SPLIT: From The terrifying afterlife thread

[Sophus]

As an atheist I perceive no religious group as closer to holding the truth than any other.

It interests me how obvious this is, yet the faithful shrug it off.  All the reasons a Greek Orthodox could give for holding onto faith, a Muslim could give, in precisely the same words.

That's incorrect. You've surely heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (You probably don't know that Jesus said something similar.) Jesus and Mohammed each made extraordinary claims. Our earliest accounts have Jesus backing up his claims with miracles as extraordinary evidence. The earliest accounts regarding Mohammed have no such claims (though some were added well after the fact). So, there's one objective differentiator between the two.

Well if we're going to go by both of the religions' fictional accounts of what happened (fiction because neither is backed by any real evidence in the real world) Mohammad had the angel Gabriel come to him to give him God's new truth. That somebody wrote down a story about a Jewish carpenter named Jesus performed miracles, ergo is evidence of his divinity, or that an angel appeared before Mohammed, is no more evidence than the forensics that convicted Hannibal Lecter.

In the real world miracles themselves are extraordinary claims that need extraordinary evidence.

[Voter]

In the real world miracles themselves are extraordinary claims that need extraordinary evidence.

You're misapplying the principle. This is very common. Jesus' claim of divinity was the extraordinary claims. His miracles were the extraordinary evidence. The Bible is our ordinary means of perceiving the extraordinary evidence. People tend to confuse the evidence with the means of perceiving it, which is necessarily ordinary. Whether you see it, hear it, or read about it, the perception is all ordinary.

Well if we're going to go by both of the religions' fictional accounts of what happened (fiction because neither is backed by any real evidence in the real world) Mohammad had the angel Gabriel come to him to give him God's new truth. That somebody wrote down a story about a Jewish carpenter named Jesus performed miracles, ergo is evidence of his divinity, or that an angel appeared before Mohammed, is no more evidence than the forensics that convicted Hannibal Lecter.

If we're going to go by your definitions of real evidence, then yes, we'll come to your conclusion. But, many people in the real world accept documents as real evidence. There are various criteria by which we assess their validity, but they're evidence.

[Whitney]

Whether you see it, hear it, or read about it, the perception is all ordinary.

And ordinary people don't pick up an old book and automatically think there is reason to trust that it is about a true event...just imagine if we did that, we'd believe all sorts of nonsense about dragons, gnomes, leprechauns, thunder gods etc.  Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence...people lie, people misremember; if we share a story with a fellow observer we tend to adapt their views into our own remembered experience, in fact our brains fill in memories if we are missing pieces,...a sort of glitch due to other processes.

Now, why again should we accept the bible as evidence of anything more than that some people either thought or wanted us to think certain events occurred?

[Sophus]

If we're going to go by your definitions of real evidence, then yes, we'll come to your conclusion. But, many people in the real world accept documents as real evidence. There are various criteria by which we assess their validity, but they're evidence.

In that case there is equal evidence for Islam because they have documents about the supernatural angel Gabriel coming down from the heavens to have a chat with Mohammad. Thats what I'm saying. Writing something down doesn't make it true. If it did you would believe both Islam and Christianity.

[Voter]

And ordinary people don't pick up an old book and automatically think there is reason to trust that it is about a true event...just imagine if we did that, we'd believe all sorts of nonsense about dragons, gnomes, leprechauns, thunder gods etc.

I agree. That's why I'm showing differences between Christianity and other religions. There are other differences as well. If an otherwise sane, intelligent person spent his life saying he had contact with gnomes and had received beneficial information from them, and suffered for his message without recanting, I might investigate it further. You're right that we don't automatically believe things in old books. However, most people don't automatically discount something that's only found in an old book, either.

Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence...people lie, people misremember; if we share a story with a fellow observer we tend to adapt their views into our own remembered experience, in fact our brains fill in memories if we are missing pieces,...a sort of glitch due to other processes.

Wow, so no Christians are "smart people." Enough said.

[Voter]

In that case there is equal evidence for Islam because they have documents about the supernatural angel Gabriel coming down from the heavens to have a chat with Mohammad. Thats what I'm saying. Writing something down doesn't make it true. If it did you would believe both Islam and Christianity.

Is it equal? Are there multiple sources? Did the event supposedly occur privately or publicly? You're painting too broadly. Again, there are various criteria by which we can and do assess testimony. You can reject them both if you like, but it's incorrect to say they're equally supported merely because they're both old and written.

[Whitney]

Wow, so no Christians are "smart people." Enough said.

Can you point out where I said that no Christian can be smart?  I think you are being a bit quick to be offended.

[Sophus]

In that case there is equal evidence for Islam because they have documents about the supernatural angel Gabriel coming down from the heavens to have a chat with Mohammad. Thats what I'm saying. Writing something down doesn't make it true. If it did you would believe both Islam and Christianity.

Is it equal? Are there multiple sources? Did the event supposedly occur privately or publicly? You're painting too broadly. Again, there are various criteria by which we can and do assess testimony. You can reject them both if you like, but it's incorrect to say they're equally supported merely because they're both old and written.

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

[Voter]

Can you point out where I said that no Christian can be smart?

Sure: "Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence."  

I think you are being a bit quick to be offended.

I'm not offended.

[Whitney]

Can you point out where I said that no Christian can be smart?

Sure: "Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence."  

I fail to see where I said all Christians trust eye witness without also thinking there is collaborating evidence.

are you done playing with your strawman?

[Voter]

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.

[Voter]

I fail to see where I said all Christians trust eye witness without also thinking there is collaborating evidence.

are you done playing with your strawman?

That depends. Do you think that a smart person can reasonably think that there is collaborating evidence? If so, I'm done. If not, the charge stands, you've just pushed it back one step.

[Whitney]

Do you think that a smart person can reasonably think that there is collaborating evidence?

Of course they could, they would just be misinformed.  A lot of smart Christians even think the ark was found, jesus's tomb was found etc, because someone they trusted said the evidence was there (like a minister or church leader) and they took the claim as being true due to that trust.  Smart doesn't mean never falling victim to trusting the wrong information source.

[Voter]

Do you think that a smart person can reasonably think that there is collaborating evidence?

Of course they could, they would just be misinformed.  A lot of smart Christians even think the ark was found, jesus's tomb was found etc, because someone they trusted said the evidence was there (like a minister or church leader) and they took the claim as being true due to that trust.  Smart doesn't mean never falling victim to trusting the wrong information source.

This certainly seems to contradict your earlier statement: "Smart people also don't trust eye witness accounts unless they are collaborated by hard evidence."

That means that a smart person can't trust an eyewitness account without hard evidence, but can trust a hearsay account - still without hard evidence.

[Whitney]

You are being difficult on purpose.

An eye witness account of an event (someone trying to remember something that happened) is not the same as someone relaying information claimed to come from a tangible source.