BluePhantom
Educator (of liberals)
BP said:Precisely...the WOW Signal....if evidence disappears does it become a myth?
Not likely. Most scientists are not very superstitious, and although astronomers use mythological figures to describe stellar associations, they aren't very superstitious, either.
So what would be their scientific basis for professing that the signal happened if there is no longer any physical evidence? According to your position on religion, it exists as myth because of the lack of evidence. Therefore, things can only exist as real so long as physical evidence exists. Without physical evidence of the WOW Signal why does it not become myth where religion does?
I don't "believe" in Socrates. If you are asking me if I believe he existed, my answer is I believe he probably did, but then, I am about as sure of that as any other scholar. I cannot say when it comes to Sun-Tzu, because I don't know enough about that character to come to an educated conclusion, other than to say the Chinese believe he existed in their history.
You you are willing to entertain the idea that Socrates existed and give it a "probably" degree of certainty. So you do believe in the existence of something for which there is no physical evidence, or at least rate it as "probably". Yet when the same amount of evidence is applied to theology, you speak in absolutes, such as 'God does not exist'. This suggests a pretty strong anti-religious bias and yet another self-contradiction. That being, the belief in something is ok, at least to the degree of "probably", as long as it's not God. Thus, by speaking in absolutes, you imply that what is reasonable for others to believe in is dependent upon your personal definitions. This is incredibly narcissistic and egocentric. You clearly think a great deal about yourself.
That is a false equivalence IMO.
We have archaeological evidence for the existence of the ancient Greeks. We don't have evidence that states this was the tomb of Socrates and inside we find his bones. So it is fair to be skeptical that writings ascribed to him might have been penned by someone else. But there is no doubt whatsoever that the society in which Socrates lived most certainly existed. His writings are not the only evidence for the existence of that society.
Compare that to the complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for the existence of God outside of the writings of those who had a vested interest in convincing bronze age people that their religion had the one and only "true God". Self serving and self referencing documents with absolutely zero corroborating evidence is not a fair comparison to the one proposed above for the existence of Socrates.
I respectfully disagree. It's completely applicable. Plato had a vested interest in advancing a philosophy and avoiding persecution and possible death. It makes sense that he could have written his own philosophy and attributed it to Socrates in order to achieve both those goals. All we have to establish Socrates as a historical figure are the second-hand writings of a very few people, mostly Plato. Why is their testimony any more acceptable than the testimony of those who walked with Jesus? Now, keep in mind, I am merely playing Devil's Advocate, here. I imagine Socrates was a historical figure, but that creates no contradiction with me, because I allow for the belief in things for which there is no proof. Now I do say that one must distinguish between "facts" (regarding that which can be demonstrated or proven) and "beliefs" (regarding things which cannot be demonstrated or proven).
The problem Orogen advances is that he is attempting to establish his personal beliefs as facts and he does not seem to apply consistent criteria for what he accepts as probable and improbable . Yet, he is quick to point out to theists that since their beliefs lack evidence, they are nothing more than myth. Hence the contradiction in his positions.
I respectfully disagree. There is no parallel between a "mythical Socrates" and a "mythical Jesus".
The former is portrayed as an ordinary man who had failings. His lessons were recorded by his direct followers and not embellished as "miracles" and no one tried to turn him into a martyr on which to found a religion.
The latter is claimed to be reincarnation of God himself in human form, given powers beyond that of mere mortals and is alleged to have been martyred in order to found a religion that worships a deity. Furthermore the myth of a "son of God" has existed in many other religions that predate Christianity.
So this is a comparison of apples and oranges and as such is not a valid foundation on which to challenge Oregonicman IMO.
Well that depends on who you read though and how you view Jesus. Jesus is depicted differently across the Biblical gospels. In Mark, for example, He is not depicted as God in human form. That only happens in John. Even Paul did not advance Jesus as God incarnate. I don't tend to look at Jesus as being perfect. In fact, I think Jesus fucked up a few times and I can show you where if you are really interested.
BTW...Socrates was killed for his beliefs and teachings. He most certainly was martyred.