No, really... What are you blathering about? The conviction with which a person believes a proposition is not a reliable indicator of that proposition's truth. I didn't really think that would be a matter of contention, but I guess I should know better than overestimate religious people.Choosing to disbelieve qualitities in others because you do not possess them yourself is disengenuous at best.Conviction does not account for the very real results which may prove nothing in your estimation but justify the faith in those who believe.
The last I brought up because you seem to feel the dictionary definition of intelligence has some bearing on what qualifies as human intelligence.
How do you determine "Miracles" from just made-up-bullshit?
Faith, questioning and, striving for understanding.
Choosing to disbelieve qualitities in others because you do not possess them yourself is disengenuous at best. Conviction does not account for the very real results which may prove nothing in your estimation but justify the faith in those who believe. The last I brought up because you seem to feel the dictionary definition of intelligence has some bearing on what qualifies as human intelligence.
This is easy. Since we cannot prove miracles happened unless we have a time machine, you simply compare them to other "magicians".
For example, Jesus did not use any deception or 'sleight of hand' when he did what was said of him. Magicians today live on deception to supply the illusion of a trick.
Secondly, Jesus did what was said of him in front of others many times. They were simplistic as well, and helped people by curing ailments. He did not pre-plan a supposed 'cure' or make a habit of taking 'sick' ones off to some secluded location to heal them.
Does that prove anything? No, it does not and cannot. But it sure does differentiate what he did compared to what charlatans did.
What 'real results' are there that cannot be analyzed and interpreted in a scientific manner, yet can justify faith?
No, really... What are you blathering about? The conviction with which a person believes a proposition is not a reliable indicator of that proposition's truth. I didn't really think that would be a matter of contention, but I guess I should know better than overestimate religious people.
Do you find the word "intelligence" anywhere in the post I wrote?
You have no idea what he did or how he did it if he did do anything. Magicians today do all sorts of amazing things in front of thousands or even millions, whether Jesus did things differently from them or not simply can't be discerned. That is of course assuming the written accounts are even accurate.
Which really brings us to the most important thing to take on Faith here, did the authors of the Gospels give an accurate account of what happened or did they exaggerate and even fabricate events?
You asked for a way to determine miracles from made up stuff. I gave you a way.
The rest of your diatribe is nothing more than a red-herring.
It was implied in your response to retro rob. You seem to think truth with a capital T exists in human perception. Can you deny religious beliefs are true to believers regardless of what you think of them? It is my belief that the only place Truth (capital T) exists is in the word of God.
That wasn't a way to determine anything of the sort. You merely assume one is a Miracle.
I'm disgusted when I read through this thread. Disgusted that religious interests have been attempting to discredit science for so long. This has literally been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. Fortunately, you never win in the long term. Truth always prevails, good over evil, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Timeline
I'm sure the folks who banned Galileo's books felt they were doing the world a service?
As far as I'm concerned this is terrorism. Intellectual terrorism. And it's still happening today, exactly 400 years after the Catholic Church placed De revolutionibus orbium coelestium on the list of banned books.
Unfuckingbelievable.
Well, if its not a way, then why did you not say that initially instead of going on that incoherent Bible-denial rant about the validity of the Gospels?
You really need to work on your righteous indignation. I'm not feeling it. What's your personal experience with the evil religion terrorizing you.
l
You really need to work on your righteous indignation. I'm not feeling it. What's your personal experience with the evil religion terrorizing you.
I'm not following you? Righteous indignation?
I was stating facts. The Church has been trying to discredit science for hundreds of years, what is seen in this thread is nothing new. And I find it disgusting.
Christians have been persecuted for centuries, you're going to have to do better than that.
Christians have been persecuted for centuries, you're going to have to do better than that.
It absolutely was not implied in anything I wrote. The subject of my post was knowledge -- do you not understand the difference?It was implied in your response to retro rob.
Knowledge. The subject at hand is knowledge. Please try to read for comprehension.You seem to think truth with a capital T exists in human perception.
You're still blathering. You clearly don't even understand what is being discussed. Either re-read what I've written until you can actually grasp my statements and make relevant comments, or just shut up.Can you deny religious beliefs are true to believers regardless of what you think of them? It is my belief that the only place Truth (capital T) exists is in the word of God.
Is "Truth" completely Subjective?
Does religion make us more intelligent?
It was implied in your response to retro rob. You seem to think truth with a capital T exists in human perception. Can you deny religious beliefs are true to believers regardless of what you think of them? It is my belief that the only place Truth (capital T) exists is in the word of God.
As a matter of debate strategy, you would do much better here to show the limitations of science and rational thinking (ie scientism) in human society, rather than present religion as some ultimate truth.
How sad to base the value of human existence on the amount of science we understand.