Christian Faith

[DBT]

If you were to say that X is not good evidence to support Y, you are not saying that the evidence is not good to support Y. The former neither asserts nor denies that X is even evidence whereas the latter asserts that X is evidence while also denying that it's good.

But, from the rest of your comments, I am able discern that you deny X is evidence; however, your argument is lacking. I'm willing to entertain an analysis for the necessary and sufficient conditions.

I am saying that, if required (not something frivolous and unimportant, size of the fish caught, nobody cares,etc), the available evidence should relate to the claim being made. That the body of information - evidence - used to support or establish the truth of a claim being made (testimony), must necessarily relate to the claim and be sufficient to determine whether the claim is true or false.

Do you think it's true, or do you think it's false that one can have evidence that supports something you once did even though it's something you never did?

Overlap - CCTV showing that you were in the area at the time of the theft - and ambiguous information - a witness who mistakes you for the thief because of your similar build and appearance as the thief, thus giving the appearance of evidence going against you.

A case of false evidence.

Illustration: you're 15 and have never smoked. Those are the facts. Your friends do, but you don't. Just yesterday, you were standing outside with your friends (whom were smoking) and one of them needed to free her hands and asked you to momentarily hold her cigarette. So, there you are, standing there, holding a lit cigarette. Your neighbor takes a picture of you holding that cigarette. Nice picture too! Catches the smoke coming out the cig and all. Quite vivid pic actually.

Yes. A case of incomplete information. Therefore misleading information being used as evidence. Which in turn makes it false evidence.

Something to be wary of.

Due care and diligence required if someone's life depends on it, or the claim is important in other ways.

 

[Rhea]

I have totally lost track of how any of this relates to the thread title "Christian Faith." Can anyone recap?

 

[Politesse]

Has to do with a rather inconsistent argument being made against it, resulting in a rhetorical scuffle.

In fairness, the actual OP was so non-controversial it was resolved pretty quickly. God does not, in fact, need anyone to prove that he exists in order to exist. But some Christians reckon he doesn't mind, especially if it results on some saved souls.

 

[fast]

False evidence? Why, because it doesn't establish as fact what is being claimed?

A grade is a grade, whether it's a 15 or an 85. Evidence that is weak is evidence still. Evidence that does not establish something as true yet supports something as true is evidence, and just as a grade is a grade, so too is evidence evidence, no matter how weak or poor such evidence may be.

You call it false evidence, but you're trying to weasel out of accepting it as evidence, but why you're doing it is important. When you raise the bar, you're neglecting real evidence.

When the brother gets a 75 on a test and brags he's smarter than his sister who earned a zero, let's remind him he's the dumbass and she's just lazy. He answered questions incorrectly while the A-student sister who although studied simply didn't show up for the test. She failed, yes, but it wasn't for answering incorrectly but for not answering correctly. The subtlety is important, just like not doing something is not always a failure to do something. If there's no expectation to do X, not doing X isn't a failure to do X. I didn't really pay your light bill, but then again, there was never really any obligation to do so, so whist true I didn't pay it, false it is that I failed to pay it.

Evidence need not establish a truth, and not doing so isn't a failure. It need only support a claim. If it does more, great, but to be evidence, it need merely support; hence, it need not hold to the bar height to which you raise it.

This reminds me of the confangled difference between not believing God exists and a belief He does not exist. Think of belief as bearing weight. If Jack has a belief that God exists, well, that's fifty pounds he's toting up that mountain side. If Jill has a belief but instead a belief that God does not exist, well, that's still a belief and she too is toting fifty pounds up the hill. So, if two different people are lugging a belief around (be they opposing beliefs or not), that's two instances of weight-carrying people.

What pray tell does this have to do with anything, either what I've been saying or this thread? The truth. See things for what they are. Although I think the weak atheist position is complete horseshit, it does help bring the analogy together. The supposed weak atheist (Bob) neither has a belief that God exists nor does he have a belief that He does not exist. No weight!

There are three positions as espoused by Jack, Jill, and Bob, and we can easily discern between them:
B(G) Jack has a belief and the belief is that God exists
B(~G) Jill has a belief and the belief is that there is no God that exists.

Of course, there's ole Bob (horseshit Bob)
~B(G) & ~B(~G) Bob has no belief about Gods existence: no belief that God exists and no belief that He doesn't exist. No weight!

While I can readily discern between evidence that supports, evidence that disputes, and no evidence at all, you seem to be all over the map, and it's even worst than that because your notion of "supports" is too tightly wound to the notion of "establishes."

Again, you say "false evidence." I say Poppycock!

The picture for one, IS evidence, and it's used to SUPPORT the claim she was smoking.

Does the picture ESTABLISH the claim to be true? No! But, it is there to support the claim. If her friend wants a little retribution for something else and lies on her, that's even more evidence is building up against her--and like belief momentarily being held to hold weight, the evidence is mounting, and just as none of the evidence establishes beyond all critical doubt that she's guilty, it's weighing down upon her.

You can't just cry false evidence. It's evidence, and for goodness gracious, it's even supportive. Falls short of establishing beyond all doubt, you think, but careful; remember my rambling about not doing vs failing.

 

[steve_bank]

The general debate has been the evidentiary basis theists rest faith on.

 

[fast]

The general debate has been the evidentiary basis theists rest faith on.

I'm not going to argue how good the evidence is, but I'll argue that there is evidence. I just came up with an analogy that I think some might appreciate as being mostly thread topic related.

It's like there's a 12 foot ladder up against a 20 foot wall. The ladder is evidence. It plays an integral part in believing, so belief is not born of faith alone, but being 6 feet tall standing on the top rung still puts us 2 feet shy of establishing facts such that the espousal of them would be doubt free.

In other words, we can assemble all that has come before us, historically touted as evidence, and with that evidence that supports the belief, we stand taller than we would with faith alone, but without faith, the evidence alone does not make a believer.

In a way, it's like there's two necessary conditions for the Christian belief: the evidence and the faith. Well, at least two feet worth

 

[DBT]

Has to do with a rather inconsistent argument being made against it, resulting in a rhetorical scuffle.

In fairness, the actual OP was so non-controversial it was resolved pretty quickly. God does not, in fact, need anyone to prove that he exists in order to exist. But some Christians reckon he doesn't mind, especially if it results on some saved souls.

The argument against faith, be it Christian or any other form - despite protestations to the contrary - is quite simple, straightforward, concise and irrefutable.

The key point being evidence and justification.

A testimony alone, being someone's description composed of a set of claims, which could be true or false, delusional or rational but unproven, is not an example of evidence or justification.

 

[DBT]

False evidence? Why, because it doesn't establish as fact what is being claimed?

Not quite. As I said, it may be a case of mistaken identity. Several witnesses come forward testifying that you robbed the store, you were in the vicinity, caught on CCTV in the area, but unfortunately for you the real robber happened to resemble you, thereby confusing the witnesses,thus adding to a body of evidence that supports the proposition that you robbed the store. The available evidence is misleading.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The general debate has been the evidentiary basis theists rest faith on.

And has devolved to a degree into a semantics squabble. "False evidence?" Really?

The meta lesson is that people will invent whatever emotional reassurance they require to support their feelings on a subject.

 

[fast]

False evidence? Why, because it doesn't establish as fact what is being claimed?

The available evidence is misleading.

Okay, so long as we understand each other.

 

[DBT]

We can only hope.....

 

[steve_bank]

I am not the right guy to ask questions like that. Not orthodox, never claimed to be. I'm sure a lot of Christians would consider me an atheist myself.

But I have heard of Judaism, you know? Got to count for something.

The secular philosophy follower of Jesus goes back at least to the 60s and the cultural shift. The question remains, if you identify as a Christian of any sort what is the guiding principles you derive in daily life and interaction with people.

In the gospels JC says only a handful of sound bites. Possible exception Sermon On The Mount. I see no clear philosophy in the gospels. In fact all of what is presented as JC traces back to the To raj or Old Testament. He presented nothing new in Jewish tradition.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am not the right guy to ask questions like that. Not orthodox, never claimed to be. I'm sure a lot of Christians would consider me an atheist myself.

But I have heard of Judaism, you know? Got to count for something.

The secular philosophy follower of Jesus goes back at least to the 60s and the cultural shift. The question remains, if you identify as a Christian of any sort what is the guiding principles you derive in daily life and interaction with people.

In the gospels JC says only a handful of sound bites. Possible exception Sermon On The Mount. I see no clear philosophy in the gospels. In fact all of what is presented as JC traces back to the To raj or Old Testament. He presented nothing new in Jewish tradition.

And those christians who believe things literally do not know about Ra or Jewish tradition or the historical roots of christianity. Nor have they ever read books about how christianity relates to other religions, and they don't know about other creation accounts. Everything is biblically literal and 99% of them have never read their bibles. They're kinda reliving the oral traditions and evolution of their beliefs that they know nothing about.

 

[Politesse]

I am not the right guy to ask questions like that. Not orthodox, never claimed to be. I'm sure a lot of Christians would consider me an atheist myself.

But I have heard of Judaism, you know? Got to count for something.

The secular philosophy follower of Jesus goes back at least to the 60s and the cultural shift. The question remains, if you identify as a Christian of any sort what is the guiding principles you derive in daily life and interaction with people.

In the gospels JC says only a handful of sound bites. Possible exception Sermon On The Mount. I see no clear philosophy in the gospels. In fact all of what is presented as JC traces back to the To raj or Old Testament. He presented nothing new in Jewish tradition.

Oh, back to the German idealists, securely.

He certainly wasn't a systematic philosopher, and there are of course those who insist he isn't a "he" at all but a collection of scattered wisdom sayings united vaguely under an archetypal wandering teacher figure. But I find insight in the stories, and they are the canon I know best. We could have a conversation about the things I find most interesting, but I don't think wisdom teachings flourish in the context of an apologetic argument. If you have to listen to something, it is valueless.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I am not the right guy to ask questions like that. Not orthodox, never claimed to be. I'm sure a lot of Christians would consider me an atheist myself.

But I have heard of Judaism, you know? Got to count for something.

The secular philosophy follower of Jesus goes back at least to the 60s and the cultural shift. The question remains, if you identify as a Christian of any sort what is the guiding principles you derive in daily life and interaction with people.

In the gospels JC says only a handful of sound bites. Possible exception Sermon On The Mount. I see no clear philosophy in the gospels. In fact all of what is presented as JC traces back to the To raj or Old Testament. He presented nothing new in Jewish tradition.

The "secular shift" goes back to the late 1800's in America. As Higher Bible criticism became known to educated Americans, many people dropped the literalist Christianity for a social gospel. Believing dogma was no longer important, our good intentions and actions did. This fit well with the Progressive movement. Deeds not words. This lead to a battle between Bible literalists and social gospel Christans. Which lead to fierce battles in the churches and the literalists leaving and forming the fundamentalist movement. Social Gospel Christians have been drifting off the become Nones or Nothing in Particulars. The rise of Fundamentalism in response to liberal Christianity was one of the great movements in American culture and religion.

 

[Politesse]

I am not the right guy to ask questions like that. Not orthodox, never claimed to be. I'm sure a lot of Christians would consider me an atheist myself.

But I have heard of Judaism, you know? Got to count for something.

The secular philosophy follower of Jesus goes back at least to the 60s and the cultural shift. The question remains, if you identify as a Christian of any sort what is the guiding principles you derive in daily life and interaction with people.

In the gospels JC says only a handful of sound bites. Possible exception Sermon On The Mount. I see no clear philosophy in the gospels. In fact all of what is presented as JC traces back to the To raj or Old Testament. He presented nothing new in Jewish tradition.

The "secular shift" goes back to the late 1800's in America. As Higher Bible criticism became known to educated Americans, many people dropped the literalist Christianity for a social gospel. Believing dogma was no longer important, our good intentions and actions did. This fit well with the Progressive movement. Deeds not words. This lead to a battle between Bible literalists and social gospel Christans. Which lead to fierce battles in the churches and the literalists leaving and forming the fundamentalist movement. Social Gospel Christians have been drifting off the become Nones or Nothing in Particulars. The rise of Fundamentalism in response to liberal Christianity was one of the great movements in American culture and religion.

And we remember who tended to take the side of the slavers... i'm proud of my Progressive heritage. As the old t shirt says, heretic in good company.

 

[steve_bank]

I am not the right guy to ask questions like that. Not orthodox, never claimed to be. I'm sure a lot of Christians would consider me an atheist myself.

But I have heard of Judaism, you know? Got to count for something.

The secular philosophy follower of Jesus goes back at least to the 60s and the cultural shift. The question remains, if you identify as a Christian of any sort what is the guiding principles you derive in daily life and interaction with people.

In the gospels JC says only a handful of sound bites. Possible exception Sermon On The Mount. I see no clear philosophy in the gospels. In fact all of what is presented as JC traces back to the To raj or Old Testament. He presented nothing new in Jewish tradition.

The "secular shift" goes back to the late 1800's in America. As Higher Bible criticism became known to educated Americans, many people dropped the literalist Christianity for a social gospel. Believing dogma was no longer important, our good intentions and actions did. This fit well with the Progressive movement. Deeds not words. This lead to a battle between Bible literalists and social gospel Christans. Which lead to fierce battles in the churches and the literalists leaving and forming the fundamentalist movement. Social Gospel Christians have been drifting off the become Nones or Nothing in Particulars. The rise of Fundamentalism in response to liberal Christianity was one of the great movements in American culture and religion.

Christianity was in decline, but reversed in part by the 'awakening' if I am correct. I should remember the name but I do not. There was a particular gathering with alleged supernatural events that sparked a resurgence.

 

[steve_bank]

I am not the right guy to ask questions like that. Not orthodox, never claimed to be. I'm sure a lot of Christians would consider me an atheist myself.

But I have heard of Judaism, you know? Got to count for something.

The secular philosophy follower of Jesus goes back at least to the 60s and the cultural shift. The question remains, if you identify as a Christian of any sort what is the guiding principles you derive in daily life and interaction with people.

In the gospels JC says only a handful of sound bites. Possible exception Sermon On The Mount. I see no clear philosophy in the gospels. In fact all of what is presented as JC traces back to the To raj or Old Testament. He presented nothing new in Jewish tradition.

Oh, back to the German idealists, securely.

He certainly wasn't a systematic philosopher, and there are of course those who insist he isn't a "he" at all but a collection of scattered wisdom sayings united vaguely under an archetypal wandering teacher figure. But I find insight in the stories, and they are the canon I know best. We could have a conversation about the things I find most interesting, but I don't think wisdom teachings flourish in the context of an apologetic argument. If you have to listen to something, it is valueless.

My point to you from them other thread that saying one is Christian has no meaning. Muslims have the Five Pillars Of Islam and clear social directives in the Koran. Buddhist hive the 8 Fold Path and a set of basic living requirements. For Jews the Torah is not central, there are side historical writings and traditions that define social behavior.

If you give credence to the gospels Christianity is based on the story of the resurrection and JC's promise of eternal life. Beyond that there is little in the gospels that present any coherent philosophy.

I had a thread on what is a Christian.


JC was a Jewish rabbi he invented nothing new. A rabbi has shown up on TV with his shtick the Jewish Jesus calling Christians to realize they are really Jews. As a Catholic baby I was circumcised....

You identify as a Christian. When you criticized some of us for attacking religion without understanding the traditions my response to you was what is a Christian in your eyes? What is a Christian without the tradition of faith?

 

[Politesse]

Oh, back to the German idealists, securely.

He certainly wasn't a systematic philosopher, and there are of course those who insist he isn't a "he" at all but a collection of scattered wisdom sayings united vaguely under an archetypal wandering teacher figure. But I find insight in the stories, and they are the canon I know best. We could have a conversation about the things I find most interesting, but I don't think wisdom teachings flourish in the context of an apologetic argument. If you have to listen to something, it is valueless.

My point to you from them other thread that saying one is Christian has no meaning. Muslims have the Five Pillars Of Islam and clear social directives in the Koran. Buddhist hive the 8 Fold Path and a set of basic living requirements. For Jews the Torah is not central, there are side historical writings and traditions that define social behavior.

If you give credence to the gospels Christianity is based on the story of the resurrection and JC's promise of eternal life. Beyond that there is little in the gospels that present any coherent philosophy.

I had a thread on what is a Christian.


JC was a Jewish rabbi he invented nothing new. A rabbi has shown up on TV with his shtick the Jewish Jesus calling Christians to realize they are really Jews. As a Catholic baby I was circumcised....

You identify as a Christian. When you criticized some of us for attacking religion without understanding the traditions my response to you was what is a Christian in your eyes? What is a Christian without the tradition of faith?

Personally, I don't think it makes much sense to tell someone who thinks they are a Christian that they are mistaken, nor a Buddhist, Taoist, etc. It leads you into absurdities, trying to make social identity a question for objective rubrics. If you want something like that for Christianity, there are certain creeds and rubrics you might choose from, but embracing them implies taking sides in ancient wars foolish in their time and now long dead except for the traditions they inspired. Jesus himself recommended discerning right and wrong by the real fruit it bears in the world rather than literal interpretation of some silly law. A situational, not deontological, moralist.

When I said that it was foolish to attack, say, Jews for being proselytizers, I meant that anyone who has so much as browsed their Wikipedia page knows that isn't a common activity in that tradition. I'm not telling anyone who is or is not a Jew.

 

[Rhea]

You know who proselytized? Jesus did. You know whho was a Jew? Jesus was.