Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

[Robert Tulip]

Okay, just because two documents have the same words - and just in this one phrase mind you, as there is nothing more in the Epistle of Barnabas - you feel confident to assume one is citing the other, despite the strong possibility both come from a common source. I go back to my comment that you naively ridiculed - an, "absence of definitive early citation." Now you are saying Barnabas does not even have to mention Matthew for you (and the CE) to pronounce it as citation in fact. And I could not find anyone to back up your assertion that Barnabas cites Mark, just on a quick internet search.

I see you are avoiding my request for anything more substantial. Cat got your tongue?

[Doulos]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the crux of Doulos' argument is that he gets to choose his own reality and no one can say for certain that this reality is false.

I once interviewed the author of the book: JOHN LENNON IN HEAVEN. The author says she imagined encounters with the dead John Lennon in which he described his life in heaven. And so she wrote a book about it. She told me that the mere fact that she could imagine such conversations with John Lennon meant it could be real. You just can't argue with that kind of logic.

http://www.amazon.com/John-Lennon-Heave ... 0963621858

Actually the crux of my argument is that personal experiences have convinced me of the existance of God, and his identification with the God detailed in the Christian Bible. I do not expect others to necessarily believe because of this, but it was sufficient to move me from a position of Atheism/Agnosticism to faith.

I'm rather overloaded with work at the moment, so I'll leave off detailed discussion till after the 'rush' is over.

[Doulos]

Okay, just because two documents have the same words - and just in this one phrase mind you, as there is nothing more in the Epistle of Barnabas - you feel confident to assume one is citing the other, despite the strong possibility both come from a common source. I go back to my comment that you naively ridiculed - an, "absence of definitive early citation." Now you are saying Barnabas does not even have to mention Matthew for you (and the CE) to pronounce it as citation in fact. And I could not find anyone to back up your assertion that Barnabas cites Mark, just on a quick internet search.

I see you are avoiding my request for anything more substantial. Cat got your tongue?

"same words"
No, the same phrasing and sentence.

The stuff that would get you expelled for plagiarism if you wrote it today


"And I could not find anyone to back up your assertion that Barnabas cites Mark, just on a quick internet search"

You mean you've been making these assertions that there is an, ""absence of definitive early citation"... and havn't even previously investigated the source material? You've also failed to discuss the other two sources I posted. Any of the three disprove the assertion you've been making, as do the other pre-Irenaeus sources that I didn't bother to post. Before you make blind assertions, it would be helpful if you investigated the issue more fully.

"as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen."
(Barnabas 4:14)

"For many are called, but few are chosen"
(Matthew 22:14)

For a more detailed treatment of this you could look at:
J. Carleton-Paget, "The Epistle of Barnabas and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament", in Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers

[Interbane]

"The bias is evident and blatant from the majority of theists"
Please note I'm not disagreeing with this statement... merely suggesting that it is just as true for Atheists, but you are simply more in agreement with that bias.

Correct, most here are biased against bias. Would you like to join us in being biased against bias?

I'm also biased against inequality. I believe all people are essentially equal.

Not all bias is bad. Being biased against uncritical thinking is a good thing. Guilty as charged.

Note also that your experiential sampling seems to based mainly on conversations within this forum (If I'm incorrect on this, please let me know. I can only go by what you post). As I've had pointed out to me, this forum is heavily Atheist leaning, so the Christians you get here are possibly leaning towards a certain 'type' in the first place, which skews any use of them as a representative sampling.

Any sampling I receive will be skewed in some way. But I've read enough literature from various sources to say that if my sampling is off-base, then at least it isn't far off base. The point of distinction seems to be more about Critical Thinking than bias, but they are nested concepts.

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_ ... _1120.aspx

[Robert Tulip]

"same words" No, the same phrasing and sentence.
The stuff that would get you expelled for plagiarism if you wrote it today
"And I could not find anyone to back up your assertion that Barnabas cites Mark, just on a quick internet search"

You mean you've been making these assertions that there is an, ""absence of definitive early citation"... and havn't even previously investigated the source material? You've also failed to discuss the other two sources I posted. Any of the three disprove the assertion you've been making, as do the other pre-Irenaeus sources that I didn't bother to post. Before you make blind assertions, it would be helpful if you investigated the issue more fully.

"as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen."
(Barnabas 4:14)

"For many are called, but few are chosen"
(Matthew 22:14)

For a more detailed treatment of this you could look at:
J. Carleton-Paget, "The Epistle of Barnabas and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament", in Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers

Doulos, your comments here are no more than tub thumping evangelism. I hope it warms your cockles. So far, it appears that your claim that Barnabas cites Mark is simply false. Your effort to turn my observation against me is frankly pathetic. You made a claim and I looked for evidence to support it and found none, as I expected.

The burden of proof is on you to show there is any definitive early citation of the Gospels, beyond your mindless repetition of evangelical dogma. Both Barnabas and Matthew may have had access to Q. That means you cannot use this flimsy example of the one same phrase as evidence of "definitive citation". After all, even Confucius supported the Golden Rule, but no one calls Jesus a cheat on this account.

The Gospels are no more reliable than someone unearthing a dubious current document with claims about the American Civil War. All the evidence is far too late and contaminated to be reliable.

[Doulos]

"The bias is evident and blatant from the majority of theists"
Please note I'm not disagreeing with this statement... merely suggesting that it is just as true for Atheists, but you are simply more in agreement with that bias.

Correct, most here are biased against bias. Would you like to join us in being biased against bias?

I'm also biased against inequality. I believe all people are essentially equal.

Not all bias is bad. Being biased against uncritical thinking is a good thing. Guilty as charged.

Yup. Bias is normal, as it simply reflects coming to conclusions.

I stand with you in the guilty docks

Note also that your experiential sampling seems to based mainly on conversations within this forum (If I'm incorrect on this, please let me know. I can only go by what you post). As I've had pointed out to me, this forum is heavily Atheist leaning, so the Christians you get here are possibly leaning towards a certain 'type' in the first place, which skews any use of them as a representative sampling.

Any sampling I receive will be skewed in some way. But I've read enough literature from various sources to say that if my sampling is off-base, then at least it isn't far off base. The point of distinction seems to be more about Critical Thinking than bias, but they are nested concepts.

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_ ... _1120.aspx

As long as you're aware how skewed... though this is the area where I have doubts.

[Doulos]

"same words" No, the same phrasing and sentence.
The stuff that would get you expelled for plagiarism if you wrote it today
"And I could not find anyone to back up your assertion that Barnabas cites Mark, just on a quick internet search"

You mean you've been making these assertions that there is an, ""absence of definitive early citation"... and havn't even previously investigated the source material? You've also failed to discuss the other two sources I posted. Any of the three disprove the assertion you've been making, as do the other pre-Irenaeus sources that I didn't bother to post. Before you make blind assertions, it would be helpful if you investigated the issue more fully.

"as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen."
(Barnabas 4:14)

"For many are called, but few are chosen"
(Matthew 22:14)

For a more detailed treatment of this you could look at:
J. Carleton-Paget, "The Epistle of Barnabas and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament", in Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers

Doulos, your comments here are no more than tub thumping evangelism. I hope it warms your cockles. So far, it appears that your claim that Barnabas cites Mark is simply false. Your effort to turn my observation against me is frankly pathetic. You made a claim and I looked for evidence to support it and found none, as I expected.

The burden of proof is on you to show there is any definitive early citation of the Gospels, beyond your mindless repetition of evangelical dogma. Both Barnabas and Matthew may have had access to Q. That means you cannot use this flimsy example of the one same phrase as evidence of "definitive citation". After all, even Confucius supported the Golden Rule, but no one calls Jesus a cheat on this account.

The Gospels are no more reliable than someone unearthing a dubious current document with claims about the American Civil War. All the evidence is far too late and contaminated to be reliable.

I've answered you using pretty standard academic scholarship, both Christian and secular. You may want to try Google Scholar instead of just regular Google in your investigation

You have also failed to address the other two ancient sources listed. Any of the three disprove your contention that there is an, "absence of definitive early citation."

[Interbane]

Yup. Bias is normal, as it simply reflects coming to conclusions.

I stand with you in the guilty docks

You miss my point. If you do nothing to combat your bias, you will be more likely to arrive at false conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Every human is guilty in one way or another of bias. Yes, me too. But that's not my point, and never was. From countless personal experiences, the majority of people turn a blind eye to their bias. When they are called out on it, they fess up, but not otherwise. This applies to atheists and theists. But from the atheist camp, I see more integrity, where friends of mine will swallow their pride and throw out one of their sacred beliefs after critical examination. You don't see that from theists. At least, I never have. The most common response when I mention bias is very similar to yours. "Yes, we have bias, so what..."

Perhaps I'm the odd one. I see bias as a sort of evolutionary disease. Puppeteer strings laid in place from unending selective pressure.

[geo]

. . . Every human is guilty in one way or another of bias. Yes, me too. But that's not my point, and never was. From countless personal experiences, the majority of people turn a blind eye to their bias. When they are called out on it, they fess up, but not otherwise. This applies to atheists and theists. But from the atheist camp, I see more integrity, where friends of mine will swallow their pride and throw out one of their sacred beliefs after critical examination. You don't see that from theists. At least, I never have. The most common response when I mention bias is very similar to yours. "Yes, we have bias, so what..."

Perhaps I'm the odd one. I see bias as a sort of evolutionary disease. Puppeteer strings laid in place from unending selective pressure.

For many people it doesn't have to be a choice between: a) belief in God and b) striving to be a critical thinker. The more rigid one's religious beliefs, however, the less likely that critical thinking will become one's personal goal. Just a guess, but someone who believes that Noah really put a pair of every animal species on a boat is probably not really going to be very interested in critical thinking. A critical thinker must be dedicated to confronting his own cherished beliefs and be aware of his own biases. Though we are skillful at cognitive dissonance, such rigid beliefs are the antithesis of critical thinking.

[youkrst]

Just a guess, but someone who believes that Noah really put a pair of every animal species on a boat is probably not really going to be very interested in critical thinking.

quite so

but if a critical thinker is sleeping in there perhaps they can be awoken (sleeping beauty)

WAKE UP!!!

zzzzzzzzzzz

DOH!