Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[Elixir]

Since so many different opinions and POVs exist, the safest course seems to me to be to reject them all.

That works for people who were spared the early brainwashing that afflicts those brought up in religious environments.

 

[Learner]

As to corroborated evidence of a god can you be specific?

Yes.
Two people both reporting that they experienced an act of God/God.

That's not evidence, that's two unverifiable and unverified bald-ass mere claims.

My word... people have been thrown in prison and 'hanged' on the word of other people giving reports,even many years later trying to recollect past events which aren't as fresh as they were the further apart from the time the events were witnessed.
These reports, to 'state the obvious' are called 'testimonies' by individuals whom we classify as 'witnesses'.
It is quite a normal thing in our courts today, not forgetting that the concept of having 'more than one witness' known sometimes as 'giving evidence' and 'to testify' is also highly emphasised in the Bible.Of course what results from testimonies requires a high standard of reasoning ability to make those conclusions, taking from the testimonies of witnesses, analytical inferences and deductions. But.. you (plural) are seeking a different kind of evidence? Ironically we have no witnesses to testify the observable transitions phases from their original common ancestor. The line 'The evidence seems to suggest...' is pretty much the claim on both sides, to be fair.

The term used in courts for 'proof' is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Even eye witnesses are notoriously prone to false or inaccurate memories.

Yeah sure. Using psychology can reveal a lot in personal statements even if written thousands of years ago. Atheist are right when they argue Christians are emotional about their beliefs, not realising that this is actually crucial to understanding the state of mind of people back then through their emotions in the ancient world.

What that means in terms of religion and belief in Gods is not clear. Many people believe many different things when it comes to God(s), even people in the same religious sects. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

They can all be right if they all believe in thr core doctrine! Jesus is the saviour etc..

Anyway there is a template guide for churches. The seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Smyrna & Philadelphia

Smyrna & Philadelphia are the churches that got the full approval of Jesus.

Could some of them possibly be right? That, it seems to me, is beyond our ability to determine. Since so many different opinions and POVs exist, the safest course seems to me to be to reject them all.

Most differences are trivial in regards to the core doctrine imo e.g. as long as they understand the role of Jesus and what he is to us humans. Even if no-one is sure who's correct, similar to your suggestion...it's better to go on your own, studying and researching. I've seen a lot of Christians who are non-denomination on social media.

 

[ideologyhunter]

My word... people have been thrown in prison and 'hanged' on the word of other people giving reports,even many years later trying to recollect past events which aren't as fresh as they were the further apart from the time the events were witnessed.
These reports, to 'state the obvious' are called 'testimonies' by individuals whom we classify as 'witnesses'.

What court case (outside of ecclesiastical courts) requires testimony about invisible, inaudible, intangible beings?

 

[pood]

Smyrna & Philadelphia are the churches that got the full approval of Jesus.

Putting aside all this other stuff for a moment … do you have a cite for this?

 

[pood]

Given that, you know, all the churches were established decades after Jesus’s death …

 

[Lion IRC]

Could some of them possibly be right? That, it seems to me, is beyond our ability to determine. Since so many different opinions and POVs exist, the safest course seems to me to be to reject them all.

Most differences are trivial in regards to the core doctrine imo e.g. as long as they understand the role of Jesus and what he is to us humans. Even if no-one is sure who's correct, similar to your suggestion...it's better to go on your own, studying and researching. I've seen a lot of Christians who are non-denomination on social media.

There's a huge double standard going on here.

On the one hand, it's being suggested by skeptics that we should reject competing theistic claims simply on the basis that they don't all agree.

On the other hand, those same skeptics won't accept the one thing which all those claimants DO agree on. Namely, that atheism is false.

Learner is right. The differences are trivial in comparison to the unanimous agreement and experience that a Higher Being exists.

 

[ideologyhunter]

How trivial? Could you conceivably become a Muslim? A Hindu? A Buddhist?
Trivial: try convincing the followers of all the competing scriptures, texts, sutras, testaments of that. For many of them, it's so substantial and not-trivial that your after-death existence depends on choosing their little orthodoxy.

 

[lostone]

How trivial? Could you conceivably become a Muslim? A Hindu? A Buddhist?
Trivial: try convincing the followers of all the competing scriptures, texts, sutras, testaments of that.

Lion even rejects pantheism and probably also rejects the idea of some generic undetermined and undefined Spinoza type God

 

[Lion IRC]

The assertion is the evidence.

Assertions are the opposite of evidence.

It's impossible to present evidence without asserting that you had sensory evidence of the thing you claim is evidence.

.

All evidence is derived from the senses - even sincere, sane, bona fide, corroborated claims of scientists who say the polar ice caps are melting.

Scientists can measure polar ice caps melting....

Question - how do we know they measured the ice caps?

Answer - Because they made the assertion that they did - they claim they saw the ice caps melting.

Maybe 100 scientists make the same claim. Maybe 1,000. Maybe 10,000. Does that make their claim more believable?

I think it does.

Maybe they wrote their claims in a book. Does that make the claims more believable?

I think it does.

 

[Lion IRC]

How trivial? Could you conceivably become a Muslim? A Hindu? A Buddhist?
Trivial: try convincing the followers of all the competing scriptures, texts, sutras, testaments of that.

Lion even rejects pantheism and probably also rejects the idea of some generic undetermined and undefined Spinoza type God

It's not my job to convince people that theism is false. That's you guy's job.

Better get cracking. So many theists.
So little time.

If I died and found myself in a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist afterlife atheism would be 100% false. But my theism would still be at least partly true.

 

[ideologyhunter]

On the other hand, those same skeptics won't accept the one thing which all those claimants DO agree on. Namely, that atheism is false.

Boy, there's a gotcha moment!! Atheists won't accept the conviction of the multitudes who proclaim at least 4,000 variant faith traditions. And they make it so crystal clear.

 

[Lion IRC]

Smyrna & Philadelphia are the churches that got the full approval of Jesus.

Putting aside all this other stuff for a moment … do you have a cite for this?

Given that, you know, all the churches were established decades after Jesus’s death …

You mean decades after Jesus' Resurrection.
You know...when He was alive and well.

 

[lostone]

How trivial? Could you conceivably become a Muslim? A Hindu? A Buddhist?
Trivial: try convincing the followers of all the competing scriptures, texts, sutras, testaments of that.

Lion even rejects pantheism and probably also rejects the idea of some generic undetermined and undefined Spinoza type God

It's not my job to convince people that theism is false. That's you guy's job.

Better get cracking. So many theists.
So little time.

If I died and found myself in a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist afterlife atheism would be 100% false. But my theism would still be at least partly true.

If you die and still exist - that is not a sure thing. Most atheists, and some theists, would assert that your existence will cease when you die.

 

[ideologyhunter]

You might die and end up in the other folks' hell, though, thinking God is a colossal asshole.

 

[lostone]

You might die and end up in the other folks' hell, though, thinking God is a colossal asshole.

You place your bets, and take your chances. OTOH, the people in hell might be better company than the ones is heaven.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I do want to meet Janis Joplin....

 

[Swammerdami]

The term used in courts for 'proof' is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Even eye witnesses are notoriously prone to false or inaccurate memories.

"Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is the standard to prove guilt of a felony, but other standards are used by courts for different purposes. In fact at least eleven levels of evidentiary proof are mentioned in judicial opinions. In increasing order of certainty, we see

• Scintilla of Evidence
• Air of Reality
• Reasonable Suspicion
• Reasonable to Believe
• Probable Cause
• Substantial evidence
• Preponderance of the Evidence
• Clear and Convincing Evidence
• Clearly and Beyond Doubt
• Beyond any Reasonable Doubt
• Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt

 

[Learner]

My word... people have been thrown in prison and 'hanged' on the word of other people giving reports,even many years later trying to recollect past events which aren't as fresh as they were the further apart from the time the events were witnessed.
These reports, to 'state the obvious' are called 'testimonies' by individuals whom we classify as 'witnesses'.

What court case (outside of ecclesiastical courts) requires testimony about invisible, inaudible, intangible beings?

'Telling the truth' is the object of the testimony! Just because you've never experienced the same thing does not "automatically" make the testimony false, but you could attempt to argue the case that it's all made up, (if you have you own evidence for that).

The other attempt for your case against the witnesses is to demonstrate the angle that they in fact do believe what they saw - which being the truth to them through their eyes and in their minds...but only, that their statements for their convictions is based on nothing more than pure delusion.
(I've seen atheists attempt both angles).

 

[Swammerdami]

That's not evidence, that's two unverifiable and unverified bald-ass mere claims.

My word... people have been thrown in prison and 'hanged' on the word of other people giving reports,even many years later trying to recollect past events which aren't as fresh as they were the further apart from the time the events were witnessed.
These reports, to 'state the obvious' are called 'testimonies' by individuals whom we classify as 'witnesses'.
It is quite a normal thing in our courts today, the object is to tell the truth...not forgetting that the concept and having 'more than one witness', known sometimes as 'giving evidence' and 'to testify' is also highly emphasised in the Bible. . . .

Ambrose Bierce discussed the testimony of witnesses and Courts' rules of evidence in his famous Dictionary:

INADMISSIBLE

-adj.

Not competent to be considered. Said of certain kinds of testimony which juries are supposed to be unfit to be entrusted with, and which judges, therefore, rule out, even of proceedings before themselves alone. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the person quoted was unsworn and is not before the court for examination; yet most momentous actions, military, political, commercial and of every other kind, are daily undertaken on hearsay evidence. There is no religion in the world that has any other basis than hearsay evidence. Revelation is hearsay evidence; that the Scriptures are the word of God we have only the testimony of men long dead whose identity is not clearly established and who are not known to have been sworn in any sense. Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria.

But as records of courts of justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.

 

[Learner]

That's not evidence, that's two unverifiable and unverified bald-ass mere claims.

My word... people have been thrown in prison and 'hanged' on the word of other people giving reports,even many years later trying to recollect past events which aren't as fresh as they were the further apart from the time the events were witnessed.
These reports, to 'state the obvious' are called 'testimonies' by individuals whom we classify as 'witnesses'.
It is quite a normal thing in our courts today, the object is to tell the truth...not forgetting that the concept and having 'more than one witness', known sometimes as 'giving evidence' and 'to testify' is also highly emphasised in the Bible. . . .

Ambrose Bierce discussed the testimony of witnesses and Courts' rules of evidence in his famous Dictionary:

INADMISSIBLE

-adj.

Not competent to be considered. Said of certain kinds of testimony which juries are supposed to be unfit to be entrusted with, and which judges, therefore, rule out, even of proceedings before themselves alone. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the person quoted was unsworn and is not before the court for examination; yet most momentous actions, military, political, commercial and of every other kind, are daily undertaken on hearsay evidence. There is no religion in the world that has any other basis than hearsay evidence. Revelation is hearsay evidence; that the Scriptures are the word of God we have only the testimony of men long dead whose identity is not clearly established and who are not known to have been sworn in any sense. Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria.

But as records of courts of justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.

Great post.

There is an irony I have to say with the biblical debate, and the how it relates the bible and the court, given from what we read in your post above.

The acceptable option to place your hand on the Bible in court, that is admissable being a serious consideration
being part of the court traditions where the whole emphasis is on 'telling truth':

You are asked:

Do you swear by almighty God to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

Your reply:

I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

(variations of the above, depending where you are in world)

I promise before Almighty God that the evidence which I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.