Topic: Great Atheist DVD (Read 12676 times)

Stathei · « **Reply #40 on:** February 05, 2006, 04:40:52 PM »

I'll give it to you when you answer the much more important question, which makes all this smoke and mirrors irrelevant.

cimics · « **Reply #41 on:** February 05, 2006, 05:11:54 PM »

SJ, this is probably what Stathei is talking about: http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.html

Stathei · « **Reply #42 on:** February 05, 2006, 05:46:46 PM »

Here is another study by your boy Ray Rogers. Note number 3:

Quote

ABSRACT
After 25 years of scientific study, I believe that three statements can be supported on the basis of
established laws of science and direct observations on the Shroud of Turin.
1. The radiocarbon age determination made in 1988 used an invalid sample, and it gave an erroneous
date for the production of the main part of the cloth.
2. The hypotheses that have appeared since the announcement of an AD 1260-1390 date that invoke
radiation of different kinds to explain the image and the date can be categorically discarded.
3. The characteristics of the image can be explained by reference to highly probable, well-known
chemical reactions. No miracles are necessary to explain the image.

Care to answer the question about painting now, SJ?

Cogito · « **Reply #43 on:** February 05, 2006, 06:11:41 PM »

The DVD is probably pretty good. It seems to summarize many of the reasons to believe that Christianity is a fraud:

1) Christianity "borrows" much of its story from other mythical and religious stories.

2) There are zero indisputable Jesus references made in the Jewish historical record which is surprising since Jesus was a Jew who preached to other Jews.

3) Nobody rationally believes that ancient writings depict the world accurately. For example, you won't get to the moon by using Ptolemy's astronomy or explain gravity accurately by using Aristotle's physics. Only "holy books" and the like are considered to be accurate and only those by their group of devotees. Everyone else considers them to be just as inaccurate and fantastic as they consider Herodotus' Histories to be.

4) The problem of evil. Why would a omnipotent benevolent God allow evil to exist to the extent that it exists in this world? Obviously, it has nothing to do with free will (for example, some neonates suffer horribly before ever having the neurological ability to choose anything) so why evil?

5) Why cannot an omnipotent God make his existence unmistakably known if that God wishes his existence to be known? This one is actually pretty simple but interesting, nonetheless.

An omnipotent God will make his existence known if he desires to make it known. An omnipotent God will not make his existence known if he desires that his existence not be known.

If God wishes his existence to be accepted on pure faith, then he will not make his existence known, period, except through faith. This means that all the "reasons" that believers cite to justify their belief in God are refuted by their own faith.

B Stewart · « **Reply #44 on:** February 05, 2006, 08:18:44 PM »

Quote

If God wishes his existence to be accepted on pure faith, then he will not make his existence known, period, except through faith. This means that all the "reasons" that believers cite to justify their belief in God are refuted by their own faith.

Never heard that one before, it's a good point. I wonder how you could respond to that?

Brian.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #45 on:** February 05, 2006, 08:34:04 PM »

Ray Rogers is not 'my boy.' As I have indicated from the beginning, I have only passing interest in the story. I was only challenging your sweeping assertion. My challenge so far seems to stand. The last I heard- and so far everything presented thus far is consistent with this- the 1988 dating data was found to be deficient.

That was your initial challenge. I said I thought things had changed, Copernicus asked for a reference, and I provided to him something I had read from 2000. I had not investigated the matter myself, I only knew that the year 2000 is more recent than 1988, a fact that seems to have evaded you. To my counter, you responded with a petty and ridiculous slur about satanic tampering or something like that. That was a banal and stupid attack which presumed I was speaking without any kind of source material. Banal because it was ridiculous, stupid because I had already cited a reference.

Now I have gone further and provided a link to the location of a scientific peer reviewed journal where the refutation of this 1988 data exists, and all you can do is try to shift the argument from your earlier charge- now refuted, apparently- to some other place where you think you can 'win.'

I have no dog in the shroud race, but it seems you do. I would have to do a bit more research to engage your ruminations about 'paint,' because you've provided no source material, and there is no way that I trust you to reliably present me information to work with. However, I think it is telling that a person who only earlier in the thread was boasting:

"I did not begin with my conclusion - I was forced to accept it by the evidence of hundreds of years of science [...] and the absolute lack of concrete evidence of the supernatural."

now has in front of them a peer reviewed scientific journal article refuting his position and the best he can do is counter it by changing the subject.

If there are no peer reviewed entries that you can provide for me re-instating the 1988 measurement, and you continue to try to change the subject, I will presume that you are at a loss and tacitly concede that the 1988 measurements are no longer tenable. I see no reason to move on until you resolve the confutation of YOUR OWN ORIGINAL POINT.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #46 on:** February 05, 2006, 08:37:21 PM »

Cimics, I think you're right about Stathei's sources, but it doesn't surprise me that its only you and I striving to provide any sourcing. However, I cannot accept that data because all that shows is that Stathei can "actually find stories that purport to debunk the scientific findings on web sites that exist for the sole purpose of debunking those findings."

That link you provided looks to be one of his primary sources, and it is clearly biased, but I admit, "I'm even more surprised that [he] take ~~them so seriously."~~

cimics · « **Reply #47 on:** February 05, 2006, 08:37:55 PM »

Cogito --

Your five reasons are not nearly as strong as you seem to think. They would of course, deserve threads of their own, so I'll just hit the high points here for those who might be interested.

Quote

1) Christianity "borrows" much of its story from other mythical and religious stories.

Similarities don't show that borrowing occurred or that Christianity did the borrowing. And they are not all that similar.

Quote

2) There are zero indisputable Jesus references made in the Jewish historical record which is surprising since Jesus was a Jew who preached to other Jews.

Other than the gospels, which you discount? Josephus has a reference however, and at least some of that reference is widely regarded to be accurate (not the result of interpolation). But there are other references (Roman). And the Jews might have an incentive not to record.

Quote

3) Nobody rationally believes that ancient writings depict the world accurately. For example, you won't get to the moon by using Ptolemy's astronomy or explain gravity accurately by using Aristotle's physics. Only "holy books" and the like are considered to be accurate and only those by their group of devotees.

Saying the ancients didn't understand science doesn't have anything to do with whether they understood history.

Quote

Everyone else considers them to be just as inaccurate and fantastic as they consider Herodotus' Histories to be.

Are you now contending we have no accurate historical accounts of the ancient world?

Quote

(4) The problem of evil. Why would a omnipotent benevolent God allow evil to exist to the extent that it exists in this world? Obviously, it has nothing to do with free will (for example, some neonates suffer horribly before ever having the neurological ability to choose anything) so why evil?

I love this topic. I haven't met an atheist yet who has been able to sustain this argument in the face of a critical attack. Do you want to try?

Quote

5) Why cannot an omnipotent God make his existence unmistakably known if that God wishes his existence to be known? This one is actually pretty simple but interesting, nonetheless.

An omnipotent God will make his existence known if he desires to make it known. An omnipotent God will not make his existence known if he desires that his existence not be known.

If God wishes his existence to be accepted on pure faith, then he will not make his existence known, period, except through faith. This means that all the "reasons" that believers cite to justify their belief in God are refuted by their own faith.

You set up a false dichotomy. An omnipotent God may want His existence accepted by faith based on evidence with some room for doubt. He wants you to have enough to believe, but not so much that you have the overwhelming feeling that He is constantly looking over your shoulder.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #48 on:** February 05, 2006, 08:39:37 PM »

Wow. I'm saddened about Cogito's summary. I thought maybe this DVD showed some intelligence. One of his summary statements is patently and demonstrably false, however, and I wonder at the credibility of any who could make the statement:

"2) There are zero indisputable Jesus references made in the Jewish historical record which is surprising since Jesus was a Jew who preached to other Jews."

Completely and demonstrably false.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #49 on:** February 05, 2006, 08:45:02 PM »

Sorry Cimics. Didn't mean to steal any thunder.

Presumably Cogito doesn't realize that Matthew, Mark, and John were Jews? Perhaps he and others would like to pretend that the authorship were challenged? That still leaves Paul. The last I heard, Paul was a Jew. But maybe Paul didn't exist, either? He too was a later invention- why not?

Paul's various writings are almost believed to have been written between 45-65 AD. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1thessalonians.html

www.earlychristianwritings.com tends to lean towards more liberal dates. If it presents information about a dating, its usually the date begrudingly allowed by rabid skeptics of Christianity. So, a date of 50/51 is probably a fair one to use for our purposes.

But then, we must conclude that Paul didn't exist, or if he didn't exist, he was actually a Gentile. I don't know how else to salvage that particular point.

Stathei · « **Reply #50 on:** February 05, 2006, 09:45:37 PM »

SJ - the original research concluding the shroud was a fake was peer reviewed. Your seizing on peer review as proof that this guy Ray (who clearly is "your boy") speaks the truth therefore seems expedient and self serving, to say the least. His paper is an opinion, nothing more, and is not a scientific fact by any definition of the word.

Peer review means nothing more than other scientists deem it worthy of publication - obviously it is of interest that someone involved in the original research would, nearly two decades later, suddenly realize that they had actually looked at a patch in the shroud, and not the shroud itself! Even if this were true, Ray himself says that the shroud is explicable by known natural phenomena - no miracles required.

As for

Quote

I would have to do a bit more research to engage your ruminations about 'paint,'

That, combined with your insistence on peer review, is your most transparent stalling tactic to date

. What kind of "research" would you have to do? Photocopy your face at Staples

? If so, the resultant shroud of SJ will not look anything like the shroud of Turin. The fact that you are so obviously avoiding discussing this patent hole in the entire shroud fallacy is encouraging - it shows that you realize it is a troubling inconsistency. Unfortunately, that won't stop you pressing on with derision of the obvious in favor of the occult. It's fake, SJ.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #51 on:** February 05, 2006, 10:14:24 PM »

"SJ - the original research concluding the shroud was a fake was peer reviewed."

Was it? Probably. You haven't bothered to provide any information on the reviews, though. Although you are apparently categorically dismissing at least one of those reviews: Ray's.

And why?

"(who clearly is "your boy")"

Don't be a dork. If you can't accept my word when I say that I haven't really a stake in the shroud debate, its not worth talking about with you. My convictions are not based on the shroud in any way. I think watching you dodge and dance is itself the interesting part.

"His paper is an opinion, nothing more, and is not a scientific fact by any definition of the word."

Do you have any peers submitting something to that effect? Or is that only your own opinion? Why should I believe you?

"Peer review means nothing more than other scientists deem it worthy of publication"

Oh? Nothing more? Ah well, then. I see no reason to place any weight on the 1988 results you have cited. It was just their opinions, and other scientists deemed them worthy of publication.

I wonder what kind of convoluted mind thinks its rational to raise arguments over and over again that only serve to take the ground from beneath their OWN arguments?

"Ray himself says that the shroud is explicable by known natural phenomena - no miracles required."

You provided me a quotation, but no reason yet to believe it genuine. Where is your source for that quote? When was the quote provided? Before or after the paper in question?

"That, combined with your insistence on peer review, is your most transparent stalling tactic to date"

Don't be daft. I've been clear about my level of interest and exposure with the shroud. I have substantiated my position with references. You have provided no compelling reason to think that my position is incorrect. I don't particularly care if it is incorrect- as I've said repeatedly now, I don't have a dog in the Shroud race. You obviously do. It's too bad that you feel you can only win your points by asserting them without defending them and running off to make a new point- meanwhile assuming your previous point is still standing- and pretend that your arguments are being ignored.

You keep talking about paint? If you want me to consider the point separately from your feeble faith in the 1988 results, I certainly can do that. But you've not provided me with any source material to consult. Why should I believe you that there is any paint to be factored into this?

Why don't you pony up some sources?

Stathei · « **Reply #52 on:** February 05, 2006, 10:16:20 PM »

Quote

You set up a false dichotomy. An omnipotent God may want His existence accepted by faith based on evidence with some room for doubt. He wants you to have enough to believe, but not so much that you have the overwhelming feeling that He is constantly looking over your shoulder.

Well, I'M convinced - sign me up for the bake sale, I'm going to church next Sunday! I'm I the only one to find this quote utterly ludicrous? If I were God, I'd be cringing with embarrassment...

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #53 on:** February 05, 2006, 10:29:58 PM »

All Cimics is saying is that there are other options that can be considered. We could probably create some more. There isn't any reason we have to confine ourselves only to the two conceptualizations of whoever Cogito was presenting. I don't think Cimics is trying to present an argument in itself, just another possibility.

The key words that led me to this interpretation are his use of the term 'false dichotomy' and 'may.' That you took this as an argument (not 'may' but 'does' or 'will') is further indication to me that you aren't taking a respectful amount of time to read what people are actually saying. We're going to start calling you 'Knee-jerk Stathei.'

Cogito · « **Reply #54 on:** February 05, 2006, 10:48:33 PM »

Quote from: cimics

You set up a false dichotomy. An omnipotent God may want His existence accepted by faith based on evidence with some room for doubt. He wants you to have enough to believe, but not so much that you have the overwhelming feeling that He is constantly looking over your shoulder.

Uh-uh, doesn't work, and here's a few reasons why it doesn't. First, you say "An omnipotent God may want His existence accepted by faith based on evidence with some room for doubt."

This can only be the case if the god doesn't understand that a belief is held either for good reason or not. Surely an omniscient god is smarter than that.

An omniscient god knows precisely the level of evidence necessary to compel belief. That god either will or will not provide that level of evidence. If he provides it, belief is compelled. If he does not, the proposition must be accepted on faith.

Second, you say "He wants you to have enough to believe. . . "

OK, then, if He does want me to have enough evidence to believe then he will provide enough evidence for me to believe. An omniscient god will know exactly how much evidence is necessary. It's slightly ridiculous to believe that anyone who has been provided with enough evidence to believe in a god that can provide eternal life or eternal d--nation, will choose to disbelieve in such a god despite the evidence if it means eternal d--nation. For what possible reason might such an unreasonable, disastrously harmful decision be made?

Christians cannot have it both ways. Either one accepts that a proposition is true by virtue of evidence or one does not. If one accepts that a proposition is true by virtue of evidence, then faith that that same proposition is true is entirely unnecessary.

Third, for what possible reason would god desire that it be difficult to know that He exists? For what reason would a god choose to make himself or herself obscure?

JustLiz · « **Reply #55 on:** February 05, 2006, 11:35:19 PM »

Okay, I am probably going to get myself in trouble here but I would like to offer an analogy.

If your child is playing in the street, do you hide behind a tree and whisper "Get out of the street" or do you run in the street and grab your child out of harm's way?

We, supposedly, are God's children. His ways are, supposedly, higher than ours. He, supposedly, loves us and WANTS us to get out of the street.

So why is he whispering????

cimics · « **Reply #56 on:** February 05, 2006, 11:37:17 PM »

Quote

Uh-uh, doesn't work, and here's a few reasons why it doesn't. First, you say "An omnipotent God may want His existence accepted by faith based on evidence with some room for doubt."

This can only be the case if the god doesn't understand that a belief is held either for good reason or not. Surely an omniscient god is smarter than that.

An omniscient god knows precisely the level of evidence necessary to compel belief. That god either will or will not provide that level of evidence. If he provides it, belief is compelled. If he does not, the proposition must be accepted on faith.

I think you have an incorrect understanding of "faith." Faith is not a substitute for evidence. Faith is the willingness to accept a proposition that is supported by the evidence even though the evidence does not constitute absolute proof. Take a civil jury trial. For any given issue, if a plaintiff has sufficient evidence to support his case, the jury still gets to decide whether it believes all that evidence. If the evidence rises to the level of conclusive proof, however, the trial judge would take the decision away from the jury and find for the plaintiff on the issue in question.

Quote

Second, you say "He wants you to have enough to believe. . . "

OK, then, if He does want me to have enough evidence to believe then he will provide enough evidence for me to believe. An omniscient god will know exactly how much evidence is necessary. It's slightly ridiculous to believe that anyone who has been provided with enough evidence to believe in a god that can provide eternal life or eternal d--nation, will choose to disbelieve in such a god despite the evidence if it means eternal d--nation. For what possible reason might such an unreasonable, disastrously harmful decision be made?

It could be that God wants you to have free will, and that means you have the freedom to reject the evidence even though it is sufficient. Providing enough evidence to convince everyone would require "looking over your shoulder" type evidence that God may perceive would unduly interfere with free will. God may also value faith (as I have defined above). He may not want someone on His jury that requires absolute proof.

Quote

Christians cannot have it both ways. Either one accepts that a proposition is true by virtue of evidence or one does not. If one accepts that a proposition is true by virtue of evidence, then faith that that same proposition is true is entirely unnecessary.

I have dealt with this above. Christians are not having it both ways. Faith is the willingness to accept propositions on less than absolute proof; it is not a substitute for proof.

Quote

Third, for what possible reason would god desire that it be difficult to know that He exists? For what reason would a god choose to make himself or herself obscure?

Free will and faith.

cimics · « **Reply #57 on:** February 05, 2006, 11:44:29 PM »

Quote

If your child is playing in the street, do you hide behind a tree and whisper "Get out of the street" or do you run in the street and grab your child out of harm's way?

We, supposedly, are God's children. His ways are, supposedly, higher than ours. He, supposedly, loves us and WANTS us to get out of the street.

Yet you will not stand over your children's shoulder every moment of every day during their childhood (or beyond) to keep them out of the street. At some point, they have to trust what you say in that regard. In fact, it is better that they take the parent's admonition to heart than that the parent be required to intervene constantly to keep the child out of the street.

JustLiz · « **Reply #58 on:** February 05, 2006, 11:55:15 PM »

Quote

At some point, they have to trust what you say in that regard. In fact, it is better that they take the parent's admonition to heart than that the parent be required to intervene constantly to keep the child out of the street.

Any responsible parent will watch their child 24/7 UNTIL they know that the child has the ability to make an informed, conscious decision to stay out of the street. There is a period of teaching involved before independence. It isn't that the child trusts the parent, but that the child understands the consequences of playing in the street.

cimics · « **Reply #59 on:** February 06, 2006, 12:00:37 AM »

Quote

Any responsible parent will watch their child 24/7 UNTIL they know that the child has the ability to make an informed, conscious decision to stay out of the street. There is a period of teaching involved before independence. It isn't that the child trusts the parent, but that the child understands the consequences of playing in the street.

That still requires a degree of trust on the child's part that what the parent says is accurate. Also, at some point, the parent has to trust that the child has in fact learned. A child could choose at some point to disobey even though he/she should know better.

Also, the analogy is inexact. Are we children? There was a growing up period -- The time period of the Old and New Testaments.

Author Topic: Great Atheist DVD (Read 12676 times)

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei