The Creation Museum

[Buckeye86]

I think you misunderstand me. Saying a religon has a certain measure of truth like in the example I gave doesn't give the whole religion truth. Nor does that afford adherents to that religon salvation.

Fairy Tales contain certain measures of truth. For instance, if you are a little girl in a red cape walking alone, you shouldn't fuck with wolves.

(In all seriousness, Little Red Riding Hood is a cautionary tale about children talking with strangers, so it certainly contains lessons in it that are truthful and can be used as guidance.)

 

[muffler dragon]

To me, the bible clearly refutes belief in any other religion... quibble with calling other religions fairy tales, but the bible certainly does not accommodate for them.

Point of clarification: The "Old" Testament places no such judgment upon the nations. Gentiles are free to practice as they see fit. Granted, there are some religions that are esteemed due to similarities; however, there's a lot of "live and let live" with regards to how Judaism views other religions.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Your example of Christ rising from the dead is exactly what I mean by a theoretically testable religious claim. Unfortunately we can't go back in time and conduct any scientific studies. Do you believe that miracles are still occurring and if so, could you provide examples that could be tested? As for your claim of "strong evidence", hearsay isn't even allowed in our court system so I'm not sure how you can claim that third party accounts of someone rising from the dead can be considered strong evidence.

I'm still trying to understand how someone can empirically test the claims of one religion vs. another. The Qur'an claims that the Prophet Muhammad performed many miracles with as much certainty as the Bible, what method do you use to determine that the Qur'an is not accurate but the Bible is? The Qur'an has many historical writings and archeological findings that support its claims, why is this kind of evidence acceptable for the Bible but not other holy books?

I think we've established that empiricity isn't the only means of aquiring some degree of certainty of truth. Have we not? Are you're saying it's neither true nor false that Socrates lived since we can't empiricly test it?
Empiriclly prove that Alexander the Great conquered part of the world. If historical documents are considored hearsay than nothing in history is available to have a some degree of certainty of truth.

I think I've already explained how we judge religions, but I will try again,
We look at the claims themselves and try to figure out whether they are believable. First example. Islam claims that Ismael was the son Abraham built an alter with and was thus the child of God's promise, not Isaac. Problem this wasn't even really a known belief until Mohammed at 600 AD. The Jews (and Christians in this case) say wait a minute. The claim was made well over 2,000 years after we have the Jewish tales of the event happening with Isaac. I realize that goes far from proving either event happened, but if take any liklihood that the story of Abraham is true doesn't when the claim was made matter?

On morality. Islam endorses killing those who leave it. Or just killing the infedels in general. I realize not every flavor of Islam endorses this, but hardly any of them will say the other guy is wrong either. I don't know about you but I have a problem with that based on morality as I understand it. (I do realize the Bible, especially the OT has given commands to kill people, but I'm comfortable with the explanation that it was only meant for certain people at certain times, whereas Islam's commands are general and universal.) But even then it's only an example and a tool to be used to compare to the reality we have.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Point of clarification: The "Old" Testament places no such judgment upon the nations. Gentiles are free to practice as they see fit. Granted, there are some religions that are esteemed due to similarities; however, there's a lot of "live and let live" with regards to how Judaism views other religions.

Sometimes I'm just really curious. How does Jonah's trip to Ninevah fit into that? Or Sodom & Gommorrah?

 

[Buckeye86]

We look at the claims themselves and try to figure out whether they are believable.

who comprises this "we" that you speak of?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

who comprises this "we" that you speak of?

Each individual of course.

 

[Buckeye86]

Each individual of course.

each individual from which group of people, Christians? creationists? your family? your church? the entire human race?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

each individual from which group of people, Christians? creationists? your family? your church? the entire human race?

I don't understand what you're getting at. Each individual from all people. I have to strive to figure out the truth as best I can. There's a possibility I've missed it because I'm not omnicient. Being certain doesn't make me right. Being right makes one right.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Gotta side with TScott on the "We" issue.

We all weigh testimonial assertions. In making our determinations we weigh things like credibility, bias, etc.

Unless I've grossly misunderstood TScott, I don't think there was any other point being made in the statement in question.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Gotta side with TScott on the "We" issue.

We all weigh testimonial assertions. In making our determinations we weigh things like credibility, bias, etc.

Unless I've grossly misunderstood TScott, I don't think there was any other point being made in the statement in question.

No, I think you got it. Unless I can't in turn understand you.

Edit: And on another note I've managed to post something that someone else agreed with. I feel like I've accomplished something.

 

[Buckeye86]

Gotta side with TScott on the "We" issue.

We all weigh testimonial assertions. In making our determinations we weigh things like credibility, bias, etc.

Unless I've grossly misunderstood TScott, I don't think there was any other point being made in the statement in question.

Okay, so I will walk through it.

The question was:

I'm still trying to understand how someone can empirically test the claims of one religion vs. another.

The response was:

We look at the claims themselves and try to figure out whether they are believable.

I am just confused why "we" was used rather than "I" in the response.

Some people dismiss religion outright and don't feel the need to examine claims made in religious texts at all. It seems to me that most Christians dismiss other religious views without even looking at the claims being made based entirely on the Bible literally condemning all non-believers.

For this reason, I believe there are multiple ways that people evaluate opposing religious claims beyond what Scott explained. I was seeking clarification about who Scott was lumping in with his evaluation method.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Fair enough. Beyond the scope of the thread, but I think truly dismissing something out of hand is rare. That is to say, we may make "snap" determination re: credibility etc.. but they are determinations nonetheless.

I find the testimonial support for Jesus being the Messiah to be unconvincing. That's just how I weigh it. As time goes on, however, the more I may be read to simply being in the "dismissing it out of hand" side of things. That is - I don't see the need to rehash my position in a case where there has been no other development to that position.

Eh... who cares... let's move on

 

[Buckeye86]

Fair enough. Beyond the scope of the thread, but I think truly dismissing something out of hand is rare. That is to say, we may make "snap" determination re: credibility etc.. but they are determinations nonetheless.

from my experience one is indoctrinated with a certain religious belief from a very early age... much younger than would be ideal to make decisions (even of the 'snap' variety) based on a critical evaluation of the situation... assuming that you had all of the information needed to make an informed decision in the first place, which is almost never the case with kids and religions

children are taught what is right and wrong religiously speaking with almost no leeway for interpretation, once again I go back to the Bible literally condemning non-believers to hell... which (from my experience) people aren't shy about sharing with little children with vivid descriptions of hell and all

in that situation, I believe dismissing other religious beliefs out of hand is not only extremely common, but a reaction that is conditioned from a very early age

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Okay, so I will walk through it.

The question was:



The response was:



I am just confused why "we" was used rather than "I" in the response.

Some people dismiss religion outright and don't feel the need to examine claims made in religious texts at all. It seems to me that most Christians dismiss other religious views without even looking at the claims being made based entirely on the Bible literally condemning all non-believers.

For this reason, I believe there are multiple ways that people evaluate opposing religious claims beyond what Scott explained. I was seeking clarification about who Scott was lumping in with his evaluation method.

I guess I was saying how we probably should evaluate. But as for Christians Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:21:

Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Also by his question he wasn't asking for some standard of evidence that only pertained to me? Why would he? Why then would I use I?

 

[muffler dragon]

Sometimes I'm just really curious. How does Jonah's trip to Ninevah fit into that?

I shouldn't have been so brief in my previous statement. For elaboration, the majority of present-day Judaism promotes the Noachide laws for humantiy. To that end, I believe that Jonah's trip ties into that; however, I can't say for certain as I've never spent that much time on that particular instance. Why Jonah went all the way to Assyria is something I can't answer.

Or Sodom & Gommorrah?

S&G were destroyed because of their hate for their fellow man (which would tie into Noachide laws as well). Additionally, it was in the Holy Land, which I think plays a role in the sense of a theocratic area.