Interbane wrote:Stahrwe:

1) The reference in the Talmud to 4 distinct changes which took place in the Temple at the time of the crucufixtion and continued until the destruction of the Temple.
2) The fact that hematidrosis is mentioned in the Bible long before it was a known medical event.
3) The prophecy regarding the restoration of the nation of Israel accurate to the day and made over 907,000 in advance.

1) There is no doubt the authors of the Talmud had access to the Bible. You can connect the dots I'm sure.

You don't mean that the Jews who wrote the Talmud; The Jews who included vile rumors of the parentage of Jesus in the Talmud to discredit Jesus; would incorporate something which would tend to prove that Jesus was who He claimed to be? Did your argument just crash and burn?

interbane wrote:2) This only supports the claim that someone had that disease. It supports nothing else within the bible.

It does support that the Bible accurately included a description of a rare medical condition.

interbane wrote:3) This is non-sequitur. If you want to see precisely how, form a logical argument the correct way, with premises and a conclusion, with how this prophecy supports the bible.

As Mr. Spock once said to Dr. McCoy, "You should be taught the difference between empiricism and stubborness." (I used to be able to tell you the episode title, initial air date, season, director, etc. for nearly all the original ST episodes. Alas, the blush is off the rose as the snow gathers on the roof.)

One of the clever little games that atheists have relied on is to demand evidence, but place restrictions on what evidence is acceptable and reject anything which is proferred.

interbane wrote:The fault is yours for not abiding by the standards scholars have developed. You cannot blame atheists for using those standards. These standards are the building blocks of epistemology across the world. They have lead us into the information age, and are instrumental in eliminating false reasoning such as your attempts to support the Bible.

Ibid.

The "Magical Thinking" criticism continues to both befuddle and amuse me. It befuddles me because it won't go away. It amuses me because of its incongruity with facts. There is a Bible story which directly confronts 'magical thinking'. In fact it pits Christianity against it:

I don't see how anyone could seriously say something like this. You're incredibly deluded. Your religion epitomizes magical thinking, in almost every single way.

You don't mean that the Jews who wrote the Talmud; The Jews who included vile rumors of the parentage of Jesus in the Talmud to discredit Jesus; would incorporate something which would tend to prove that Jesus was who He claimed to be? Did your argument just crash and burn?

No, I'm speaking of the Jews who plagiarized the concept, for whatever reason their motive eludes you. I understand your rationalization as to why they wouldn't have plagiarized the concept(event), but your rationalization is just that. All it would take is a single Jewish author who didn't have such prejudices, or who was writing what he thought actually happened(but which was a story passed mouth to mouth which originated from a Christian source.) There are a million other reasons such cross-story residue would originate, and no amount of rationalization suffices to quell that probability. Your rationalizations cannot account for the complexities of reality. A strange parallel appears between the two books claiming an extraordinary event happened. The answer is clear.

It does support that the Bible accurately included a description of a rare medical condition.

I'm sure it does.

As Mr. Spock once said to Dr. McCoy, "You should be taught the difference between empiricism and stubborness."

I thought as much. I'm done with this subject, as I was a long time ago. None of these things are evidence, and you're aware of the reasons even if you pretend they don't apply. At least appeal to true evidence, which you've given examples of once.

Interbane wrote:

The "Magical Thinking" criticism continues to both befuddle and amuse me. It befuddles me because it won't go away. It amuses me because of its incongruity with facts. There is a Bible story which directly confronts 'magical thinking'. In fact it pits Christianity against it:

I don't see how anyone could seriously say something like this. You're incredibly deluded. Your religion epitomizes magical thinking, in almost every single way.

You don't mean that the Jews who wrote the Talmud; The Jews who included vile rumors of the parentage of Jesus in the Talmud to discredit Jesus; would incorporate something which would tend to prove that Jesus was who He claimed to be? Did your argument just crash and burn?

No, I'm speaking of the Jews who plagiarized the concept, for whatever reason their motive eludes you. I understand your rationalization as to why they wouldn't have plagiarized the concept(event), but your rationalization is just that. All it would take is a single Jewish author who didn't have such prejudices, or who was writing what he thought actually happened(but which was a story passed mouth to mouth which originated from a Christian source.) There are a million other reasons such cross-story residue would originate, and no amount of rationalization suffices to quell that probability. Your rationalizations cannot account for the complexities of reality. A strange parallel appears between the two books claiming an extraordinary event happened. The answer is clear.

It does support that the Bible accurately included a description of a rare medical condition.

I'm sure it does.

As Mr. Spock once said to Dr. McCoy, "You should be taught the difference between empiricism and stubborness."

I thought as much. I'm done with this subject, as I was a long time ago. None of these things are evidence, and you're aware of the reasons even if you pretend they don't apply. At least appeal to true evidence, which you've given examples of once.

Ah, the dreaded rationalization accusation rears its long awaited head. As for the 'evidence' trap, perhaps 'E' in CRUDE may fill that duty as well, after repeated requests to identify what 'evidence' you would accept the answer seems to be; 'anything which doesn't seem to support the Bible.'

Well done, I believe Robert Wright would be proud of you.

This is pretty random, but I came across a simple phrase from the book that struck me as something I didn't realize. It was "the doctrine of faith." I think this is probably right, faith is a doctrine in itself and is separable from religion. We talk about how religion must have arisen because of innate cognitive structuring. But there's no reason that I can think of why faith--believing without evidence for belief--should have been present from the start. Is faith, then, a Christian doctrine that has inaccurately become almost synonymous with religion? I'm looking for feedback on this thought.

Another thought: are believers who spend a great deal of energy trying to show how their beliefs are supported by science and history, showing very weak faith?

correct.

Faith does not need a religion. faith in ghosts, ESP, Alien Abduction, racism, jingoism etc...

Religion is only a problem because it allows such runaway magical thinking.

Star,

When i used the term "magical thinking" in my last post, i thought it was pretty obviously not in specific reference to what is normally considered "magic". as in a spell or a trick. magical thinking in this regard, as it is mostly used in religions, is where you get from an idea to a conviction without any supporting evidence. as in, god created the universe in 6 days with absolutely no evidence to support that belief other than a fictional story in a book which asserts that claim from authority.

What i mean when i say magical thinking is an assertion of "miraculous" or magical events with no supporting evidence, nor mechanism to achieve these results besides and insistence that they happened... through magic. call it what you will, god's will, whatever... its magic.

DWill wrote:This is pretty random, but I came across a simple phrase from the book that struck as something I didn't realize. It was "the doctrine of faith." I think this is probably right, faith is a doctrine in itself and is separable from religion. We talk about how religion must have arisen because of innate cognitive structuring. But there's no reason that I can think of why faith--believing without evidence for belief--should have been present from the start. Is faith, then, a Christian doctrine that has inaccurately become almost synonymous with religion? I'm looking for feedack on this thought.

Another thought: are believers who spend a great deal of energy trying to show how their beliefs are supported by science and history, showing very weak faith?

I call this BOGUS. The effort is not associated with our faith, but to provide thought for the secular audience. The arguments I put forth are not in support of faith but to show that faith is different to an observer than fantasy. In an old post I stated that the discovery of Noah's Ark would be irrelevant to faith.

The faith you have in the story within the Talmud is a good example of magical thinking. You believe that story is true, so then attempt to use it as evidence for the bible. What you fail to realize is that the Talmud story itself has zero support. None whatsoever. You believe it because you have faith that it is true. The same applies to your appeals to prophecy. Somehow, people from the past were able to magically divine what would happen in the future? These are excellent examples of magical thinking.

stahrwe wrote:

DWill wrote:This is pretty random, but I came across a simple phrase from the book that struck as something I didn't realize. It was "the doctrine of faith." I think this is probably right, faith is a doctrine in itself and is separable from religion. We talk about how religion must have arisen because of innate cognitive structuring. But there's no reason that I can think of why faith--believing without evidence for belief--should have been present from the start. Is faith, then, a Christian doctrine that has inaccurately become almost synonymous with religion? I'm looking for feedack on this thought.

Another thought: are believers who spend a great deal of energy trying to show how their beliefs are supported by science and history, showing very weak faith?

I call this BOGUS. The effort is not associated with our faith, but to provide thought for the secular audience. The arguments I put forth are not in support of faith but to show that faith is different to an observer than fantasy. In an old post I stated that the discovery of Noah's Ark would be irrelevant to faith.

It took me a minute to understand which part of the post you were objecting to, or objecting to the most. It seems a little rash to me to call a question bogus. As for your answer, I'm afraid I still don't understand why it's so important to you to prove matters of religious faith are supported empirically.

DWill wrote:

stahrwe wrote:

DWill wrote:This is pretty random, but I came across a simple phrase from the book that struck as something I didn't realize. It was "the doctrine of faith." I think this is probably right, faith is a doctrine in itself and is separable from religion. We talk about how religion must have arisen because of innate cognitive structuring. But there's no reason that I can think of why faith--believing without evidence for belief--should have been present from the start. Is faith, then, a Christian doctrine that has inaccurately become almost synonymous with religion? I'm looking for feedack on this thought.

Another thought: are believers who spend a great deal of energy trying to show how their beliefs are supported by science and history, showing very weak faith?

I call this BOGUS. The effort is not associated with our faith, but to provide thought for the secular audience. The arguments I put forth are not in support of faith but to show that faith is different to an observer than fantasy. In an old post I stated that the discovery of Noah's Ark would be irrelevant to faith.

It took me a minute to understand which part of the post you were objecting to, or objecting to the most. It seems a little rash to me to call a question bogus. As for your answer, I'm afraid I still don't understand why it's so important to you to prove matters of religious faith are supported empirically.

I can appreciate that as it appears that you do not require the same empiricism from authors you admire.

I can appreciate that as it appears that you do not require the same empiricism from authors you admire.

DWill never said nor implied any such thing. Stop making stuff up.