Stop ignoring my statements. You claim the bible is the testimony to god. Prove it. The burden is on you, you're making the claim. There is evidence that says the bible is not the testimony to god, thus my position isn't committing the argumentum ad ignorantiam. You have a burden to fulfil and have for the last year failed to put forward even a single solid piece of reasoning or support.That is not true for the Bible. You fuss and fume and sputter but the Bible remains there as a testimony to God.
Most of the contents of the bible are in precisely the same class as all the other things on that list, including pink unicorns.
You have never been a true skeptic. You don't understand how elusive the criteria is for supporting a proposition. It is the nature of our universe that the criteria is difficult to meet. It is not something subjective, to be changed on a whim. A true skeptic realizes this, and would not abandon something that is true in favor of a weaker set of epistemic criteria.Stahrwe wrote:To your point, my leap, if such it is is not great and is not made 'without any reason'. Thirty plus years of studying the Bible as either a skeptic or believer (I have been both) as well as the thoughts of some of the greatest minds in history have lead me to my position.
Also, the 30 years you spent studying the bible is nothing but 30 years of rationalizing. This is why the pit you've dug is so deep. You'd have been so much better off with a life of studying the universe around you, then figuring out how it works. What you've done is ass backwards; studying a book, then interpreting reality to fit the book. Which means, by extension, your understanding of reality is very far away from what is objectively true.
The "reasons" you have to support your position are bad reasons. I challenge you to give me one single good reason. It doesn't need to be a piece of evidence. If it is a "true" reason, then you need not fear my rebuke, because a truthful reason is greater than my ability to attack it. I've spent my entire life attacking my own mind. Every time I've ever sensed even a hint of bias within myself, I've challenged myself. My position is as honest and true as it can be, and if your reason is truthful, I will be able to tell. The obvious set of questions is for another discussion, namely how can I know I'm not deluding myself?
I think the first problem you may have is that you'd start with the bible, and use it as a foundation for your reasons. But that does not work. Reasons must be grounded very firmly to a set of anchors reducible to your sense datum. The bible cannot serve as any such anchor, as it will always only be second hand information, and you cannot change that. You must build a set of reasons starting with your sense datum, and working upward in increasing complexity to finally support whatever reason you have to think the bible is truthful.
This shows your lack of understanding of logic. It is not fallacy to consider those attributes. However, it is a fallacy to think those attributes(by extension their source) support the truthfulness of the bible. You are also correct that it's not fallacious to participate in the organization, though you need to realize that means you may very well be participating in an organization that is based on false beliefs.2) Older, more popular, truthfulness, all may not be justification for superiority but they do invest the Bible with particular attributes; Endurance, efficacy, reliability. It is not fallacious to consider this, or to continue to participate in a 2,000 year old organization.
Even your memories are biased. What does your religion have over other religions and cults? I don't know how to cede a point that you haven't even made! Christianity is old, but that is not a characteristic that can be used to determine truthfulness. It is followed by many people, but that is also not a valid characteristic.3) The Bible honestly does have it all over religions and cults. We explored some of that in the Epistemology and Biblical Evidence until you pulled the plug as the evidence began to mount both from the Bible and outside of it. Show me a pink unicorns cult with the same history and credentials as the Church and I'll cede to point, otherwise get a new act; this one is worn thin and silly.
The best you can do is show that some parts are true. For example, there may have been a real person named Pontius Pilate, although you still need to provide sufficient evidence to show he was real.
What you're apparently blind to is each and every part needs to be supported. Do you have support for Genesis? No? Then the genesis account has absolutely nothing over an equivalent piece of mythology from another religion. Nothing. It can't be supported by itself, it isn't supported by any evidence, and it isn't supported by any reasoning. It is absolutely unsupported, yet you believe it. This is just stupid, and I don't understand how or why you think you actually have some support. I can't even begin to consider what that support might be.
Another part that is ridiculous to me is the claim that every human on Earth was only evil. Where is your support that this happened, historically? I can't think of any way to even accumulate evidence to support it, nor can I think of any reasoning. I'm honestly at a loss. Throw me a bone here. Did you spend 30 years fabricating reasons for these ridiculous passages to be true inside your head? There is no anchor to reality here Stahrwe, nothing. Give me a reason. It should be simple and truthful and free of the entanglements of your rationalizations.
Or the resurrection. What evidence do you have for that? I have no reason to believe that a biological organism can come back to life after it's life has ended. I've never known anyone to come back to life, nor do I know of any animal that does it. Inductively, you have an enormous burden. Note that I'm not saying resurrection is impossible(science will achieve it someday). What I'm saying is, there is a burden of proof that is unfulfilled on your part. How do you come to believe that a person was resurrected? I would expect 10-15 pieces of evidence, perhaps more. It's an absurd notion, so a good deal of evidence would be necessary. If it's a testimony from another source at that time, then you should be able to trace it to the original author and show the author to be free of motive to fabricate.
Exactly my point! You equate "number of followers" and "age of the tradition" or "number of authors" with truthfulness. Why? Why do you keep using this bad logic? Please tell me. None of these traits make any difference in your comparison of Cthulu to Christ. NONE of them. You think they do because that's the sloppy logic you've used your whole life to build your worldview. Well, I'm sorry Stahrwe, but you're proving my point. Your worldview is build upon decades of sloppy logic.We have been through your non-argument over and over. Show me the literature about Cthulu written by 50 different people over 1500 years. Show me an organization dedicated to Cthulu that transforms live and improves society.
Show me how it is fundamentally flawed. Do you instead mean that logic does not apply to some mathematical models? Do you mean logic does not apply to your reasoning? I don't care about those areas logic doesn't apply. I understand they exist. What I'm curious about is why you think you get a free pass.You hide behind the word logic not knowing that it is fundamentally flawed. Do you disagree?
Please tell me you understand. I've repeated it now about a dozen times. In whatever ways and whatever areas logic may be flawed, it is still the perfect tool to analyze your thoughts and examine your beliefs.
It's like you're trying to show how useless a hammer is for screwing in a phillips head screw, therefore has no business being used as the tool to pound your nail into the wall. You're either not following what I'm saying, or you forget it in favor of your rationalizations.
