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

[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?

'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).

As opposing counsel, I would ask each of your witnesses in cross if they could back up their religious assertions with empirical evidence which all parties could assess. Later, in my summation, I'd tell the jury, "You have heard the witnesses that the Society of Offended Believers (SOB) has gathered to challenge IIDB in this suit. I must remind you that belief in deities, a soul, an afterlife, angels, demons, a heaven, a hell, are purely a matter of unsubstantiated, emotive claims, and that the claimants, when given the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of their claims with admissible, tangible proofs, declined. Well, the claimant from the Southern Baptists did say that her mother had told her that her beliefs were true. You may take this testimony for what it is worth, and you are free to discard any or all of it, if you find that there is nothing to distinguish it from mere fancy or opinion. I also ask the jury to remember that the only witnesses who testified to mystical experiences from being in the presence of the Black Stone in the Kaaba were Muslims. Our Christian witnesses said they considered it to be just a rock. The only witnesses to tell you about earthly appearances of the Virgin Mary were Catholics. The Baptists said it was conditioned wish fulfillment, and the Muslims said it might be a deception created by a demon. The LDS witness testified to the divine origins of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, and all the others said those works were best described as hoaxes. Our Lubavitch witness told you of a vision of Rabbi Schneerson returning soon from the dead, to fulfill his mission as the Messiah. Our Reform Jewish witness told you that this was a strange, cultlike belief which had no true foundation in Judaism. The Jehovah's Witness told you that God told him he must risk his life rather than accept medical treatment that included a blood transfusion, but the other witnesses told you that God could have said no such thing. When you deliberate, you are free to discard any testimony which you find to be devoid of demonstrable fact. You are free to consider the fact that the various witnesses freely discard the particular visions of other witnesses."

 

[pood]

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.

So much of your bullshit to dig through, and so little time.

No. We don’t reject theist claims “simply” on that basis. We reject theist claims because there is no evidence that they are true.

 

[ideologyhunter]

BUT...the fact that they don't agree is also substantive. Multitudinous faith claims show that faith is a terrible way to claim knowledge. If it was a good way, there wouldn't be thousands of variants.

 

[Elixir]

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.

So much of your bullshit to dig through, and so little time.

No. We don’t reject theist claims “simply” on that basis. We reject theist claims because there is no evidence that they are true.

Pearls before swine.
Seriously. I’ve seen enough to know that both of these beLievers are dishonest brokers in conversation, even if they don’t quite realize it themselves.

Utter conviction in surpassing Truths that aren’t true, gives excuse to behaviors that can only be forgiven by co-believers. In that respect perhaps they may claim some moral high ground … right up to the point where believers in A and believers in B start killing each other, as they often do. (See Gaza)

 

[ideologyhunter]

Christians butchered each other for centuries. Apparently the agape is conditional.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's a guy in Mexico who claims to be Jesus.

No, wait, I mean, Jesus Christ. There are lots of people with the name Jesus.

So, is this guy one of the people being used to "corroborate" the existence of a god?

It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[TomC]

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.

So much of your bullshit to dig through, and so little time.

No. We don’t reject theist claims “simply” on that basis. We reject theist claims because there is no evidence that they are true.

It's not only because there's no evidence. It's also a function of plausibility.
My neighbor could say he had scrambled eggs for breakfast. With no more evidence than the claim I'd be utterly convinced. Because it's plausible, he's got no reason to fib, but most importantly I don't care about it at all.
Similarly, the claim that Jesus was sentenced to crucifixion by Pilate is very plausible. The name was so common and crucifixion so common it would not surprise me if more than one guy with the name was crucified. Rising from the dead is a whole different level of plausibility. I can think of several plausible explanations for why people would claim it, but I simply cannot believe it happened.
Tom

 

[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?

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.

Ah, I see … begging the question. So dead Jesus gets to put the stamp of approval on Smyrna and Philadelphia churches because … he wasn’t really dead. But, see, that is what you are required to prove — that he was resurrected. You can’t assume your conclusion.

 

[pood]

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.

That’s what’s so convenient about the religious scam, and why it’s so lucrative for the scammers. All afterlife beliefs are unfalsifiable. What is actually going to happen when you die is that you will be dead, and won’t know that you were wrong, because you wont’ know anything since you won’t exist.

 

[ideologyhunter]

That’s what’s so convenient about the religious scam, and why it’s so lucrative for the scammers. All afterlife beliefs are unfalsifiable. What is actually going to happen when you die is that you will be dead, and won’t know that you were wrong, because you wont’ know anything since you won’t exist.

Last year a friend called to tell me that a mutual acquaintance and died. In the course of the call, she said, "Now she knows the truth about what's on the other side." I was soooo tempted to say, "How's she gonna know anything, after she's brain-dead?" But that wouldn't have fit the mood of the moment, and probably wouldn't have prompted anything positive from my friend. I often see the value of what George Will has described as his 'nonaggressive atheism.' But, yeah -- what you'll 'know' in the minute after you die is the same as what you 'knew' before you were conceived. Jack Squat.

 

[Elixir]

That’s what’s so convenient about the religious scam, and why it’s so lucrative for the scammers. All afterlife beliefs are unfalsifiable. What is actually going to happen when you die is that you will be dead, and won’t know that you were wrong, because you wont’ know anything since you won’t exist.

Last year a friend called to tell me that a mutual acquaintance and died. In the course of the call, she said, "Now she knows the truth about what's on the other side." I was soooo tempted to say, "How's she gonna know anything, after she's brain-dead?" But that wouldn't have fit the mood of the moment, and probably wouldn't have prompted anything positive from my friend. I often see the value of what George Will has described as his 'nonaggressive atheism.' But, yeah -- what you'll 'know' in the minute after you die is the same as what you 'knew' before you were conceived. Jack Squat.

What happens after you die? Lots of things happen, but you're not part of them.

 

[TomC]

I often see the value of what George Will has described as his 'nonaggressive atheism.' But, yeah -- what you'll 'know' in the minute after you die is the same as what you 'knew' before you were conceived. Jack Squat.

This sort of thing reminds me of a Samuel Clemens quip.
"I was dead for millions of years before I was born. I was not inconvenienced in the slightest."
Tom

 

[bilby]

The assertion is the evidence.
All evidence is derived from the senses

Which sense detects assertions?

 

[bilby]

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.

You're right; Much of modern legal "justice" does indeed remain medieval and barbaric.

Fortunately, science has FAR higher standards than we find in law.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The assertion is the evidence.
All evidence is derived from the senses

Which sense detects assertions?

non

 

[Elixir]

The assertion is the evidence.

Hey, just like the stolen 2020 election!!!

Such bullshit.

 

[bilby]

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.

Would that be a consolation to you as you burned in Hell for your failure to follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed?

I presume your expectation of a Hindu or Buddhist afterlife is born of ignorance, as neither of these religions really have one - both traditions believe in reincarnation, and as neither religion requires the existence of gods, such rebirth would in no way imply even partly that your theism might be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_atheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

Despite your daft belief to the contrary, many religions are radically different from, and completely incompatible with, your Christianity.

 

[TomC]

The assertion is the 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.

Here's the thing.
Unfortunately, God or something made humans quite stupid. We are very inclined towards mistakes, delusion, illusion, and oftentimes flat out lies.

An unsupported assertion is the absolute weakest kind of evidence. The big thrust of the scientific method is to weed out those false assertions with high standards for evidence. Evidence that can be observed and examined by anyone who wants.

That's the difference between scriptural claims and climatology. Climate scientists need to produce evidence that can be reviewed and critiqued and challenged by any interested party. Or else their assertions won't be taken seriously by other educated people. That's not how the religious method works. Anybody can make any assertion they want and if anyone takes it seriously they've got a religious claim.

That's worked superbly for the grifters and delusional through the centuries.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

This whole exchange reeks of desperation on the part of present theists, to equate their certitude in superstitions with scientists’ acceptance of theories as currently most likely explanations for observations.

The non-falsifiable nature of superstitions can put them on equal rhetorical or semantic grounds with expressions of scientific theories, but that doesn’t make them equivalent. Pretending otherwise is not forthright at all, but it is an evasion tactic of habit for rabid theists. One might lose all respect after a while.

 

[steve_bank]

That woman across the street who I never met loves me, I just know it....

God exists, I just know it...

Jesus loves me, I just know it....

Trump is looking out for me, I just know it.....