Well, after breaking 2000 comments on the previous thread, I think it’s time to move to a new one. Feel free to continue the conversation here.
Also, I want to make a note about future posts. The tone on this blog for the last month or so has been decidedly different than what it used to be. While that’s definitely made things interesting, I’d like to move back to a tone more in line with the way things used to be. So going forward, I want the comments on all new posts to remain civil. We can all make our points, and I expect to see a wide range of opinions. But I don’t want to get into name-calling and bashing when we can’t all agree on particular issues. Let’s try to stay focused on the points and not get side-tracked with personal stuff. Let’s also keep each comment substantive so we don’t rack up so many comments in such a short period of time that it’s hard for everyone to keep track.
If you don’t feel like you can participate within those guidelines, then feel free to continue posting within this thread (and any future “Kathy” threads, if they’re needed), because I won’t be enforcing any guidelines here. But if you want to comment on any other posts, you’ll need to abide by the rules I just laid out. Otherwise, your comment will be subject to deletion, and after a warning, you might find yourself banned from at least that thread, if not the entire blog.
If there are any questions, let me know.
Thanks
Finding Truth 
“My point about the Argumentum ad populum is an appeal to the popular belief that the apostles were martyred and the popular belief/talking point that martyrs are evidence of the truth of Christianity. That’s what most Christians believe.”
But that had nothing to do with my argument. You just accused me of using the ad populum argument of the martyrs.. and now you’re trying to pretend that’s not what you were doing.. this is the typical dishonest stuff that every atheist on this blog is guilty of.
LikeLike
“It’s just not reasonable to claim that a rational intelligent person giving their very life doesn’t compel you to believe in what they’re dying for. There is no other more powerful testimony a person can give.” – you have no idea of the rationality, nor of the intelligence of those of whom you speak, but the fact that they were willing to give their lives for a fairy tale, tells me they couldn’t have been very rational OR intelligent.
LikeLike
“find it compelling evidence of their belief that it was true.” – this is what I’ve been saying, Ruth – she just can’t get it into here head that there could POSSIBLY be a valid viewpoint other than hers! She follows blindly, without thought, and can’t imagine anyone else doing otherwise.
LikeLike
“It’s compelling evidence because you’ve thought hard about it? Is that objective?
This is why I said that the nature of compelling is subjective.”
And now you’re showing that you don’t understand the word “objective”..
Thinking about something isn’t proof of lack of objectivity. It’s HOW you PROCESS your thoughts that determines the presence of objectivity.
Yes, “compelling” is a subjective word. It’s subject to objectivity or lack of objectivity. And with the atheists here, it’s pretty clear you all don’t apply objectivity to subjective issues. This is the WHOLE CRUX of the debate of objectivity! It can only exist WITH subjective issues.
LikeLike
“And there IS extraordinary evidence of God’s existence.. again, nothing else compares..” – as I’ve said many times since you came on board, evidence, please —
LikeLike
You just accused me of using the ad populum argument of the martyrs.. and now you’re trying to pretend that’s not what you were doing.. this is the typical dishonest stuff that every atheist on this blog is guilty of.
Kathy, I wasn’t trying to pretend anything. I stand by what I’ve said here. Your argument, as I understand it is, that this many smart people couldn’t have gotten it wrong enough to die for it. I could be wrong about that, and if I am, please explain to me how their belief and subsequent martyrdom has any bearing on it’s truth.
You and I don’t agree about how compelling this evidence is, not because I’m not applying objectivity, but because just how compelling something is to a person by it’s very nature is subjective. You’ve presented it as evidence. I’m not saying that it isn’t evidence. I’m saying that I’ve investigated the claims of martyrdom of the apostles and found it…lacking. And that subsequent martyrs are not compelling to me for the same reason that martyrs of other religions are not. Rational, sane, intelligent people believe things that are not rational. There is nothing rational about the resurrection. I’m not calling people who believe it irrational. I know a lot of people and have very good friends who are very intelligent, educated, and rational who believe this. That doesn’t make that particular belief rational.
LikeLike
“The point is that it wasn’t just one or two who martyred themselves.. it was many, rational people.” – you DO realize you’re presenting an oxymoron – if they martyred themselves, they couldn’t have been rational; if they’d been rational, they’d never have martyred themselves.
Oh, and I’m still waiting on that list of martyrs, how they died, and your evidential source —
LikeLike
And with the atheists here, it’s pretty clear you all don’t apply objectivity to subjective issues. This is the WHOLE CRUX of the debate of objectivity! It can only exist WITH subjective issues.
this is the typical dishonest stuff that every atheist on this blog is guilty of.
Ruth, you’re just showing, again, a lack of understanding ….
Kathy,
I’m not sure what I did to you, or why you feel the need to belittle people when you’re talking to them. Just because you find something compelling does not mean other people do. And if someone has researched a particular issue and has come away with a different understanding than you does not mean that they are not applying objectivity. It means they’ve come away with a different understanding.
If you want to discuss this further with me, you may point out what you believe, and why you believe it, but you don’t have to put me down while you do it.
Yes, I did bring up the Argumentum ad populum. Please don’t think that you are above fallacious arguments.
LikeLike
RE Mike – he’ll be back, under another name, but like the man said, “by their works shall ye know them –“
LikeLike
I’m not trying to belittle you Ruth, I’m just pointing out what I feel is dishonesty. I don’t know what else it could be.
“And with the atheists here, it’s pretty clear you all don’t apply objectivity to subjective issues. This is the WHOLE CRUX of the debate of objectivity! It can only exist WITH subjective issues.”
This is “belittling” Ruth? If so, I’m sorry but I see it as constructive criticism.. no progress can be made without pointing out the problems that are hindering progress.
And again, I have to point out.. which you will see as “belittling” .. that liberals OFTEN “feel” this way.. that constructive criticism is “mean”.. and it’s much more important to be “nice” than to make progress that ultimately saves lives. Yes, that was sarcasm.. I’m sorry but it comes from having to make these kinds of points over and over and over. Those who think in a liberal mindset ARE the problem. These are CHOICES.. you all don’t have to force this kind of ignorance onto society.. but you do.. no matter how much effort is made by me and Mike and others to try and correct this destructive thinking. And now look.. Mike is gone (but not for good I hope).. because of this liberal mindset. Leaving society that less likely to recover/ survive the “progressive” agenda that is destroying everything.. but at least we are all “nice”!
LikeLike
I’m not trying to belittle you Ruth, I’m just pointing out what I feel is dishonesty. I don’t know what else it could be.
Seeing things differently does not imply nor necessitate dishonesty. So, yes, basically calling me a liar is belittling and it’s unnecessary.
Do you know that it is possible to get your points across without this? This is not constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is when you show, through your points – not your name calling, where errors are. I don’t think you’ve done that so you resort to “liberal/atheist agenda” rhetoric and calling people dishonest who are expressing their ideas and opinions. This is what is belittling. What you call constructive criticism is certainly not. I don’t take issue with the fact that we disagree or we don’t see things the same way. I don’t take issue with the fact that I might be wrong. But acting like you’re somehow smarter, or more objective, or better because you have a different perspective doesn’t do you any favors.
LikeLike
and it’s much more important to be “nice” than to make progress that ultimately saves lives.
How many lives have you saved by calling someone dishonest? How many lives have you saved because you said the phrase Liberal Mindset? Let me know when you get a number. Yes, that was sarcasm.
LikeLike
And just for added measure:
constructive criticism
Part of Speech: n
Definition: criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions
Constructive criticism is meant to build, not tear down. Look up the word constructive. What you are doing is simply criticism. Destructive criticism, at that.
LikeLike
And there IS extraordinary evidence of God’s existence.. again, nothing else compares.. which you clearly agree by your LACK of evidence to the contrary.. you just don’t have the integrity to admit it. — Kathy
The ONLY evidence that can possibly be attributed to God’s existence is the bible. If someone does not believe the bible, then it stands to reason they do not believe in the existence of God.
A person who does not believe in God is not required to produce any evidence of their non-belief. It has nothing to do with integrity and to say it does is very close to an insult.
LikeLike
“…it’s not true that all the Gospel authors didn’t know Jesus, but even if it were true, this also means NOTHING.” – Yes, it is true, do some research outside the box/Bible. And if it were, then it means that pseudo-Mark, pseudo-Matthew, pseudo-Luke and pseudo-John had no first-hand knowledge of what they were talking about. YOU’RE the one who brought up the courtroom scenario – how would a judge feel about a witness who didn’t see anything?
LikeLike
Without the gospels, Kathy – without the fabricated gospels, you have nothing – no virgin birth, no water into wine, no walking on water, no crucifiction, no resurrection, nothing.
LikeLike
“Without the gospels, Kathy – without the fabricated gospels, you have nothing – no virgin birth, no water into wine, no walking on water, no crucifiction, no resurrection, nothing.”
So, what are you claiming then? That is was all a lie? What’s the motive? And how did all these people come to an agreement to lie? I guarantee you what ever you come up with will be 100% unreasonable.
LikeLike
“And how did all these people come to an agreement to lie?” – they didn’t, Kathy – pseudo-Mark wrote his gospel, as I’ve already told you, around 45 years after Yeshua allegedly lived, based on word-of-mouth folk tales; pseudo-Matthew copied Mark ten years later, almost word for word (read them side by side sometime!), and pseudo-Luke copied both pseudo-Mark and pseudo-Matthew ten or so years after that, while adding some fabrication of his own. Pseudo-John, on the other hand, writing ten of fifteen years after pseudo-Luke, tells a much different story, as far as many of the details are concerned – one example is that the 4 met Yesh at the Jordan River, as opposed to the Sea of Galilee, “fishers-of-men” story. They didn’t tell lies, Kathy, so much as they told stories they felt the people needed to hear, in order to live good, honest, moral lives. Reverend Weems created the story of little George Washington chopping down his father’s cherry tree, as a way of teaching his young Sunday school class the value of always being truthful – he made up a lie, to teach the truth.
Read sources that don’t necessarily say what you want to hear, Kathy – that’s what REAL objectivity is.
LikeLike
Nate, thanks for the info (July 31, 2014 at 2:41 pm) about the ban.
LikeLike
Sorry Arch, that’s a ridiculous theory. You are trying to claim that they lied to encourage people to live “good” lives.. 100% unreasonable just as predicted. Here’s what you and all the atheists LOVE to ignore.. ( hence the “ignorance is BLISS” saying.. clearly it was about liberals).. Christians were being PERSECUTED while Jesus was alive and it only got WORSE as time went on.. this is when false religions die out.. when they disappear forever just as all those false ancient gods did.. but in spite of persecution and massacres of Christians for following Jesus, the faith GREW! It grew to become the largest religion in the world.. 2000 years later! All historians, whether believers or not, acknowledge this FACT. They acknowledge that this means something EXTRAORDINARY had to happen to cause people to risk and give their lives as so many Christians did and STILL do.
You/ atheists have NO explanation for this. You can’t deny the documented persecution of peaceful Christians and that in spite of that Christianity GREW. People making up stories is NOT a reasonable assertion… it’s utter desperation and deliberate ignorance. People aren’t going to sacrifice themselves in these large numbers for a lie.. something that they surely asked themselves just as anyone does.. if it is really true or not.. ESPECIALLY if their lives are on the line. Your claim makes an incredibly ignorant assumption that they don’t even bother to ask and give serious scrutiny… or that all these people were just simple stupid.. another unreasonable explanation.. you have nothing to show that these people weren’t intelligent rational people… and a lot smarter than any liberal today.
LikeLike
In response to Mike’s points:
I don’t think either situation is equivalent. I’m not aware of any miracle claims surrounding Caesar, Shakespeare, Josephus, or 9/11; and I’d be skeptical of any such claims by or about them, too–as we would rightly be about present-day miracle claims.
Moreover, as Mike said, we have video evidence of the tragedy of 9/11. And if by some “miracle”, all such evidence were destroyed–with no evidence of such a miracle disappearance–then in 200 or 2000 years, I’d say people living then would have appropriate reason to suspect even that non-miraculous story.
I think willingness can be judged just fine by a description of the circumstances surrounding the alleged martyrdom.
For instance, suppose the apostle Peter claimed to have witnessed a resurrected Jesus in the flesh. Some secret agent of the devil approaches Peter and asks him if he believes that Jesus is God’s son, and that God raised him from the dead. Peter answers in the affirmative. The agent then takes a knife out of his tunic and stabs Peter to death. Peter didn’t see it coming; if he had, he might’ve changed his tune–we just don’t know.
Contrast with Peter (hypothetically) knowing that his life is in danger because of his proclamation, and still making it–then–if the alleged event meets all the other criteria–this may become the sort of powerful testimony that Christians claim it is.
Let me be fair and point out that since Mike’s now banned, I get the last word by default. Perhaps he’d have more to say on the matter if he were still here.
LikeLike
Kathy,
A couple of quick points in reply to your July 31, 2014 at 1:15 am comment:
I think Christians are known to refer to martyrs as evidence with the rhetorical question “who would die for a lie?” Plus, it makes a catchy title (…”Won’t Fly”). But in this context, I think we can consider it as meaning “untruth”, regardless of the presence/absence of intent to deceive.
Which part of “don’t get hung up on” don’t you understand? I anticipated your objection to his reading of the text, and I’m saying I find your objection plausible, but I added “I don’t think it’s key to his argument.”
…That’s all I have time for today. More to come, I think.
LikeLike
“I think Christians are known to refer to martyrs as evidence with the rhetorical question “who would die for a lie?” Plus, it makes a catchy title (…”Won’t Fly”). But in this context, I think we can consider it as meaning “untruth”, regardless of the presence/absence of intent to deceive.”
You didn’t address the point about it being impossible to dismiss the entire Bible as writings by people who are “mistaken”,.. pick any page out of the Book and read it.. sorry, it “doesn’t fly”.. ALL of the authors are either LYING or they are not. You are only fooling yourselves with the explanations of them being “mistaken” or “mentally ill”. It’s extremely weak.
LikeLike
“I’m not referring to the math..
Which part of “don’t get hung up on” don’t you understand? I anticipated your objection to his reading of the text, and I’m saying I find your objection plausible, but I added “I don’t think it’s key to his argument.”
lol… why didn’t you include “… on the math”? Again, I didn’t get “hung up” on the math.. I got “hung up” on the claim that Jesus followers decreased.. based on nothing but a selective context that isn’t reasonable.
LikeLike
http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/whatever-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-11629558.html
LikeLike