Faith, not reason.

Juan:

Yeah, when you are a positivist troll, all your 'arguments' reduce to asking what the meaning of 'meaning' is.

How does clarifying definitions make one a positivist?

I think Juan has a random insult generator loaded with the terms "positivist", "skeptic", "amoralist", "Stirnerite", "Church of Hume", "theist", and everything else he doesn't understand, yet professes to hate, and he just fires off whatever happens to come out.

(granting he existed, which he didn't)

Do you really want to stand by this?  Without going into any detail for the moment  I will say I usually assume most people making comments like this are either amazing cutting edge scholars, or dogmatists with a most likely inconsistent view of history.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Now you get to demonstrate that there's no distinction between someone with a chemical imbalance and one with. Go to it. You set yourself up for it. Now you're screwed. You have the onus of proof here.

Yeah--it's best that you tuck tail and run, little boy.

OK, well, now you're just begging the question.

Except not. Go back to Logic 101, Giles.

laminustacitus:

Rational trust is faith, BAAWA

No, it most certainly is NOT. Don't create neologisms just to suit your fantasy world.

 

GilesStratton:

Woah, what? I guess we'd better write a whole bunch of psychological conditions off the books as nonsense then. Because, you know, Nash was seeing real people after all. (Interestingly, I heard the in "The Beautiful Mind" the way his illness was depicted was actually less dramatic than it actually was).

Knight_of_BAAWA:

[Now you get to demonstrate that there's no distinction between someone with a chemical imbalance and one with. Go to it. You set yourself up for it. Now you're screwed. You have the onus of proof here.

laminustacitus:

Because the mind is nothing but a phenomena that can be fully reduced to materialist explanations - you have the onus of proof here.

False. Giles has the onus of proof to show that there is no distinction between a chemical imbalance and no chemical imbalance. Giles has screwed himself over by denying the linguistic basis of certain terms. And then you have the onus of proving that there is such a thing as the immaterial.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Except not. Go back to Logic 101, Giles.

To summarize the debate so far:

Giles:

I'm skeptical about the existence of you and every other member of this fora. I'm thinking that it could just be that I'm or something like that.

Could you prove to me that you do, indeed, exist?

BAAWA:

Well, look at it this way. We know that people who are crazy have chemical imbalances. Now, I just did a scan of your brain and look, it looks exactly the same as mine! Since I know I'm not crazy, it follows logically that you aren't either!

Now, if you're not crazy and you're seeing me I must exist.

Right, and you didn't beg the question.

laminustacitus:

Spideynw:

I don't know what "justified true belief" is, so I cannot comment on it.

You really need to work on that before you ever speak on faith, and reason again.

Ah, so you don't really have an argument.  I see.  (Hint: you might try providing an example of what you mean, so I can tear it apart, but obviously you are too scared to do so).

Spideynw:

But, would you believe in unicorns if I told you they exist? 

Would you believe a person in whom you have a great deal of confidence if they said they saw a unicorn? Would you believe them if they said they saw a ghost?

What we are discussing is when the only evidence of something is the eyewitness accounts of other people. You want to call believing eyewitness testimony an act of faith and not based on reason.

If eyewitness testimony of something is an act of faith then we have to say all eyewitness testimony even the mundane is an act of faith. Since about 99% of everything we do is based on what other people tell us is happening to some extent then your entire life is based on faith by your own definition.

One other point, researching the bible has no real relationship to whether you believe in the existence of God or not. You can research the bible and be an atheist and never read the bible and be a firm believer.

 

Maxliberty:

Would you believe a person in whom you have a great deal of confidence if they said they saw a unicorn?

I would believe they thought they saw a unicorn.  I would still not believe in unicorns.

Maxliberty:

Would you believe them if they said they saw a ghost?

I would believe they thought they saw a ghost.  I myself would still not believe in ghosts.

Maxliberty:

What we are discussing is when the only evidence of something is the eyewitness accounts of other people. You want to call believing eyewitness testimony an act of faith and not based on reason.

When it has to do with the fantastical, yes.

Maxliberty:

If eyewitness testimony of something is an act of faith then we have to say all eyewitness testimony even the mundane is an act of faith.

If the only evidence is a testimony, then yes.  It has been shown quite a number of times when people are convicted by testimony alone, that later on they are vindicated because the testimony was false.  I wonder why most scientists are not religious?  Maybe because the supernatural is not reproducible?

Maxliberty:

Since about 99% of everything we do is based on what other people tell us is happening to some extent then your entire life is based on faith by your own definition.

95% of statistics are made up on the spot.  Regardless, reason is based on consistency.  Your statement just makes the claim that there is no truth.  As such, you have to believe everyone that makes the claim.  Meaning you would need to practice being a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/any other religion on the planet.  Because all you have is your witnesses vs. their witnesses.  And your witnesses are no more credible than their witnesses.

I think Juan has a random insult generator loaded with the terms "positivist", "skeptic", "amoralist", "Stirnerite", "Church of Hume", "theist", and everything else he doesn't understand, yet professes to hate, and he just fires off whatever happens to come out.

Lilburne, my dear all-powerful moderator : As far as I can tell none of these words are insults. Maybe you don't understand what they mean, that's why you regard them as insults. However given that all 'values' are 'subjective', I don't really see what the issue is. Except that your amoralist non-theory of non-justice is ridiculed and you don't like it. But again, everything is just subjective preference.

Dondoolee:

Do you really want to stand by this? Without going into any detail for the moment I will say I usually assume most people making comments like this are either amazing cutting edge scholars, or dogmatists with a most likely inconsistent view of history.

The Diegesis: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity ... (1829)
By the way dondoolee, which church is it that you follow ? stirner's ? the pope's ? Or ?

So, except for parroting the lies of a few churches, do you think you have any proof to the existence of this guy jesus ? Or you just repeat what the mob says ?

Juan:

By the way dondoolee, which church is it that you follow ? stirner's ? the pope's ? Or ?

...and this time the JRIG (Juan's Random Insult Generator) happened to spit out "Stirnerite" and "Papist"... at the same person.  But he doesn't care; anyone who disagrees with him must belong to a "church" of some kind!

Lilburne, really, you don't get it. And the fact that you seem to have some sort of working connection with papists clouds your judgment even more. What a pity.

Spideynw:

I would believe they thought they saw a unicorn.  I would still not believe in unicorns.

Would you think they were ill because since they had witnessed a unicorn that they now believed in unicorns? Would you expect them not to believe in unicorns even though they have seen one?

Same questions for ghosts.

What if the person said they saw a rainbow? Would you believe them?

 

What you are really saying is that you have to see it to believe it, someone else telling the story.

Spideynw:

Maxliberty:

What we are discussing is when the only evidence of something is the eyewitness accounts of other people. You want to call believing eyewitness testimony an act of faith and not based on reason.

When it has to do with the fantastical, yes.

Fantastical as determined by you. The universe is a really big place, do you think you can really have a grasp on what is possible in the universe? You find the existence of God fantastic and I find it quite ordinary. 

For example, your friend says hey I saw a ghost. You say no you didn't. Your friend says I know what I saw and I was there when it happened. You say that you know for a fact that it was not a ghost. Your friend says how do you know when you weren't there and have no information on what I saw.....and your response is?

Spideynw:

Your statement just makes the claim that there is no truth. 

I am not saying there is not truth. I am saying that I can't universally not believe what people say just because the only evidence is their testimony.

Spideynw:

Meaning you would need to practice being a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/any other religion on the planet.  Because all you have is your witnesses vs. their witnesses.  And your witnesses are no more credible than their witnesses.

Why should I be forced to believe everyone equally? I am not suggesting you do that. I am suggesting that eyewitness testimony can not simply be discounted solely because the subject is deemed as fantastical in your mind. Why not rationally think of what people are describing and either coming to a conclusion on the evidence you do have or simply stating that it seems unexplainable with the current evidence and what we currently understand of how the world works. Is that really that hard to admit you do not have perfect knowledge of the universe?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maxliberty:

Would you think they were ill because since they had witnessed a unicorn that they now believed in unicorns?

Not necessarily.

Maxliberty:

Would you expect them not to believe in unicorns even though they have seen one?

No.  But again, he  believes he saw one.  There is no way to verify that he did.

Maxliberty:

What if the person said they saw a rainbow? Would you believe them?

Of course.  I have seen them.

Maxliberty:

What you are really saying is that you have to see it to believe it, someone else telling the story.

No, I am saying there has to be more evidence than just a witness.  Fantastical claims require fantastical evidence.  Otherwise, who do you believe?  Which "witness" is telling the truth?  Or is God just so crazy that she told a bunch of different people a bunch of different things?

Maxliberty:

Fantastical as determined by you.

Supernatural is what I am talking about.

Maxliberty:

The universe is a really big place, do you think you can really have a grasp on what is possible in the universe?

Again, I do not deny that unicorns exist or that God has talked with man.  I am just saying that there is no evidence to suggest that God has talked with man or that unicorns exist.  And until there is sufficient evidence to suggest that such is the case, I will not believe they do.

Maxliberty:

You find the existence of God fantastic and I find it quite ordinary. 

I find the idea of a supernatural God to be fantastic, because there is no evidence, outside of other people's testimony, that such is the case.  Again, if you believe God talks to man, which religion do you believe in?  The Catholic religion, the Mormon religion, the Hindu religion, the Buddhist religion, the Muslim religion, or some other religion?  They all have equal validity, if witness is a valid proof of truth, and since all they can provide as evidence is witnesses.

Maxliberty:

For example, your friend says hey I saw a ghost. You say no you didn't. Your friend says I know what I saw and I was there when it happened. You say that you know for a fact that it was not a ghost. Your friend says how do you know when you weren't there and have no information on what I saw.....and your response is?

If my friend said he saw a ghost, I would say, OK, that is fine if that is what you want to believe you saw.  But until you provide more evidence besides your testimony, I am not going to believe in ghosts.

Maxliberty:

I am not saying there is not truth. I am saying that I can't universally not believe what people say just because the only evidence is their testimony.

Then, again, you have to believe what everyone tells you.   Which means you have to believe in every religion on earth, which means you don't know what is truth.  Because they have glaring differences in teachings.

Maxliberty:

Why should I be forced to believe everyone equally?

Because they are all just as credible, since the only proof they provide that their beliefs are true are testimonies.

Maxliberty:

Is that really that hard to admit you do not have perfect knowledge of the universe?

Of course I do not have perfect knowledge of the universe.  I am not claiming that I do.  That would be a straw man.  I am claiming that the burden of proof for a claim, is on the person making the claim, and that their word that it is true is not enough.  I am also claiming, that the bigger the claim, the bigger the burden of proof.  If someone told me that they saw a pea on the ground, I would probably take their claim at face value (I know peas exist, I know gravity occurs, and as such there could be a pea on the ground).  However, if someone tells me that there is a life after death, and that I have to change my life drastically to live according to some rules so I can live happily ever after, including giving some of my money to an organization, then would you not agree that there is a massive burden of proof on the person making that claim?

Spideynw:

Of course.  I have seen them.

This is what it comes down to you for you, you have to see it yourself but you only want to make this a criteria on claims you think are fantastic however you define that.

Spideynw:

Then, again, you have to believe what everyone tells you.   Which means you have to believe in every religion on earth, which means you don't know what is truth.  Because they have glaring differences in teachings.

There is no requirement that I believe everything everybody says. However, I do believe some things some people say so I can not make the claim that you are making which is that all events based on human testimony are inherently false. There is a disconnect between what you say you do and what you actually do. Of course you believe people's stories about all kinds of stuff you don't deem fantastic or you have experienced yourself.

Spideynw:

Because they are all just as credible, since the only proof they provide that their beliefs are true are testimonies.

Where did I say every witness has equal credibility? Unlike you, I don't start with the assumption that all witnesses are wrong that doesn't mean I have to believe them all.

Spideynw:

I am claiming that the burden of proof for a claim, is on the person making the claim, and that their word that it is true is not enough.

What the point atheists always miss is that no one is trying to get you to believe in God or prove god exists. It is you that is making the positive claim that you know for a fact that God or anything else supernatural (whatever that means) does not exist. 

If you choose not to believe people, fine, but where you fail is when you say that what other people experienced you are certain did not happen.

 

Juan:

The Diegesis: Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity ... (1829)

 

Wonderful, you have cited a book that, while influential, was published before the advent of modern archaeology and put out almost 200 years ago.  This is before the discovery of Troy, The Hittite Empire, etc.

While I will not say Jesus existed, I would be somewhat surprised if he was 100 percent an invention.  Tell me do you believe there was no Zarathustra, Socrates, Odysseus, King Arthur, etc as well? Have you ever bothered to care, or only cared to the extent to it affecting you still being able to say Jesus didn’t exist?  If there was a Sumerian King who was named only once, and it was on the Sumerian King List, and his name occurred fairly late on the list would you give him the benefit of the doubt of existing? Do you usually think that mythological figures are usually based off some historical person to some degree?

I think you may far too concerned with my personal views (such as liking Stirner) to really care about any debate.  I hate the color green too, does that really change your opinion of me when talking about mythology, is my taste in color too distracting for you to focus on mythological figures?

I also think you hate Xtianity too much to be intellectual honest.

 

Shut up and get back to the Stirner Church! 10 Our Humes for the blasphemy!

Knight_of_BAAWA:

 Except not. Go back to Logic 101, Giles.

Giles:

I'm skeptical about the existence of you and every other member of this fora. I'm thinking that it could just be that I'm or something like that.

Could you prove to me that you do, indeed, exist?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Well, look at it this way. If I didn't exist, why are you asking me if I do exist? Why are you able to communicate with me? In order to communicate with me, you must have certainly logical and metaphysical necessities. Failure to recognize them by denying my existence is called the stolen concept fallacy

 

Mani (216-276 AD): Founder of Manichaeism.  Flourished mostly in Mesopotamia and Persia.

 

Plotinus (203-277AD): Founder of Neoplatonism, had only 1 biographer (Porphyre)

 

Marcion of Sinope (130ish AD):  Founder of a Gnosticish type of religion, known of today through primarily Xtian theological texts.

 

All these men founded spiritual movements around the same time era, and have little primary documents that are known of outside of their disciples and perhaps Christian theologians, showing that the person existed, yet most believe they probably did.

 

 

 

A critical point must be made about the Christian sources:  In the end Christianity was the religion and a tradition that survived, which means it has a greater number of preserved texts, so it is easy to see why we have Xtian documents as outside sources, rather than ancient failed empires or failed religions commenting on Christians .

 

Jesus’ Time:

Writings about Jesus from his followers date back to most likely 50 ADish

 

Few would deny that the oldest communities to worship Jesus were Jews.  And the 1^st known writings were EPISTLES (which are the earliest known writings), which means they were written to already practicing communities in the year fifty.  So someone with a very limited time frame had to make a big enough impact in a small and strongly culturally united area.  Not only that, he had to make a big enough impact to a group of people that were very united by their religion.  It could have been Peter or Paul doing this I suppose, but there is no reason to assume it.

 

The Texts name Historical names (Caiaphas, Theudas, Pontius Pilate, etc)

-          Some of the historical sources the New Testament names are named matter-of-factly by ancient historians (such as Josephus) when talking of Jesus, as in it didn’t seem illogical to the historian to associate the name with Jesus

-          I will grant you that there probably is an inserted and tampered with part in the Josephus text that se, and I will grant you that the roman historians who mention Jesus are second hand sources.  The point still stands though, unbiased men in a time closer to Jesus showed no signs of thinking him as a hoax.

 

Is there a slam dunk case Jesus existed? No.  However, there exists a great deal of ancient historical figures and with less evidence of existing than Jesus that people accept as real (and not just religious figures).  There do exist some plausible narratives to show how Jesus may not have lived, but they are mostly speculation, interesting maybe, but speculative.  In methods that are better testable; such as looking at the cultures involved, religions at the time of Jesus, the nature of Mediterranean and Near Eastern mythology, ancient documentation, and traditions at this point in time taking a strong stance that Jesus did not exist seems a bit dogmatic.