SPLIT: From The terrifying afterlife thread

[Whitney]

I think this might be pay back for all the times some atheist has overly nit picked at what some Christian said.

[Sophus]

1. Otherwise smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Most Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not [strike:15k2hzek]smart people[/strike:15k2hzek] using critical faculties they would otherwise use in this instance because they're making an exception in favor of their bias for this particular religion - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are otherwise smart people  - Whitney


Did I fix it?

[Inevitable Droid]

While I disagree with your criteria and weighting, you now seem to agree that your initial position was wrong. Good work, so far as it goes.

This is what I think you just said to me.  "Droid, you had said a Muslim could defend Islam in precisely the same words as a Greek Orthodox could defend Greek Orthodoxy.  Now you're saying a Greek Orthodox could defend Greek Orthodoxy by recourse to the miracles argument, and a Muslim wouldn't make that argument, so you're disagreeing with your previous statement, and that's good."

I disagree with the above because I don't grant (and never said nor even implied) that a Greek Orthodox can defend Greek Orthodoxy by recourse to the miracles argument.  Why don't I grant that?  Because I don't grant that the miracles argument can be a defense of anything, since it in fact needs defending.  I can't defend myself from knife attack by stabbing myself.

Now, if you think the miracles argument (bogus as it is) is an important defense of Greek Orthodoxy, so much the worse for Greek Orthodoxy.  A miracles argument isn't important for defending Islam.  This gives Islam the stronger position, if I grant the importance of the miracles argument for defending Greek Orthodoxy, which I don't.

However, Islam certainly is in a better position from a certain perspective.  Greek Orthodoxy has to defend the stories of Jesus performing miracles.  Islam doesn't have to do that.  Greek Orthodoxy also, incidentally, has to defend claims of special divinity for Jesus.  Islam doesn't have to do that.  Islam has less nonsense to defend.

Frankly, anyone who believes in a personal Creator, believes this Creator would communicate with humans, and believes this Creator cares what humans think and do, should become Muslim.  Those three beliefs are the essence of Islam, to which little is added except details, such as the name of the man to whom the Creator communicated, and the specific words the Creator employed in its communications.

[Voter]

1. Otherwise smart people don't trust eyewitness accounts unless they're corroborated by hard evidence - Whitney
2. Most Christians simply haven't looked into evidence past the surface claims - Whitney
3. Most Christians don't know if the accounts which form the basis of Christianity are corroborated by hard evidence - follows from 2
4. Most Christians trust such accounts - definition of Christian
5. Christians are not [strike:2vyfdwud]smart people[/strike:2vyfdwud] using critical faculties they would otherwise use in this instance because they're making an exception in favor of their bias for this particular religion - follows from 1, 3 & 4
6. Most Christians are otherwise smart people  - Whitney


Did I fix it?

I'm not allowed to pursue this line anymore, but apparently my opponents are. Well, that's one way to win an argument!

[Voter]

This is what I think you just said to me.  "Droid, you had said a Muslim could defend Islam in precisely the same words as a Greek Orthodox could defend Greek Orthodoxy.  Now you're saying a Greek Orthodox could defend Greek Orthodoxy by recourse to the miracles argument, and a Muslim wouldn't make that argument, so you're disagreeing with your previous statement, and that's good."

Correct.

I disagree with the above because I don't grant (and never said nor even implied) that a Greek Orthodox can defend Greek Orthodoxy by recourse to the miracles argument.  Why don't I grant that?  Because I don't grant that the miracles argument can be a defense of anything, since it in fact needs defending.  I can't defend myself from knife attack by stabbing myself.

This argument is self-defeating. Many people do accept arguments based on miracles, and so would challenge you to defend your position that the miracles argument can't be a defense of anything. Since your argument needs defending, by your own rules you cannot use it to defend your position that there is no difference in the defences of Islam and Greek Orthodoxy.

[Whitney]

Did I fix it?

I'm not allowed to pursue this line anymore, but apparently my opponents are. Well, that's one way to win an argument![/quote]
Everyone needs to just drop it because it's stupid.

[Inevitable Droid]

Many people do accept arguments based on miracles

In this day and age, there are actually Christians who, in all sincerity, argue that the bible is true because Jesus performed miracles and therefore Jesus is God and therefore the book that talks about him must be true?  Source, please.  I know believers operate under a different epistemology from non-believers, but this goes beyond even that.  To present the unbelievable as a reason for believing something else is to have lost touch with any semblance of logic.  Before I will accept that believers really are so illogical as that, I will need evidence.

[elliebean]

Source, please.

That's in the Bible, isn't it?  

[Sophus]

They're both just stories written down. Multiple sources means little after years of hearsay and when it is known that the Gospels contradict and were not written by those who claimed to have written them. If anything we can be sure the authors of Gospels were liars more than we can Muhammad.

While I disagree with your reasoning, you're now arguing yourself that there are criteria by which we can differentiate validity of the two.

Either way the onus is on you to demonstrate mere tales of magic as actual historic events.

No, as I'm not proselytizing. You can reject both if you like, but you're incorrect to say that there's no difference in evidence between the two.

I guess you don't understand what I mean. Using the story itself as evidence isn't evidence of the story. The new Jesus and Mo cartoon does a fairly good job of explaining....

[Inevitable Droid]

I guess you don't understand what I mean. Using the story itself as evidence isn't evidence of the story. The new Jesus and Mo cartoon does a fairly good job of explaining....

I found a web site that does what Voter says Christians do: Testimony #5 - Miracles - http://www.gospelway.com/god/evidences-miracles.php

But there's an important caveat to be made here.  The web site I reference is Christians talking to Christians.  It isn't Christians talking to atheists.  Arguments that make sense within a system don't necessarily make sense outside that system - and I honestly think most Christians realize that.  They would have to be morons not to, and I don't think they're morons.  I actually identify trolls precisely by their readiness to present to atheists arguments that only make sense if offered to Christians.  Trolls don't care about making sense.  My troll detector starts to ping whenever I notice someone who clearly doesn't care about making sense.

[Voter]

I guess you don't understand what I mean. Using the story itself as evidence isn't evidence of the story.

Are you serious? Of course it is. Do you think historians ignore written accounts of alleged events as not constituting evidence? That's ridiculous.

The new Jesus and Mo cartoon does a fairly good job of explaining....

No it doesn't. The Oz analogy fails in a number of ways.

[Voter]

I guess you don't understand what I mean. Using the story itself as evidence isn't evidence of the story. The new Jesus and Mo cartoon does a fairly good job of explaining....

I found a web site that does what Voter says Christians do: Testimony #5 - Miracles - http://www.gospelway.com/god/evidences-miracles.php

But there's an important caveat to be made here.  The web site I reference is Christians talking to Christians.  It isn't Christians talking to atheists.  Arguments that make sense within a system don't necessarily make sense outside that system - and I honestly think most Christians realize that.  They would have to be morons not to, and I don't think they're morons.  I actually identify trolls precisely by their readiness to present to atheists arguments that only make sense if offered to Christians.  Trolls don't care about making sense.  My troll detector starts to ping whenever I notice someone who clearly doesn't care about making sense.

Sorry, I thought you might be a deeper thinker than you apparently are.

[Asmodean]

Sorry, I thought you might be a deeper thinker than you apparently are.

There are different kinds of "deep thinking"...

Some may lead to great discoveries, like penicillin or the atomic bomb, while others lead to great disasters, like religion or genocide

[Achronos]

Sorry, I thought you might be a deeper thinker than you apparently are.

There are different kinds of "deep thinking"...

Some may lead to great discoveries, like penicillin or the atomic bomb, while others lead to great disasters, like religion or genocide

Hiroshima certainly wasn't a disaster then eh?

[Ihateyoumike]

Sorry, I thought you might be a deeper thinker than you apparently are.

There are different kinds of "deep thinking"...

Some may lead to great discoveries, like penicillin or the atomic bomb, while others lead to great disasters, like religion or genocide

Hiroshima certainly wasn't a disaster then eh?

Things that are good can be used for bad. You of all people should know that.

Your god has been the reason for many more deaths than the atomic bomb. Both misuses are horrible.