Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Religion, God, and Theology Discussion of God, religion, faith, theology, and spirituality.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-22-2016, 03:41 PM   #51
dynamite22
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 210
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meh View Post
That's a loaded question and depends on what you consider to be miraculous or supernatural. Obviously, there won't be a lot of evidence for things such as Jesus turning water to wine and most other miracles are a matter of faith. But one major one for you would be the flood. Yes, I believe the flood really happened. Evidence is outlined here:

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/question...ood-was-global

Not to mention the numerous other cultures and beliefs that speak of a great flood.

But now we're back to the whole "oh but even if a flood happened, that doesn't mean Noah and his ark were real" or "that doesn't mean it was global" or "that doesn't mean God made it happen" blah blah blah. So the problem is I can provide all the evidence available and non-believers will find any reason, no matter how outlandish or unreasonable, to ignore it. That's why this whole idea of "give me proof of miracles" is an atheist trap. I can tell you all kinds of miracles personally witnessed by a variety of sources but nothing will ever be enough to convince a non-believer of the truth. At least, nothing that I can convey via a poker forum.

And again trying to get back on track, what evidence is there of Scientology?
Since you're mostly into link dropping, here's some arguments from the other side:

https://ncse.com/cej/1/1/fatal-flaws-flood-geology

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

As you correctly attest, 'miracles' personally witnessed by a variety of sources don't hold any credence. The internet is loaded with stories of people describing being abducted by extraterrestrial beings, does that constitute evidence of alien abductions?

Yes, there are more factual statements in the bible corroborated by geographical and archaeological evidence than there are in L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction writings; this does not make the core tenets of christianity any more credible.
dynamite22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2016, 04:18 PM   #52
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,995
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamite22 View Post
Yes, there are more factual statements in the bible corroborated by geographical and archaeological evidence than there are in L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction writings; this does not make the core tenets of christianity any more credible.
I disagree. The fact that there is some level of historicity to the claims of Christianity (compared to the a-historical claims of Scientology) does make Christianity more credible. We may argue about how much more, or maybe about what your statement about "more credible" is actually referencing as the comparison, but it does allow us to easily reject statements like the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamSchwartz View Post
How is it any more outrageous than other religions? They're all equally outlandish.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2016, 06:19 PM   #53
Dr. Meh
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,172
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Csaba View Post
And how big would a flood have to be to be defined as "great"? Two thousand years ago 20 miles away would be considered to be a big distance by some people. It's not hard to see how something like the 2004 tsunami could be viewed as a "great flood" be people living at the time. Add in a couple of thousand years worth of exaggeration and here we are.
Except the accounts aren't limited to one small region. Worldwide, there are a variety of cultures who speak of a great flood.
Dr. Meh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2016, 06:22 PM   #54
Dr. Meh
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,172
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
I disagree. The fact that there is some level of historicity to the claims of Christianity (compared to the a-historical claims of Scientology) does make Christianity more credible. We may argue about how much more, or maybe about what your statement about "more credible" is actually referencing as the comparison, but it does allow us to easily reject statements like the following:
Exactly my point! I was wondering when you were going to jump in this thread and back me up.
Dr. Meh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2016, 07:13 PM   #55
dynamite22
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 210
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
I disagree. The fact that there is some level of historicity to the claims of Christianity (compared to the a-historical claims of Scientology) does make Christianity more credible. We may argue about how much more, or maybe about what your statement about "more credible" is actually referencing as the comparison, but it does allow us to easily reject statements like the following:
I would argue that the credibility of any religion completely depends on the validity of its core tenets. These tenets are divine/supernatural in nature. The evidence for them is nonexistent.

The fact that L. Ron Hubbard sets his stories in outer space millions of years ago while the writers of the bible set their stories in the middle east thousands of years ago does not make it more likely that Christ died to pay our sins than that we are the descendants of humans infected by Xenu's brainwashed alien ghosts.

What IS more unlikely than Christ having died to pay our sins is that Christ died to pay our sins and then came back to Missouri to tell Joseph Smith that poygamy was a-ok
dynamite22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2016, 08:26 PM   #56
Louis Cyphre
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Louis Cyphre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Porada Ninfu, Lampukistan
Posts: 9,698
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meh View Post
Except the accounts aren't limited to one small region. Worldwide, there are a variety of cultures who speak of a great flood.
Why is it remarkable that different cultures have stories about a great flood? Wherever there is water there is the occasional flood. Some are bigger than ours.
Louis Cyphre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2016, 08:41 PM   #57
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,995
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamite22 View Post
I would argue that the credibility of any religion completely depends on the validity of its core tenets. These tenets are divine/supernatural in nature. The evidence for them is nonexistent.

The fact that L. Ron Hubbard sets his stories in outer space millions of years ago while the writers of the bible set their stories in the middle east thousands of years ago does not make it more likely that Christ died to pay our sins than that we are the descendants of humans infected by Xenu's brainwashed alien ghosts.

What IS more unlikely than Christ having died to pay our sins is that Christ died to pay our sins and then came back to Missouri to tell Joseph Smith that poygamy was a-ok
You seem to contradict yourself in your third paragraph. You're claiming that 0*0 < 0. You might want to rethink your position.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2016, 08:48 PM   #58
Dr. Meh
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,172
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamite22 View Post
I would argue that the credibility of any religion completely depends on the validity of its core tenets. These tenets are divine/supernatural in nature. The evidence for them is nonexistent.

The fact that L. Ron Hubbard sets his stories in outer space millions of years ago while the writers of the bible set their stories in the middle east thousands of years ago does not make it more likely that Christ died to pay our sins than that we are the descendants of humans infected by Xenu's brainwashed alien ghosts.

What IS more unlikely than Christ having died to pay our sins is that Christ died to pay our sins and then came back to Missouri to tell Joseph Smith that poygamy was a-ok
You're looking for natural evidence of the supernatural. That's like asking someone to show you what ultraviolet color looks like.
Dr. Meh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2016, 08:57 PM   #59
Dr. Meh
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,172
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre View Post
Why is it remarkable that different cultures have stories about a great flood? Wherever there is water there is the occasional flood. Some are bigger than ours.
But now you're discounting historical accounts of a number of cultures that discuss a great flood as them all just experiencing little floods and exaggerating them. At some point, fishing for any outlandish excuse to explain away evidence of a much larger phenomenon just becomes tedious. Either the Bible is the greatest, most coordinated hoax ever performed on people and used multiple sources from around the world and across generations to fool everyone or it has merit. Every attempt at "rational" explanation, when taken as a whole, is preposterous.
Dr. Meh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2016, 10:29 PM   #60
Louis Cyphre
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Louis Cyphre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Porada Ninfu, Lampukistan
Posts: 9,698
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre View Post
Why is it remarkable that different cultures have stories about a great flood? Wherever there is water there is the occasional flood. Some are bigger than others.
FMP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meh View Post
But now you're discounting historical accounts of a number of cultures that discuss a great flood as them all just experiencing little floods and exaggerating them. At some point, fishing for any outlandish excuse to explain away evidence of a much larger phenomenon just becomes tedious. Either the Bible is the greatest, most coordinated hoax ever performed on people and used multiple sources from around the world and across generations to fool everyone or it has merit. Every attempt at "rational" explanation, when taken as a whole, is preposterous.
I never said the bolded.

---

do you apply the same standard of evidence to all religions?
Louis Cyphre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2016, 11:24 PM   #61
Dr. Meh
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,172
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre View Post
FMP



I never said the bolded.

---

do you apply the same standard of evidence to all religions?
Not sure where you're going with this but if it's where I think you're going, you're putting too much on my archeological posts. I'm not saying the reason I believe in the Bible is archeological evidence. I'm saying that having archeological evidence adds more credence than a religion that has none such as Scientology.

But maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're asking in which case, can you clarify your question a bit?
Dr. Meh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 12:11 AM   #62
tame_deuces
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tame_deuces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,117
Re: Scientology

I'm sure Scientology has plenty of evidence. You can't go around making religions without evidence. Acceptable forms of evidence and their quality is the gist of the discussion.

Historicity of related events and places is very poor evidence of religion. I can point to plenty of very high quality evidence that ancient Rome existed, but that doesn't make the myth of Romulus and Remus believable. Sure, you might argue that its better than a story of a city with no evidence - but the difference is extremely marginal.
tame_deuces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 12:16 AM   #63
carlo
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,455
Re: Scientology

This is an old thread about the flood/dna :

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...rsity-1406838/

Flood stories:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
carlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 02:56 AM   #64
dynamite22
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 210
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meh View Post
You're looking for natural evidence of the supernatural. That's like asking someone to show you what ultraviolet color looks like.
We can detect UV light, measure, its intensity, determine its effect on skin/eyes/etc. On the basis of evidence we conclude that light beyond what the human eye can detect exists. Evidence also indicates that other species CAN detect UV light. To humans, it does not have a color. That does not mean it does not exist.

Your attempt to defend the occurrence of the biblical flood (a miracle, a supernatural event) was based on archaeological/geological evidence, was it not? I'm not asking for natural evidence specifically but ANY evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If you're just going to play the faith card then why even have this discussion?
dynamite22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 03:01 AM   #65
dynamite22
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 210
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
You seem to contradict yourself in your third paragraph. You're claiming that 0*0 < 0. You might want to rethink your position.
I never said the probability is zero. I said the evidence is nonexistent.
I'll quote Sam Harris here:

Quote:
Mormons are committed to believing nearly all the implausible things that Christians believe plus many additional implausible things. It is mathematically true to say that whatever probability one assigns to Jesus’ returning to earth to judge the living and the dead, one must assign a lesser probability to his doing so from Jackson County, Missouri.
dynamite22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 03:23 AM   #66
dynamite22
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 210
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meh View Post
But now you're discounting historical accounts of a number of cultures that discuss a great flood as them all just experiencing little floods and exaggerating them. At some point, fishing for any outlandish excuse to explain away evidence of a much larger phenomenon just becomes tedious. Either the Bible is the greatest, most coordinated hoax ever performed on people and used multiple sources from around the world and across generations to fool everyone or it has merit. Every attempt at "rational" explanation, when taken as a whole, is preposterous.
Zoroastrism has a similar creation myth as judaism and christianity.
The epic of Gilgamesh has elements similar to the garden of Eden story.
The notion of the trinity also features in different pagan religions predating christianity.

Did you play that game as a kid where you sit in a circle and tell something in the next kid's ear, and on? Imagine this game being played for centuries by ignorant desert-dwelling tribes....
dynamite22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 03:30 AM   #67
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,995
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamite22 View Post
I never said the probability is zero. I said the evidence is nonexistent.
That doesn't work. I claimed that a historical basis increases the probability of the central tenets being true. You rejected this and asserted that since the evidence for such claims is nonexistent, that they must have the same probability of being true.

But then you went further and claimed that some such tenets are less probable than other tenets.

What's going on here is that you're making a false assertion in the first case. I certainly agree with the concepts of conditional probability. (At some point, you may discover the irony of trying to lecture me on that.) But simply brushing over things and saying "the evidence is nonexistent" and implicitly concluding that both are equally probable (or improbable) is simply an error of reasoning and logic.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 04:23 AM   #68
dynamite22
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 210
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
That doesn't work. I claimed that a historical basis increases the probability of the central tenets being true. You rejected this and asserted that since the evidence for such claims is nonexistent, that they must have the same probability of being true.

But then you went further and claimed that some such tenets are less probable than other tenets.

What's going on here is that you're making a false assertion in the first case. I certainly agree with the concepts of conditional probability. (At some point, you may discover the irony of trying to lecture me on that.) But simply brushing over things and saying "the evidence is nonexistent" and implicitly concluding that both are equally probable (or improbable) is simply an error of reasoning and logic.
My basis for rejecting the assertion that a historical basis increases the probability of the central tenets is that these tenets are supernatural.
I agree that the probability that Jesus died on the cross is magnitudes higher than scientology's fairy tales. The resurrection part, not so much.
dynamite22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 04:50 AM   #69
Inzaghi
journeyman
 
Inzaghi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 211
Re: Scientology

Or try this angle:

The prior probability (of the Christian story being true) is so small that, even when you revise your probability estimate (upwards) to incorporate the supporting snippets of archaeological evidence, the revised probability, though larger, is still tiny.
Inzaghi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 05:35 AM   #70
neeeel
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,478
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meh View Post
You're looking for natural evidence of the supernatural. That's like asking someone to show you what ultraviolet color looks like.
So you are saying that you have no evidence for your belief?
neeeel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 06:37 AM   #71
Dr. Meh
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,172
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamite22 View Post
We can detect UV light, measure, its intensity, determine its effect on skin/eyes/etc. On the basis of evidence we conclude that light beyond what the human eye can detect exists. Evidence also indicates that other species CAN detect UV light. To humans, it does not have a color. That does not mean it does not exist.

Your attempt to defend the occurrence of the biblical flood (a miracle, a supernatural event) was based on archaeological/geological evidence, was it not? I'm not asking for natural evidence specifically but ANY evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If you're just going to play the faith card then why even have this discussion?
If you're just going to write off the faith card why have the discussion?

More importantly, my point of UV light went way over your head. I wasn't making the claim it doesn't exist. I'm saying, as you said, just because we as humans can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yet to you, if you can't see God, he must not exist. Do you see the issue there?
Dr. Meh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 06:58 AM   #72
Dr. Meh
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,172
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel View Post
So you are saying that you have no evidence for your belief?
No, I'm saying you're not asking the right questions. And you're doing it intentionally. Which is why I normally don't bother engaging in these types of discussions.
Dr. Meh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 07:09 AM   #73
dynamite22
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 210
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meh View Post
If you're just going to write off the faith card why have the discussion?

More importantly, my point of UV light went way over your head. I wasn't making the claim it doesn't exist. I'm saying, as you said, just because we as humans can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yet to you, if you can't see God, he must not exist. Do you see the issue there?
The faith card is what people like you play when they have no evidence whatsoever. For people who don't think your precious book is magical this has zero credence. We're interested in evidence-based reasoning.

Please quote where I said that God must not exist. What I said is that there is NO evidence that God does exist. What makes the existence of your God more probable than Russell's teapot or the invisible pink unicorn?
dynamite22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 07:29 AM   #74
Dr. Meh
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,172
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamite22 View Post
The faith card is what people like you play when they have no evidence whatsoever. For people who don't think your precious book is magical this has zero credence. We're interested in evidence-based reasoning.

Please quote where I said that God must not exist. What I said is that there is NO evidence that God does exist. What makes the existence of your God more probable than Russell's teapot or the invisible pink unicorn?
Also why I don't engage in discussions with people like you. You insult someone's deepest held beliefs and have no genuine interest in learning anything. I provided you with various links which you choose to ignore and yet you claim you want evidence. When provided with resources to said evidence, you ignore it and hurl insults. Typical.

If you ever have genuine interest or desire to learn, take a look at the mathematical odds of everything being created by chance and supporting life. But I'm guessing math isn't adequate evidence for you, either. Especially when the truth is you don't care to look at the evidence.

Once the insults start flying, I bow out. I hope someday you have genuine interest in learning about the Bible.
Dr. Meh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2016, 07:57 AM   #75
dynamite22
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 210
Re: Scientology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meh View Post
Also why I don't engage in discussions with people like you. You insult someone's deepest held beliefs and have no genuine interest in learning anything. I provided you with various links which you choose to ignore and yet you claim you want evidence. When provided with resources to said evidence, you ignore it and hurl insults. Typical.

If you ever have genuine interest or desire to learn, take a look at the mathematical odds of everything being created by chance and supporting life. But I'm guessing math isn't adequate evidence for you, either. Especially when the truth is you don't care to look at the evidence.

Once the insults start flying, I bow out. I hope someday you have genuine interest in learning about the Bible.
oh the irony
I did not ignore your evidence, I argued that it is not positive evidence for the existence of a divine being.
As for the 'mathematical odds of everything being created by chance', seriously????
dynamite22 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online