tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1250476194239923971..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Warfare Thesis Failure Leaves Evolution Desperate For CanardsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger165125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47212131782170430922016-05-04T15:39:35.161-07:002016-05-04T15:39:35.161-07:00William Spearshake April 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM
[...]...William Spearshake April 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />I often wonder, if God wanted his message to get out [...] why did [God] make it so difficult to understand?<br /><br />---<br /><br />When you get down to the basics, it's summed up very simply starting Matthew 22:37.<br /><br />I see two main reasons it's so difficult to understand... One is in Matthew 13:24. One is John 9:39 and similarly Luke 10:21.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17458547250534666932016-04-11T03:16:58.309-07:002016-04-11T03:16:58.309-07:00Cornelius Hunter
"The Warfare Thesis continue...Cornelius Hunter<br />"The Warfare Thesis continues to fail, and evolutionists need a new canard why people just won’t go along with their age-old idea that the world arose spontaneously."<br /><br /><br />There is an irony of sorts today as I was reading a Forbes article on those corruption exposing "Panama Papers." There are several Chinese leaders who are implicated in the fraud of tax evasion and other corruption. They are presently at the forefront of stopping Chinese corruption and yet this bit of News exposes the blanatant hypocrisy of the Chinese leadership. Their tactics for dealing with criticism had a certain Darwinian religiosity about it when you compare what they do to critics. <br /><br /><br />Forbes<br />"With that irony closing in, the criticism-wary country ruled by a single party has responded as it usually does to slaps from offshore: angry rejection. “In China, Web postings are taken down, foreign publications blocked, Communist Party media blames the West, and leaders act as if nothing had happened,” says Gordon Chang, an author on Chinese affairs."Chaparral Earthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00618976919417073750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24877353728634505392016-04-08T12:10:33.323-07:002016-04-08T12:10:33.323-07:00William,
"For example, male peacocks display...William,<br /><br />"For example, male peacocks displaying their tails and dancing about is an instinct but it is hard to say that it is rational."<br /><br />Might be a good argument if we were Peacocks. As we are not, it is irrelevant.<br /><br />"But the big question is whether it is adaptive in itself, or if it a side-effect of something that is."<br /><br />Ah, spoken as a true evolutionist. Not everything in life can be broken down into adaptive and non-adaptive. Not everything in life is materialistic in nature.<br /><br />"No, but it pretty well guarantees which one you initially believe in."<br /><br />Somewhat true, but irrelevant in light of the fact individuals possess the capacity to think for themselves.<br /><br />"Or chooses not to question it."<br /><br />I personally do not know a single Christian who has not at some point questioned their faith. I would be willing to bet that is true for everyone in every faith. The trouble is whenever I bet, I always lose. :(<br /><br />"Or in spite of it,..."<br /><br />Would it be fair for me to say you arrived at your atheism in spite of what the critical analysis revealed? :)<br /><br /><br /><br /> Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18896119214720283292016-04-08T10:47:01.491-07:002016-04-08T10:47:01.491-07:00Nic: "Being irrational is not instinctive.&qu...Nic: "<i>Being irrational is not instinctive."</i><br /><br />No, but it is possible for an instinct to be irrational. For an instinct to proliferate, it just has to be included in the majority of individuals who reproduce. For example, male peacocks displaying their tails and dancing about is an instinct but it is hard to say that it is rational. <br /><br />"<i>No, it is not [instinct to worship a God(s)]. But it is an interesting fact this instinct in man is universal."</i><br /><br />I agree. But the big question is whether it is adaptive in itself, or if it a side-effect of something that is. I don't know the answer to that.<br /><br />"<i>But where you are born and what belief system you were brought up believing does not guarantee your adherence to that system.</i>"<br /><br />No, but it pretty well guarantees which one you initially believe in.<br /><br />"<i>Ultimately one chooses to believe the faith system he follows."</i><br /><br />Or chooses not to question it.<br /><br />"<i>That is interesting in light of the fact that many brilliant minds throughout history came to faith in Christ through the application of critical thinking,..."</i><br /><br />Or in spite of it,William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81158006006995126802016-04-08T08:33:31.703-07:002016-04-08T08:33:31.703-07:00ChrisW,
"I didn't say it is necessarily ...ChrisW,<br /><br />"I didn't say it is necessarily "irrational" but seems to be a natural instinct that many have."<br /><br />Being irrational is not instinctive.<br /><br />"That people have this instinct is not a proof that God exists."<br /><br />No, it is not. But it is an interesting fact this instinct in man is universal.<br /><br />"Or are they Muslims just because of where they grew up?"<br /><br />That certainly plays a part in what belief system people may wind up following. But where you are born and what belief system you were brought up believing does not guarantee your adherence to that system. Ultimately one chooses to believe the faith system he follows. <br /><br />"Sure, you are heavily invested in your faith and I understand how difficult how it is to even contemplate giving up that faith which I'm sure imbues your life."<br /><br />I did not always have this faith. I used to be like you, I suppose. I came to faith in Christ by having an open mind, applying critical thought to the situation and being willing to follow the evidence.<br /><br />"fundamental issues with the origins of the faith that can't easily be swept under the carpet,..."<br /><br />Would you mind sharing what these fundamental problems with the origins would be?<br /><br />"From a historical analysis perspective we have no primary sources such as first person accounts or physical artifacts that point to the person of Jesus."<br /><br />We have the writings of John, an apostle. We have the writings of Peter, an apostle. We have the book of James, the brother of Christ. We have the book of Matthew, an apostle. That should be enough to demonstrate your claim is palpable nonsense.<br /><br />"probably other sources such as "Q" that have been lost."<br /><br />Lost, or simply a hopeful figment of the imagination? You would need to have evidence it existed in the first place to claim it is now lost. It appears it is simply made up by skeptics to lend an air of credibility to their arguments.<br /><br />"The authors of the gospels remain unknown,..."<br /><br />Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There, now you know the authors. <br /><br />"which raises other concerns too about how the accounts were passed on,..."<br /><br />In historical terms a document originating 20 - 30 years after an event is nothing.<br /><br />"I just feel to buy all this now I just have to suspend too much critical thinking and be over credulous."<br /><br />That is interesting in light of the fact that many brilliant minds throughout history came to faith in Christ through the application of critical thinking, not to mention millions of ordinary individuals such as myself, just the opposite of what you are claiming.<br /><br />"I think you are really saying I need to read more of the authors that agree with you..."<br /><br />Not necessarily. I have found that when I read what one might call hostile sources, such as Ehrman, it actually strengthens my faith, as I recognize the poor quality of their arguments. <br /><br />You need to read widely, not just the material which supports your view.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73787008790733873532016-04-07T22:40:55.218-07:002016-04-07T22:40:55.218-07:00Nic:"Would you accept it if I said you were n...Nic:"Would you accept it if I said you were not a person of faith because you're irrational?"<br /><br />Totally disagree. I didn't say it is necessarily "irrational" but seems to be a natural instinct that many have. That people have this instinct is not a proof that God exists. I think the study of why people have religious views is perfectly a valid proposition and one that many have taken up. <br /><br />"God himself calls people to belief."<br /><br />Which God though, which religion? At some point in the next hundred years it's quite possible Muslims will outnumber Christians? Are they listening to the wrong God? Or is God reaching out them to but in a different manner? Or are they Muslims just because of where they grew up? <br /><br />"Not in the slightest. You're not able to provide an argument I have not already heard at least a hundred times before. "<br /><br />Sure, you are heavily invested in your faith and I understand how difficult how it is to even contemplate giving up that faith which I'm sure imbues your life. Yes, you've heard these arguments before and you are very good at coming up with nice tidy answers for them. But for many people these answers really aren't that satisfactory because there are at least for people like myself fundamental issues with the origins of the faith that can't easily be swept under the carpet (I tried to pretend they didn't matter for 15 years...but they really do...)<br /><br />But going back to the original point from ohandy1 about eyewitnesses, I think we can say this much:<br /><br />* The gospels are not eyewitness testimonies (a point you haven't really disputed). Some would say at best they are second person testimony, some would say it's "hearsay". <br />* From a historical analysis perspective we have no primary sources such as first person accounts or physical artifacts that point to the person of Jesus.<br />* Best scholarship points to the fact that material in some of the gospels is copied from another (Matt and Luke copied from Mark) and probably other sources such as "Q" that have been lost<br />* The authors of the gospels remain unknown (or at least there is a good deal of uncertainty about their identity). clearly though the authors are not the apostles as tradition has it. <br />* The dates of authorship are unclear but not before at least 20 years (possibly 30-40 years or more) after the events (which raises other concerns too about how the accounts were passed on, but we don't have any info on that either).<br />* There are no contemporaneous accounts of the events (cf Julius Caesar) - this one doesn't concern me as much because I'm not a mythist but it's definitely slightly mysterious<br /><br /><br />I personally consider that the summation of the points above that this is not a very compelling foundation to consider this sufficient grounds to consider that this is a true account of God's intervention in the world. My opinion and conclusion is that is more to this than we can probably ever know. I don't see any reason to think that Christianity is anything but another man-made religion, which as humankind we see pretty good and innovative in manufacturing. <br /><br />I know you do not agree and perhaps "faith" plays a large part in deciding whether this is truth or not (and I suspect for many emotional and powerful conversion experiences are also compelling but that's another story). <br /><br />It just doesn't work for me anymore (it did once a long time ago). I just feel to buy all this now I just have to suspend too much critical thinking and be over credulous. And besides I think it's offering the wrong solution for the wrong problem.<br /><br />"You need to read more..."<br /><br />I think you are really saying I need to read more of the authors that agree with you...and I have (been a while though because this is really settled for me and has been for many years...). It was reading that lead me to the place I am now (a very good place too I might add).TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4183878786398537612016-04-07T22:36:02.135-07:002016-04-07T22:36:02.135-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35544093138658853962016-04-07T22:32:58.879-07:002016-04-07T22:32:58.879-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31490061443543856352016-04-07T22:19:03.912-07:002016-04-07T22:19:03.912-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51393056998634234812016-04-07T21:37:58.342-07:002016-04-07T21:37:58.342-07:00ChrisW,
"Why? Because Nic says so?"
No...ChrisW,<br /><br />"Why? Because Nic says so?"<br /><br />No, because you cannot even remotely begin to demonstrate that those who hold to a faith position do so only because they are irrational. That is absolute nonsense. Would you accept it if I said you were not a person of faith because you're irrational?<br /><br />"there are many, many religions in the world. Most of these have beliefs that are mutually exclusive. Therefore, by definition a large number of people in the world (probably in the billions) at any given time are completely mistaken about the real nature of the Universe."<br /><br />Do you even know the meaning of irrational?<br /><br />"Why not ask the question, why?"'<br /><br />Over the course of history billions have asked that question and billions have determined Christianity supplies the answers. <br /><br />"Is there some fundamental psychological process that causes people to belief."<br /><br />You need to read more, really. Of course there is a process which causes people to believe. It's called God and Augustine spoke of it 1,800 years ago when he wrote, "Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee." God himself calls people to belief.<br /><br />"Sure, it may undermine the specialness of Christianity in your worldview,..."<br /><br />Not in the slightest. You're not able to provide an argument I have not already heard at least a hundred times before. <br /><br />"Or maybe we come to a conclusion that the search for "truth" is probably illusory and not achievable?"<br /><br />That in itself would be a truth claim and, therefore, would be a self defeating argument. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61044384033970107202016-04-07T21:15:48.231-07:002016-04-07T21:15:48.231-07:00William,
"Nic, I am sure that you are aware ...William,<br /><br />"Nic, I am sure that you are aware that thousands of Christians have also become Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Budhist, etc. How do you explain that?"<br /><br />I am aware of that and there really is no need for me to explain that. People simply make their own choices. In fact it only reinforces my argument that confirmation bias is not as big an issue as some like to think.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60819727244772575832016-04-07T15:44:09.216-07:002016-04-07T15:44:09.216-07:00Nic: "No, the argument faith based religious ...Nic: "No, the argument faith based religious ideas are irrational is a complete non-starter."<br /><br />Why? Because Nic says so?<br /><br />Empirical observation - there are many, many religions in the world. Most of these have beliefs that are mutually exclusive. Therefore, by definition a large number of people in the world (probably in the billions) at any given time are completely mistaken about the real nature of the Universe.<br /><br />Why not ask the question, why? Is there some fundamental psychological process that causes people to belief. It's perfectly valid (and there are actually well-reasoned hypotheses on the topics). Sure, it may undermine the specialness of Christianity in your worldview, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable question - and one I will continue to ponder.<br /><br />"No, the argument faith based religious ideas are irrational is a complete non-starter."<br /><br />Or maybe we come to a conclusion that the search for "truth" is probably illusory and not achievable? TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29026009036389262242016-04-07T15:37:46.368-07:002016-04-07T15:37:46.368-07:00ChrisW,
"I'm not sure all of them are ca...ChrisW,<br /><br />"I'm not sure all of them are categorized as Gnostic,..."<br /><br />No, not all, but all were excluded from the Canon due to doubts regards their inspiration. Not all writings were considered to be the inspired word of God, even if believed to have been written by an Apostle.<br /><br />"True, but we could say that of any religion, right?"<br /><br />Not really. Islam has never faced the severity of persecution as has Christianity. In fact, Islam was and still is, a major source of Christian persecution. And please, do not go to the Crusades as an example of Christian persecution of Islam. That was simply not the case.<br /><br />"why is there such a propensity for humans to believe in external agencies, even when it's clear (at least to outsiders) there aren't any good rational reasons to believe?"<br /><br />On what do you base your claim there are not any good rational reasons to believe? Tens of millions of rational people throughout history would indicate otherwise. Was Augustine not rational? Was Tomas Aquinas not rational? How about Sir Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Galileo, etc., etc. Surely you can not argue these men were all irrational. Even Einstein, though not a Christian, recognized the fact that a superior being was the best explanation for the existence of the universe.<br /><br />No, the argument faith based religious ideas are irrational is a complete non-starter.<br /><br />"We see that even now with new religions periodically popping up (e.g., Scientology, Raelism)."<br /><br />How is that an argument against any other religious system. That various religious systems exist does not lend credence to the argument that they are therefore all wrong.<br /><br />"so I can see how people swap one set of confirmation biases for another."<br /><br />Why does it have to be one set of biases for another? Can one not come to the conclusion he has arrived at the truth? Why does it always have to be tainted as biased thinking?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17362114228159739962016-04-07T15:07:37.579-07:002016-04-07T15:07:37.579-07:00"Okay, what you are talking about are known a..."Okay, what you are talking about are known as the Gnostic Gospels"<br /><br />I'm not sure all of them are categorized as Gnostic - isn't that just Mary, Thomas, Phillip etc. There are also others like the Gospel of Peter which aren't Gnostic. Not sure. Besides a lot of these are much earlier than 350AD - Gospel of Peter possibly around 150, many others early 2nd century. Perhaps you are thinking of Thomas which currently dates back to 350AD?<br /><br />"Have you ever asked yourself how Christianity has managed to survive for this long despite the concerted efforts to destroy it from the time of its very foundations?"<br /><br />True, but we could say that of any religion, right? How has Islam survived for so long? Or Buddhism? Perhaps the bigger question is why is there such a propensity for humans to believe in external agencies, even when it's clear (at least to outsiders) there aren't any good rational reasons to believe? We see that even now with new religions periodically popping up (e.g., Scientology, Raelism). <br /><br />"But again, you need to explain how atheists, Hindus, etc. become Christians if confirmation bias is as a big a hurdle as you present it to be."<br /><br />Yes, confirmation bias is a big hurdle but not an impossible one to jump over. I've done it myself although it was extraordinarily difficult. And the need afterwards for something to believe in was still very strong...so I can see how people swap one set of confirmation biases for another. TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80908903155347081012016-04-07T15:03:32.753-07:002016-04-07T15:03:32.753-07:00Nic, I am sure that you are aware that thousands o...Nic, I am sure that you are aware that thousands of Christians have also become Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Budhist, etc. How do you explain that?William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91471239104985567192016-04-07T13:58:12.210-07:002016-04-07T13:58:12.210-07:00ChrisW,
"But dozens of others were written a...ChrisW,<br /><br />"But dozens of others were written and rejected by the selection committee,..." <br /><br />You guys are so predictable.<br /><br />Okay, what you are talking about are known as the Gnostic Gospels; also known as the Nag Hammadi texts. Discovered in Egypt in 1945 they are a series of codices such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip, the Apocalypse of Paul, etc. They date from approximately 350 AD and are nothing more than old world gnosticism hiding behind a Christian guise. These documents were rejected from the outset by the Christian church due to the blatant gnostic nature of their content. They were nothing more than gnostics trying to cash in on the growing Christian church.<br /><br />"To you that's true, but not to an "outsider" like me."<br /><br />It's also true to several Mormon missionaries and several Mormon friends and aquaintances.<br /><br />"but equally problematic,..." <br /><br />In what way?<br /><br />"I often wonder if the NT had been discovered just 10 years ago what our perspective would be on the validity and soundness of these documents, but I think (at least in the West) it so embedded in our culture it's hard to look at these things in a truly unfiltered way."<br /><br />Have you ever asked yourself how Christianity has managed to survive for this long despite the concerted efforts to destroy it from the time of its very foundations?<br /><br />"And unfortunately confirmation bias is a very real thing,..."<br /><br />But again, you need to explain how atheists, Hindus, etc. become Christians if confirmation bias is as a big a hurdle as you present it to be. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6271463422923121682016-04-07T13:46:49.977-07:002016-04-07T13:46:49.977-07:00ChrisW: "Of course Christianity has the weigh...ChrisW: "<i>Of course Christianity has the weight of two thousand years of tradition and institutionalized and culturized support behind it too."</i><br /><br />And after 2000 years you would think that they would finally come to a consensus on how to interpret the scriptures, but that is far from the case. <br /><br />I often wonder, if God wanted his message to get out, and assuming that the bible is the inspired word of God (or the literal word of God: depends on the denomination), why did it make it so difficult to understand?William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57594450544798944902016-04-07T13:18:52.908-07:002016-04-07T13:18:52.908-07:00Nic: "There are four Gospels."
Well yes...Nic: "There are four Gospels."<br /><br />Well yes, four that are now traditionally in used. But dozens of others were written and rejected by the selection committee (although the process there is a bit murky too and again given human nature I'm sure there wasn't just a little bit of politics involved). But no doubt Nic you'll correct me that no the history is all perfectly straightforward and of course everybody had perfectly good and honest motivations. Sure. <br /><br />"Because I know more about Mormonism than 90% of Mormons. I know where the problems lay and how and why it cannot stand up to scrutiny in the way Christianity can."<br /><br />To you that's true, but not to an "outsider" like me. Yes, the issues with Mormonism and Christianity are different (different time, different places), but equally problematic (although again from an outsider perspective both are equally strange). <br /><br />Of course Christianity has the weight of two thousand years of tradition and institutionalized and culturized support behind it too. I often wonder if the NT had been discovered just 10 years ago what our perspective would be on the validity and soundness of these documents, but I think (at least in the West) it so embedded in our culture it's hard to look at these things in a truly unfiltered way. <br /><br />And unfortunately confirmation bias is a very real thing (I'm sure I'm guilty of it too) and even harder for us as individuals to detect that it's happening. TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54753590685612062192016-04-07T13:14:26.225-07:002016-04-07T13:14:26.225-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39504366832416274752016-04-07T12:58:17.349-07:002016-04-07T12:58:17.349-07:00ChrisW,
"And how many Gospel accounts are th...ChrisW,<br /><br />"And how many Gospel accounts are there, especially if you count the non-canonical ones?"<br /><br />There are four Gospels. <br /><br />I know where you're trying to go and it won't work.<br /><br />"At least with Joseph Smith we know in fact who the authors are."<br /><br />Do we? How much Mormon history do you know?<br /><br />"Why aren't you able to apply the same level of skepticism you have to Mormonism to your own belief system?"<br /><br />Because I know more about Mormonism than 90% of Mormons. I know where the problems lay and how and why it cannot stand up to scrutiny in the way Christianity can.<br /><br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16010176721907661202016-04-07T12:39:46.345-07:002016-04-07T12:39:46.345-07:00Nic: "As there are at least three versions of...Nic: "As there are at least three versions of the event given by Smith"<br /><br />And how many Gospel accounts are there, especially if you count the non-canonical ones? How do you know for sure the authors weren't also con men? At least with Joseph Smith we know in fact who the authors are. And at least the accounts are first person testimony and not second-hand hearsay.<br /><br /> Why aren't you able to apply the same level of skepticism you have to Mormonism to your own belief system? <br />TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48509228666733731702016-04-07T12:32:22.642-07:002016-04-07T12:32:22.642-07:00William,
"My point is simply that documented...William,<br /><br />"My point is simply that documented records are not unbiased accounts of events. Just as eyewitness accounts are not unbiased. And when I say bias, I am not talking about outright misrepresentation and fabrication, although I am sure that also plays a part."<br /><br />Okay, but would you not have to apply skepticism to the counter arguments as well, for the same reasons? Why would we assume bias in the documents, but not in the criticism of those documents? You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55311340506710109832016-04-07T12:29:15.373-07:002016-04-07T12:29:15.373-07:00ChrisW,
"I think you just need to understand...ChrisW,<br /><br />"I think you just need to understand human psychology to see how easily people are fooled and manipulated."<br /><br />I do very well, I minored in psychology in university.<br /><br />"There have been literally thousands of studies that demonstrate that we are far from rational cognitive beings."<br /><br />And there have been just as many which conclude the opposite. You can make research data say whatever you wish to make it say. You can also collect in a manner which virtually guarantees the results you want. As such you do not have much of an argument here. Also, you would need again to prove this was the case, not simply wave your hands and assert it's a fact.<br /><br />"I am not sure it has much to do with age but more with the quality of the claims (again, do we have good primary sources, or just hearsay)."<br /><br />Again, you are required to show fault, not simply assume and assert it.<br /><br />"For example, I'm skeptical of claims by Joseph Smith that he had an encounter with the angel Moroni, even though that is a relatively recent event. I'm guessing you may be skeptical of that story too -,..."<br /><br />As there are at least three versions of the event given by Smith, I would have to say I am extremely skeptical. Couple that with the fact Smith was a well known and convicted con artist, I would argue that one can easily impeach the source in this case.<br /><br />"I expect you've heard of the "outsider test" that John Loftus talks about. We find it easy to be skeptical of another person's belief system but our cognitive biases make it extremely hard to use that same skeptical approach to our own ingrained beliefs."<br /><br />What do you do when one has gone from one set of beliefs to another? If one was ingrained in atheism, how would you explain his conversion to Christianity? Would he not have to question his ingrained biases toward atheism?<br /><br />A lot of these types of arguments sound good at first hearing, but simply do not stand up when logic is applied to them.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65991570605404556542016-04-07T11:42:23.312-07:002016-04-07T11:42:23.312-07:00Nic: "So, like I said, what exactly are you t...Nic: "<i>So, like I said, what exactly are you trying to say here?"</i><br /><br />My point is simply that documented records are not unbiased accounts of events. Just as eyewitness accounts are not unbiased. And when I say bias, I am not talking about outright misrepresentation and fabrication, although I am sure that also plays a part.William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64757164874920862062016-04-07T10:24:16.714-07:002016-04-07T10:24:16.714-07:00"Then you must demonstrate that is what happe..."Then you must demonstrate that is what happened. You can't just say 'people make up crap so I'm not going to believe anything"<br /><br />I think you just need to understand human psychology to see how easily people are fooled and manipulated. There have been literally thousands of studies that demonstrate that we are far from rational cognitive beings. I don't think I need to provide examples...you can just watch the news? (especially the US presidential race).<br /><br />I'm glad you have more faith in human's cognitive abilities but sadly I don't share your optimism. <br /><br />"So where do you draw the line? If you're saying we should be skeptical of 2,000 year old documents what about 1,000 year old documents? If we are to be skeptical about 1,000 year old documents what about<br />500 years or even 250 years? Why should we believe something written even 100 years ago?"<br /><br />I am not sure it has much to do with age but more with the quality of the claims (again, do we have good primary sources, or just hearsay). For example, I'm skeptical of claims by Joseph Smith that he had an encounter with the angel Moroni, even though that is a relatively recent event. I'm guessing you may be skeptical of that story too - I expect you've heard of the "outsider test" that John Loftus talks about. We find it easy to be skeptical of another person's belief system but our cognitive biases make it extremely hard to use that same skeptical approach to our own ingrained beliefs. TrevorDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650660580820963962noreply@blogger.com