Roots of Human Morality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Let me ask you something sufiandy.

There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.

Would you believe them?

Why or why not?[/quote]

Nope, because people have been known to lie or at least misunderstand their own perceptions. There is also the case of people looking for attention but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not the reason.[/quote]

The reason I ask is the evidence for an alien abduction is of the same quality of evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible about jesus.

They are both hearsay accounts with no physical evidence. You can talk to someone abducted by aliens and they will be able to describe every single thing that happened to them. Both the Bible’s and the alien abductee are making extraordinary claims. So I ask, why do you accept the Bible evidence but not the Aliens? Religions were popping up around the same time as Christianity.

242

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Your saying he didn’t exist, that’s a bit different than whether or not he did miracles or was conceived miraculously. [/quote]

No I said this:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I’m not saying he didn’t exist but what I am saying is there’s insufficient evidence to support that Jesus did exist.

There’s not single contemporary account from an eye witness.

There’s not a single event from his life we can date or provide evidence for, and all the accounts are done a later generation or more. They are hearsay by non eye witnesses and all events are almost all of a supernatural nature. They have no verification.[/quote]
[/quote]

John and Peter were eye witnesses. They John wrote an account, Peter did not, but he wrote 3 epistles about the faith referring to Jesus frequently.[/quote]

And we’re not sure who wrote John.[/quote]

We’re not sure who wrote any of it. These are ancient texts and there was efforts to curtail the movement. But it’s thought with reasonable certainly that the one “John” was the author, either that or a one of his scribes who took down the dictations. It hard to know what John knew with out having been there.[/quote]

Most modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works[4] although others, notably J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, and Leon Morris, hold the apostle to be behind at least some, in particular the gospel. [in reference to the Authorship of the Johannine works]

There are 10 sources cited for this comment.

243

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< Yes, I would agree that complete objectivity is impossible. You can’t look at something without being colored by your life. Now, you can look at both sides of a topic equally and call that objectivity but you can’t make a decision about something without your life coloring it.[/quote]All right that does it. New thread on the way.
[/quote]

Not quite sure why that deserves a thread.

244

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Let me ask you something sufiandy.

There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.

Would you believe them?

Why or why not?[/quote]

Nope, because people have been known to lie or at least misunderstand their own perceptions. There is also the case of people looking for attention but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not the reason.[/quote]

The reason I ask is the evidence for an alien abduction is of the same quality of evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible about jesus.

They are both hearsay accounts with no physical evidence. You can talk to someone abducted by aliens and they will be able to describe every single thing that happened to them. Both the Bible’s and the alien abductee are making extraordinary claims. So I ask, why do you accept the Bible evidence but not the Aliens? Religions were popping up around the same time as Christianity.

[/quote]

The bible does have physical evidence, among other types too. I think religion still existed though there was just less organization and more variety.

245

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Let me ask you something sufiandy.

There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.

Would you believe them?

Why or why not?[/quote]

Nope, because people have been known to lie or at least misunderstand their own perceptions. There is also the case of people looking for attention but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not the reason.[/quote]

The reason I ask is the evidence for an alien abduction is of the same quality of evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible about jesus.

They are both hearsay accounts with no physical evidence. You can talk to someone abducted by aliens and they will be able to describe every single thing that happened to them. Both the Bible’s and the alien abductee are making extraordinary claims. So I ask, why do you accept the Bible evidence but not the Aliens? Religions were popping up around the same time as Christianity.

[/quote]

The bible does have physical evidence, among other types too.[/quote]

I’m unfamiliar with any, please share.

246

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
The difference here is for me evidence for the meaning of life requires more than just hearsay and it doesn’t for you.

I’m willing to believe relatively unimportant facts from the past on hearsay, because in the greater schemes it doesn’t matter.

Back to my post of sufiandy:

  1. The gospels were written about ~40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Christ with which

  2. there is no credible extrabiblical evidence for the history of Jesus that isn’t being questioned legitimately as a forgery
    [/quote]

  3. Yes the new testament was written after Jesus died.

  4. Refer to the old testament[/quote]

Your avatar cracks me up…

As long as there are haters, it will always be questioned. But that’s fine with me, I wouldn’t want it any other way. It should be questioned.[/quote]

No I’m not a “hater.”

I care about the truth. Huge difference. [/quote]

As do I, hater :stuck_out_tongue:

247

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Let me ask you something sufiandy.

There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.

Would you believe them?

Why or why not?[/quote]

Nope, because people have been known to lie or at least misunderstand their own perceptions. There is also the case of people looking for attention but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not the reason.[/quote]

The reason I ask is the evidence for an alien abduction is of the same quality of evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible about jesus.

They are both hearsay accounts with no physical evidence. You can talk to someone abducted by aliens and they will be able to describe every single thing that happened to them. Both the Bible’s and the alien abductee are making extraordinary claims. So I ask, why do you accept the Bible evidence but not the Aliens? Religions were popping up around the same time as Christianity.

[/quote]

The bible does have physical evidence, among other types too.[/quote]

I’m unfamiliar with any, please share. [/quote]

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php

248

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Let me ask you something sufiandy.

There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.

Would you believe them?

Why or why not?[/quote]

Nope, because people have been known to lie or at least misunderstand their own perceptions. There is also the case of people looking for attention but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not the reason.[/quote]

The reason I ask is the evidence for an alien abduction is of the same quality of evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible about jesus.

They are both hearsay accounts with no physical evidence. You can talk to someone abducted by aliens and they will be able to describe every single thing that happened to them. Both the Bible’s and the alien abductee are making extraordinary claims. So I ask, why do you accept the Bible evidence but not the Aliens? Religions were popping up around the same time as Christianity.

[/quote]

Religions were around from the get go. The difference between us is you see them as extraordinary, I see them as perfectly natural. The reasons why the other religions failed is because they did not work, they had no teeth, they weren’t real. They were a “God of gaps” methodology. You do understand that this faith we believe actually “works” now, in real time, today. It’s not just a bunch of old stories but things that are relevant in the here and now. The Hebrew faith was vastly different from anything that was around back then and vastly different from anything that came before. It went beyond doing a dance and getting some rain, or burning a goat for out of respect. Yes, it had those elements, but it also talked about weird things like relationships, trust, respect for your fellow man. You had an advocate who stood up for the little guy and talked of forgiveness.

As far as physical evidence their is plenty around. People have been healed of diseases or cured whatever you prefer. You have various kinds of miracles that can still be witnessed today you can go place your beady little eyes on them if you want.

The hardest part about faith is the fact that it is so personal. The effects are individual and it’s impossible to articulate them to somebody who has no sense of it. It’s like trying to describe an acid trip to somebody…Everybody whose done it knows, but those who have not experienced it won’t know unless they try it. Same kind of thing, I can tell you about it, but unless you take a dip in the pool, you won’t know it, really.

249

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Your saying he didn’t exist, that’s a bit different than whether or not he did miracles or was conceived miraculously. [/quote]

No I said this:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I’m not saying he didn’t exist but what I am saying is there’s insufficient evidence to support that Jesus did exist.

There’s not single contemporary account from an eye witness.

There’s not a single event from his life we can date or provide evidence for, and all the accounts are done a later generation or more. They are hearsay by non eye witnesses and all events are almost all of a supernatural nature. They have no verification.[/quote]
[/quote]

John and Peter were eye witnesses. They John wrote an account, Peter did not, but he wrote 3 epistles about the faith referring to Jesus frequently.[/quote]

And we’re not sure who wrote John.[/quote]

We’re not sure who wrote any of it. These are ancient texts and there was efforts to curtail the movement. But it’s thought with reasonable certainly that the one “John” was the author, either that or a one of his scribes who took down the dictations. It hard to know what John knew with out having been there.[/quote]

Most modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works[4] although others, notably J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, and Leon Morris, hold the apostle to be behind at least some, in particular the gospel. [in reference to the Authorship of the Johannine works]

There are 10 sources cited for this comment.[/quote]

I am well aware of all these potential criticisms and pitfalls but the fact is, none of them serve to prove he did not write them. Which is the conclusion most scholarly types in the community of faith come to. Hell even Shakespeare’s works are under criticism for not being authentically his. Challenges to authorship is most certainly nothing new. But I do want to address this point on authorship since you harp on it so much.

Is an author great before he writes a book? Isn’t it the content of the book that gives the author validity? It’s the work that makes the author, not the other way around. Since the bible is such an old text and people really didn’t give much thought to the questions people ask today, but some of the scriptures have been around for thousands of years. It’s still the best selling book in the history of the world. The stories and words are still relevant and very much in play today. In in literature terms, those are glowing endorsements.

250

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Again, you give me opinon. Show me how it’s supposed to be rational. Go on, in depth.

The Nazis were never rational about it, they were dumb enough to listen to the loudest voice.[/quote]

No, it isn’t opinion - it speaks for itself. Imagine the money saved if we killed everyone who has been on the government dole for the last two years - young or old. We’d save billions. We’d be able to commit the resources we spent on them to other worthwhile projects. And there would be additional dividends - people would be scared to fall into government assistance knowing that their lives would be in danger, so we would effectively cure laziness and dependency. It’d be chocked full of harsh but good incentives.

Now, what I just described is disgustingly evil and immoral, but it’s rational.[/quote]

No it’s not, why would you go to all that effort for people who are a drain as it is?

251

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Let me ask you something sufiandy.

There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.

Would you believe them?

Why or why not?[/quote]

Nope, because people have been known to lie or at least misunderstand their own perceptions. There is also the case of people looking for attention but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not the reason.[/quote]

The reason I ask is the evidence for an alien abduction is of the same quality of evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible about jesus.

They are both hearsay accounts with no physical evidence. You can talk to someone abducted by aliens and they will be able to describe every single thing that happened to them. Both the Bible’s and the alien abductee are making extraordinary claims. So I ask, why do you accept the Bible evidence but not the Aliens? Religions were popping up around the same time as Christianity.

[/quote]

The bible does have physical evidence, among other types too.[/quote]

I’m unfamiliar with any, please share. [/quote]

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php[/quote]

The Bible has facts in it, the places for the most part are real and some of the events mentioned have been verified. But what matter is whether there is evidence for the supernatural claims. The fact that some of the events mentioned took place and the locations exist does not mean the supernatural claims are true.

The best example I can give you: If I showed you a Spiderman comic book, does the fact that it takes place a real city (NYC) prove that Spider Man exists?

252

[quote]pat wrote:

Religions were around from the get go. The difference between us is you see them as extraordinary, I see them as perfectly natural. The reasons why the other religions failed is because they did not work, they had no teeth, they weren’t real. They were a “God of gaps” methodology. You do understand that this faith we believe actually “works” now, in real time, today. It’s not just a bunch of old stories but things that are relevant in the here and now. The Hebrew faith was vastly different from anything that was around back then and vastly different from anything that came before. It went beyond doing a dance and getting some rain, or burning a goat for out of respect. Yes, it had those elements, but it also talked about weird things like relationships, trust, respect for your fellow man. You had an advocate who stood up for the little guy and talked of forgiveness. [/quote]

If you see the Bible that way as a source of good and a guide live your life fine. But that doesn’t speak to how true the events it mentions are. I think I’m pretty well grounded morally even though I’ve only ever stepped into a Church for tourism (Notre Dame, some old Quebec churches) and for an inter-faith wedding (my cousin married a Catholic).

[quote]pat wrote:

As far as physical evidence their is plenty around. People have been healed of diseases or cured whatever you prefer. You have various kinds of miracles that can still be witnessed today you can go place your beady little eyes on them if you want.[/quote]

Anything I have seen in this realm is explained by science. Incurable diseases like cancer sometimes regress naturally. These regressions are in line with statistical probabilities. Plus I don’t really understand, why would god choose to cure person A and allow an equally religious person B to die of the very same disease?

[quote]pat wrote:

The hardest part about faith is the fact that it is so personal. The effects are individual and it’s impossible to articulate them to somebody who has no sense of it. It’s like trying to describe an acid trip to somebody…Everybody whose done it knows, but those who have not experienced it won’t know unless they try it. Same kind of thing, I can tell you about it, but unless you take a dip in the pool, you won’t know it, really.

[/quote]

I agree. If you have had personal experiences then you can justify your faith. It would be impossible for me to justify it without having a “divine” experience.

253

[quote]pat wrote:

I am well aware of all these potential criticisms and pitfalls but the fact is, none of them serve to prove he did not write them. Which is the conclusion most scholarly types in the community of faith come to. Hell even Shakespeare’s works are under criticism for not being authentically his. Challenges to authorship is most certainly nothing new. But I do want to address this point on authorship since you harp on it so much.[/quote]

Yes you cannot prove 100% he did not write them. However This shows the probability that he did write them to be slim.

[quote]pat wrote:

Is an author great before he writes a book? Isn’t it the content of the book that gives the author validity? It’s the work that makes the author, not the other way around. Since the bible is such an old text and people really didn’t give much thought to the questions people ask today, but some of the scriptures have been around for thousands of years. It’s still the best selling book in the history of the world. The stories and words are still relevant and very much in play today. In in literature terms, those are glowing endorsements.[/quote]

Yeah I agree. The problem is people do not see this book a literary fiction. They see it as the word of god. In this case, when you’re saying god wrote this book or it’s divinely inspired authorship matters. If we found out tomorrow Shakespeare didn’t write Hamlet, what would that really change in our day to day life? Nothing.

254

[quote]pat wrote:
The reasons why the other religions failed[/quote]

lol

255

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Let me ask you something sufiandy.

There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.

Would you believe them?

Why or why not?[/quote]

Nope, because people have been known to lie or at least misunderstand their own perceptions. There is also the case of people looking for attention but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not the reason.[/quote]

The reason I ask is the evidence for an alien abduction is of the same quality of evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible about jesus.

They are both hearsay accounts with no physical evidence. You can talk to someone abducted by aliens and they will be able to describe every single thing that happened to them. Both the Bible’s and the alien abductee are making extraordinary claims. So I ask, why do you accept the Bible evidence but not the Aliens? Religions were popping up around the same time as Christianity.

[/quote]

The bible does have physical evidence, among other types too.[/quote]

I’m unfamiliar with any, please share. [/quote]

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php[/quote]

The Bible has facts in it, the places for the most part are real and some of the events mentioned have been verified. But what matter is whether there is evidence for the supernatural claims. The fact that some of the events mentioned took place and the locations exist does not mean the supernatural claims are true.

The best example I can give you: If I showed you a Spiderman comic book, does the fact that it takes place a real city (NYC) prove that Spider Man exists?

[/quote]

The bible has many authors with no collaboration which have similar historical accounts, none of which have been proven inaccurate to date. If much of the natural claims have been proved and none disproved, why would the supernatural claims be any different?

256

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Let me ask you something sufiandy.

There are people in the world who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They have 100% conviction of their beliefs, you can talk to them and find out the details, but there is no physical evidence to support their claim that aliens abducted them.

Would you believe them?

Why or why not?[/quote]

Nope, because people have been known to lie or at least misunderstand their own perceptions. There is also the case of people looking for attention but I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is not the reason.[/quote]

The reason I ask is the evidence for an alien abduction is of the same quality of evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible about jesus.

They are both hearsay accounts with no physical evidence. You can talk to someone abducted by aliens and they will be able to describe every single thing that happened to them. Both the Bible’s and the alien abductee are making extraordinary claims. So I ask, why do you accept the Bible evidence but not the Aliens? Religions were popping up around the same time as Christianity.

[/quote]

The bible does have physical evidence, among other types too.[/quote]

I’m unfamiliar with any, please share. [/quote]

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php[/quote]

The Bible has facts in it, the places for the most part are real and some of the events mentioned have been verified. But what matter is whether there is evidence for the supernatural claims. The fact that some of the events mentioned took place and the locations exist does not mean the supernatural claims are true.

The best example I can give you: If I showed you a Spiderman comic book, does the fact that it takes place a real city (NYC) prove that Spider Man exists?

[/quote]

The bible has many authors with no collaboration which have similar historical accounts, none of which have been proven inaccurate to date. If much of the natural claims have been proved and none disproved, why would the supernatural claims be any different?[/quote]

There are plenty of inaccuracies in the Bible, I was just saying it’s not a complete work of fiction.

But it doesn’t matter and here’s why. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For me second hand accounts of supernatural events is not adequate evidence to believe they took place. The same would be true in the alien abduction example I presented. I would need more than the account of the abductee to believe it.

If the standard of evidence you require to believe something of this magnitude is second hand eye witness accounts that’s fine. For me I need much more to be convinced. But this also presents a problem for you. If you accept these claims, why do you reject the claims of other religions where an equal amount of evidence exists? Why accept the Bible’s claims but not the Qu’ran for example?

257

The Qu’ran contradicts the bible in some cases, so you can’t accept both.

258

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why accept the Bible’s claims but not the Qu’ran for example?[/quote]

Or Hindu claims?

Or Mayan claims?

Or Ancient Greek claims?

Or Scientology claims?

Or Jain claims?

Or Buddhist claims?

Or Ancient Egyptian claims? (hey those guys liked cats almost as much as I do)

Or Mormon claims?

Accepting the claims people generally accept is an accident of birth compounded by lack of critical thought.

259

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why accept the Bible’s claims but not the Qu’ran for example?[/quote]

Or Hindu claims?

Or Mayan claims?

Or Ancient Greek claims?

Or Scientology claims?

Or Jain claims?

Or Buddhist claims?

Or Ancient Egyptian claims? (hey those guys liked cats almost as much as I do)

Or Mormon claims?

Accepting the claims people generally accept is an accident of birth compounded by lack of critical thought.[/quote]

Are you claiming anyone who believes your statement had an accident at birth or lacks critical thought?

260

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Why accept the Bible’s claims but not the Qu’ran for example?[/quote]

Or Hindu claims?

Or Mayan claims?

Or Ancient Greek claims?

Or Scientology claims?

Or Jain claims?

Or Buddhist claims?

Or Ancient Egyptian claims? (hey those guys liked cats almost as much as I do)

Or Mormon claims?

Accepting the claims people generally accept is an accident of birth compounded by lack of critical thought.[/quote]

Are you claiming anyone who believes your statement had an accident at birth or lacks critical thought?[/quote]

Believe what you want.