? Why argue anything?
The reality is that I can't rationally disregard a proof in a Euclidean textbook... why can't 'god' meet this level of scholarship?!
In fact, why isn't 'god's existence' axiomatic?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
My question then would be what was the proof that ultimately led you to your faith? Was there any sort of particular historical evidences that in your eyes corroborated the claims Jesus made in the NT which led you to your faith?
God's existence is axiomatic. You just don't see it..!
A "junkie" knows that continually injecting a drug into their bodies is self-destructive - but still they do it.
If I place a red towel in front of you and you insist that it's a blue shovel, does your insistence somehow negate the fact a red towel is in front of you..??
What you choose to believe in is your business.
This appears to be a contradiction to an earlier statement you made:
According to you if it not for Christ you would not have seen this very 'axiomatic' existence for God. However you did not attempt to show me what evidences have led you to trust in the bible and of the teachings of Jesus. So I ask again kindly to show me exactly what compelled you to become a christian.
I can't improve on the New Testament.
It's all right there.!
In another thread, you told us that supernatural claims are beyond logic.
Axioms are the foundation of classical logic.
You've contradicted yourself again.
You don't see it, right?
Here's another problem. Axioms are defended through retortion.
This means that in order to attempt to refute the axiom, you'd have to accept the axiom along the way.
Here's an example of how the axiom of existence is defended through retortion.
Denier: "I deny that anything exists!"
Wiseman: What are you denying?
Denier: the axiom of existence itself!
Wiseman: well then, aren't you admitting that it exists?
Denier: Oops.
If 'god's' existence were axiomatic, then the statement "god does not exist" would be a contradiction.
Show me the internal contradiction*.
No.
Incorrect. Belief is not a choice. But some people are unduly devoted to their beliefs, and fear reliquishing them.
* You could argue that the statement is incoherent, as the term 'god' is defined only negatively, without a universe of discourse.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I must say I expected much more than this. With this reasoning, I would need to presuppose the bible was a book inspired by God. However in my skeptical worldview I require some sort of evidence that would allow me to determine for myself that indeed this is a book inspired by God. So I guess in your case, you've always believed it and never questioned it and never required evidence.
I have to applaud you for at least conceding that proof is necessary.
Why would we believe without proof? Why would you? You have your proof! You just admitted it. The New Testament is your proof.
Problem here is that the New Testament is not reliable, as it has virtually no outside corroboration, no independently verifiable evidence (as to the existence of jesus... Homer wrote about places that really existed, but all of the figures in his stories weren't real, were they?) and dubious authorship.
Again, you are lacking in knowledge. Go read some books on how we verify texts. Learn about how we use science to establish the authenticity of accounts based on real, tangible evidence.
So, answer me this riddle. Why do you accept the New Testament and reject the Koran? There is more evidence of the authenticity of the Koran than the NT. (which is still to say there's little evidence for either!) Why don't you accept the teachings of the Buddha or Confucious? There are lots of outside sources of evidence that Confucious lived.
The answer is you believe because you were told that it was true, and you don't have any valid logic behind it.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism