They are precisely equivalent in that they are both 100 percent fictional, that is the point. Also, the results of praying to Jesus and the results of praying to Mickey are precisely equivalent. They do not have the same stories but that is irrelevant to them being fictional. Is it 100 percent that you are wary of claiming to believe anything 100%? That position runs into self-contradiction. I bet there are many things that you believe 100 percent, such as that you are reading this now.
They share a similarity, they are not the same. To suggest they are is fallacious.
Nope, that is a claim, and again when one asserts something to be 100% true, all it suggests is a closed mind. One can disbelieve a claim without knowing whether it is false, indeed I would suggest that a lack of sufficient knowledge is a sound reason for disbelief.
So what?
Who claimed otherwise?
That’s an oxymoron, I am eager to keep always an open mind, if you think this is flawed reasoning then explain why, and I shall give it due diligence.
Indeed, but since it a straw man fallacy you have presented, who cares.
You’re wrong, and I already explained why, so this is a rather silly lie.
The problem is that you don’t appear to understand the limits of epistemology at all, or that some claims are unfalsifiable, and that such claims demand we remain agnostic about them.
You seem to be dealing in the same sweeping absolutes theists and religious apologists so often use.
1 Like
Could I put them both to the test? I can pray to jesus to turn a bottle of water into wine, and then pray to Mickey Mouse afterward and compare the results…
…and they both fail to turn water into wine. And I was looking forward to a good merlot…
It is 100 percent certain that there are no 3 angled squares in Euclidean geometry. It is 100 percent certain that there is no morally perfect infinite torturer of billions (e.g. the Christian god). So you believe with certainty that some claims are unfalsifiable. You are very good at jumping to your own unwarranted absolute conclusions without realizing that they are absolute. “There are no absolutes” is a self-contradictory statement, and that is absolutely certain. Therefore it is absolutely certain that there are some absolutes.
Please cite your source for this.
1 Like
Assuming we have no new paradigm shifting mathematical discoveries ahead of us of course, and assuming that this axiom and you are real, and aren’t part of some fictional computer programme.
Now both of those ideas seem unlikely to change this mathematical axiom of course, and there is no evidence to support either idea, so I would lend them no credence, but I can’t be 100% certain without being closed minded to the idea of future evidence, which would be the end of science btw, since it never deals in immutable claims, and the second is an unfalsifiable notion, so withholding belief from the claim and the contrary claim, is the only rational open minded position.
So you’re dropping the 100% now? Assuming this was a n accident and you mean it as an immutable absolute, then my answer is again no obviously. How many times are you going to repeat the same question, and then ignore my answer?
Straw man fallacy, and I am being polite, if you repeat the falsehood again I’ll be calling you a liar. For the record, I made nor am I making any claim to hold absolute or immutable beliefs, about anything.
Not necessarily, and I didn’t claim there were no absolutes, only not to believe any, you are so strident, that you’re misrepresenting your absolute views, as mine.
I don’t believe that.
You need to look up three word definitions…
- Atheism, this is not a claim, nor a belief, it is solely the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and while an atheist may go farther, and make a contrary claim that “no deity exists”, this carries a burden of proof, though not equal to the claim a deity exists, but I am nonetheless dubious they can meet this burden, since the claims are unfalsifiable in their generic form.
- Irrefutable, I believe there are plenty of claims and ideas that are irrefutable.
- Immutable, I do not believe, nor can I without closed minded bias believe, that any claim or idea is immutable, as it would be unreasonable to dispute or reject such absolutes from religious apologists, then use them myself.
So, I don’t know if Jesus existed at all, but the claim is a trivial one anyway, I don’t believe any deity or deities exist, or that they are possible, as the evidence presented is insufficient and insufficiently objective, to meet my threshold for credulity. So if he existed, then I cannot believe he was anything but human.
1 Like
To which of the tombs asserted to be that of Jesus are you referring?
2 Likes
To claim that something is unfalsifiable is to make an absolute claim that can never be changed. It is obvious to all but you that I am not saying that Jesus and Mickey are equivalent in any other way but being fictional. Since the very definition of a God/god is self-contradictory, it is logically certain that there is no such thing. A contradiction is a condition that is always false. For example, God being a morally perfect infinite torturer of billions proves with logical certainty that there is no such thing as God. To claim that there are claims or ideas that are irrefutable is to make an absolute claim with certainty. To claim that no claim is irrefutable is to make an absolute claim. To not believe the logically certain fact that there are some absolutes is an irrational position on your part. You say “I made nor am I making any claim to hold absolute or immutable beliefs, about anything.” which is an absolute statement. The idea that you cannot be absolutely certain (i.e. 100 percent certain about anything is itself an absolute statement.
It was in one of “The Great Courses.” I forget the exact title. It was by a female archaeologist who studies the Holy Land. If you go to their religion section, you might be able to find it. Bethlehem and Nazareth were gone over with ground penetrating radar. No human-made objects were found to be older than the year 100 at Bethlehem and only one farmhouse was found to be older than the year 100 at Nazareth.
Well, that, imo, is a feeble citation. I’d suggest you do a Google search on the age of each of those cites and let us know what the results are.
A “female archaeologist”? I’d bet dollars to donuts that had it been a male, you wouldn’t have mentioned their sex.
Hmmm….you’ve never heard a theist say that whatever their god(s) choose to do is perfectly moral?
1 Like
Sigh…how can it be a statement of an absolute if the person making the statement has already stipulated that they cannot be certain of anything? Can’t it be interpreted as, “I can’t be certain of anything, even this,”?
No it isn’t, it is based on a current assessment of the available information.
This was obvious to me, you really need to stop telling me what I think. You also cannot demonstrate objectively that Jesus was fictional, let alone as an absolute certainty, but by all means knock yourself out.
A “logical certainty” is an oxymoron, since logic provides a framework for reasoning and drawing conclusions, but it doesn’t inherently guarantee absolute certainty.
The question of what constitutes truth is a matter of epistemology, not logic, which is a tool for reasoning, whereas epistemology explores the nature and limits of knowledge itself. Something your posts suggest you don’t understand at all, thus far anyway.
No it does not, it only makes the argument for a deity with those characteristics, a poorly reasoned one, as it appears to violate the law of non-contradiction. You do understand that humans have imagined countless deities, and that globally, there are over 45k different versions of the Christian deity alone,
No it isn’t, for example, science has helped us understand many things that are irrefutable, none of them are absolutes, as all scientific ideas must remain tentative in the light of new evidence.
Which principle of logic are you claiming my disbelief has violated, and why?
No it isn’t, I know what I said, and what I meant, but I, like all humans, am fallible, thus I must allow for the possibility I may have been wrong, ipso facto it is not an absolute.
No it isn’t, I already explained this, do you imagine repetition will render your assertions more compelling?
“…both Bethlehem and Nazareth were real places 2,000 years ago, and archaeological evidence supports their existence during the time of Jesus.”
“Archaeologists have found evidence of settlements in the area around Nazareth dating back to the Iron Age (10th–8th centuries BCE).”
"Archaeological evidence, including excavated farms and coins dating to the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and early Roman periods, confirms Nazareth’s existence as a small Jewish village during Jesus’ time. "
Dr Bart Ehrman
1 Like
I mentioned her sex so it would be easier for you to find the course because she is the only female giving a course on the Holy Land. You are obviously not interested in finding the information because it would contradict your bias. Do your own Google search if you are so interested.
Bart is not an Archaeologist. Where did he say that? That is not a citation. You make an absolute statement, then claim it is not an absolute statement. Obviously, you do not know what an absolute statement is. When you make a positive or negative universal statement, that is an absolute statement. That you are always fallible is an absolute statement. Also, a contradiction proves falsehood with logical certainty. It is a logical certainty that God cannot exist.
Clearly, you know nothing about logic, mathematics, philosophy of logic, philosophy of mathematics, epistemology, truth theory, experimental methods in science, history of science, philosophy of science, history of philosophy, the arguments for and against the existence of god, ontology, and psychology.
@GodsArePretend, I’m now concerned you are a
3 Likes
That’s quite the absolute statement…
3 Likes
I never claimed he was, are you going for a record in straw man claims?
Yes it is.
That’s a lie, and you’re a liar, I am done being polite if you are incapable of honest debate. You were warned.
I am fairly confident I do.
Nonsense, my last assertion above, **“I am fairly confident I do” is a positive statement, it is not an absolute statement. This is simply comedy gold now. How deep are you going to dig this pit, just to try and obfuscate from any attempt to justify your original hubris, that it is “100% certain Jesus was fictional”? Or that "it is 100% certain God (you never specified which deity) does not exist.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Indeed it might be, but since I never said always, your dishonesty is manifest, again. However lets assume I were to claim I was always fallible, the statement means I might also be wrong about this, and thus I must allow that I cannot be 100% certain, so again you are wrong, it is a qualifying statement, not an absolute one.
I know what the law of the excluded middle is thank you, and again your sophistry in removing the 100% is manifest. However knowing that either a statement or it’s negation must be true, does not help us know which is the case if it unfalsifiable, and even were we to know this, to claim this makes that truth immutable is epistemological hubris, unless one can predict the future, and claim to know that no further information will ever be forthcoming, is that what you’re claiming here, clairvoyance? Being certain is a matter of degrees, and 100% certainty simply donates a closed mind. I am certain that all living things evolved slowly over time, but it is not an immutable or absolute belief, my certainty cannot be 100%, nor of course can science’s, a point I made, and that you ignored.
Why are you capitalising god, and which deity are you claiming this about? As I said when you offered this risible hyperbole before, please present a syllogism to support your hyperbole. I already asked of course, but perhaps unsurprisingly, you seem intent to repeat your hubristic claims, but not support them.
If it makes you happy to extend your blinkered certainty, to encompass this new raft of claims, feel free to do so. You just sound like any number of religious zealots, who traipse through here claiming to be 100% certain of beliefs they can demonstrate no rational argument, or objective evidence to support.
If you imagine this sort of thinly veiled ad hominem, dents my ego, then this is just one more thing that you are very wrong about.
You seem content not to try and support your claim, quelle surprise.
You also failed to even try and support that claim, if you repeat it and do so without any attempt to evidence it, I shall of course have to call you a liar.
There then is the citation again, for everyone to see you have lied above. It links directly to, and quotes the blog of Dr Bart Ehrman. I think I will trust his expertise, and objectivity on a period of history he has specialised in, over the asinine ignorant hyperbole you are posting.
An open mind simply treats all ideas the same, without prejudice or favour, especially new ideas that challenge existing beliefs. In short if one cannot allow for the possibility that one might be wrong, no matter how implausible that prospect, then one is, by definition closed minded.
In case I am being too subtle here, @GodsArePretend is as closed minded as any religious apologist that I have encountered.
Sigh…I actually did execute a search on the internet based on your assertion that those two cites didn’t exist ~2k years ago. What I found led me to the suggestion that you do the same. You, on the other hand, chose to rely on your non-citation of a video you can’t remember very well as the be-all, end-all support of that faulty assertion.
2 Likes