Gospel Disproof #10: Rigged score-keeping

[cleanhippie]

Suppose you start flipping a coin and keeping track of the results. What are the odds against getting heads 100 times in a row? Normally pretty high, right? But with a simple technique, the odds go way down. In fact, if you apply this trick consistently, you can virtually guarantee success every time. Know how? It’s easy: every time it comes up tails, you just say, “That one doesn’t count.” By only counting the ones that come up heads, you can get as many in a row as you like.

Rigged score-keeping is a big part of Christian apologetics. You want proof that God answers prayer? Here, let me show you my scars: I was in a terrible accident and the doctors said I had only a 4% chance of survival, but my family prayed for me and here I am today. Well, that’s all well and good for you and the other three people who survive similar injuries, but what about the 96 that didn’t survive, despite their families’ prayers? Those don’t count. You only count the ones that come up heads.

Rigged score-keeping is a major part of Christian interpretation of prophecy. Take a closer look at any so-called “fulfilled” prophecy, and you’ll find rigged score-keeping. For example, Isaiah 7:14 says, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Christians claim this is a prediction of the (alleged) virgin birth of Jesus. But Mary didn’t call her son’s name “Immanuel,” she called him “Jesus.” Fail? Not according to believers. The only part that really counts is the part that seems to fit the fulfillment; any prophetic failure is automatically disqualified. You only count the heads.

Rigged score-keeping is usually accompanied by some form of rationalization. For example, believers will use the excuse that the Bible did not fail, we just misinterpreted it. Thus, when the Bible says “she shall call his NAME Immanuel,” ho ho, silly skeptic, that does not mean the Bible is predicting the actual NAME she would give him. Immanuel (our trusty footnotes tell us) is a name that means “God with us,” so when the text predicted that she would call his name Immanuel, what it really meant was that Jesus is God incarnate.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2011/11/05/gospel-disproof-10-rigged-score-keeping/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

[edhopper]

1. We had someone

on this forum that said they believe in God because their mother went into remission from cancer after they prayed. While we are happy she got better, the logical leap that God answered their prays is evidence of the irrationality of their belief.

[cleanhippie]

3. Well, some here would say that that is just one of those "other ways of knowing."

:shrug:

[humblebum]

6. And others would call it an atheist honing his anti-christian skills.

I have every reason to believe that she did call his name Immanuel and so do many others. Just another example of an atheist trying to control thought and speech. Very common. What are the odds of that?

[cleanhippie]

7. Pavlov confirmed!

[humblebum]

8. So you are just honing your anti-Christian skill? At least you

admit it. I wonder what the odds of any post you present being an anti-Christian post? Let's see.

[cleanhippie]

9. .

[humblebum]

10. Well, by golly, you were able to lessen those odds. nt

[cleanhippie]

11. .

[Bluenorthwest]

12. What are your reasons for that belife?

The NT does not say he was named Immanuel, yet you have 'every reason'. What reasons?

[cleanhippie]

13. It's the "other way of knowing" that is being used.

Why is that so hard to grasp? There are "other ways of knowing" and if you don't understand them, you are just a close-minded militant atheist.


Or so I have been told...

[humblebum]

15. These "other ways of knowing" you are so fond of, and that have discussed

here countless times are generally referred to in academic circles simply as "Ways of Knowing" or even "WoK." There are entire courses on the subject. Investigate. You might learn something.

[cleanhippie]

17. we often hear the claim that “there are different ways of knowing!”

http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/different-ways-of-knowing/

In discussions with religious apologists we often hear the claim that “there are different ways of knowing!” This is often used as a counter to science. It amounts to claiming knowledge which is not based on evidence and not testable against reality.In many cases it’s a defensive argument, a retreat. It’s claiming a logic or justification for the theist belief without allowing the normal checking that should go with knowledge claims. That’s OK - if it is just personal justification. We all do that from time to time.

However, sometimes religious apologists will go on the offensive with this argument. They use it to justify a knowledge claim that conflicts with scientific knowledge. In fact, they will use it to claim they have access to knowledge which is more reliable than scientific knowledge.

[humblebum]

18. So you are an atheist using atheist quotations about WoK instead of

investigating for yourself. Isn't that called dogmatic? I have yet to see how most other ways of knowing contradict science. The philosophy of Science, or "Scientific philosophy" a.k.a. "Logical Positivism" is only one WoK and is used on a regular basis by religious people working in various fields of science everywhere.

[cleanhippie]

19. The appeal to other ways of knowing

Here is another fallacious argument skeptics will have heard:

There are ways of knowing other than the scientific one

or

The scientific method is not the only source of truth

..or similar wording. It is an appeal to other ways of knowing apart from science. The claim is that the tools of critical thinking and science are not sufficient to evaluate the believer’s claim; therefore the believer's claim has validity despite the lack of evidence for it.

The flaw in the argument

No one is claiming that science has all the answers or is always right. However, science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. If the believer is claiming that there is a better method, it is up to him or her to justify that claim. To demonstrate this, believers need to explain their better method for evaluating claims, and provide evidence that it is indeed a better method. If they cannot do this their appeal to other ways of knowing is vacuous and fallacious.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_o.html

[humblebum]

20. Again, you are using atheist claims. Appeal to authority? I think so.

"science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works." - I totally agree with that statement. That, in no way conflicts with the use of other logical ways of knowing.

[cleanhippie]

21. *sigh*

:banghead:

[humblebum]

22. I feel the same way. nt

[cleanhippie]

24. Here is a challenge for you, humblebum, if you are up to it.

I do not take your claims of "other ways of knowing" seriously because the whole idea seems absurd to me. Make me take the idea, and you, seriously by providing me with just one example of where one of these "other ways of knowing" has produced a single piece of knowledge that is commonly accepted as "true" that logical, empirical, rational thought has not.

Just one. Can you do it?

[humblebum]

25. Other ways of knowing is a term for a very broad array of reasoning.

They are used everyday in a variety of ways. In court room, for example, subjective evidence is used when there is no objective proof. These other ways of knowing can be applied to such a diverse group of topics as literature to psychology, to architecture. They are different epistemologies. A few are Experiential knowledge, Propositional knowledge, Presentational knowledge, Practical knowledge, etc.

These things have been discussed here many times. And there have been many names used. But, just because you don't understand them, does not mean that they are not useful or that they don't exist.

[cleanhippie]

32. I see that you are just going to continue to obfuscate, so you cannot be taken seriously.

Just one example. A single one. Thats all I asked for.

And. You. Cannot. Do. It.






Can't.





Do.





It.

[humblebum]

33. What? Are you blind? Does someone have to take you by the

hand and place it right on the thing that is right in front of you for you to notice it's even there? I know - If you can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or touch it - it doesn't exist. Right. If you want to ridicule people who reason and think beyond that paradigm - fine. But, while you are doing that, we will be pitying you.

[cleanhippie]

34. Just One Example, thats all I asked for, and you cannot provide it.

:rofl:

[humblebum]

14. If Immanuel is translated as " God is with us", then Jesus was indeed

referred to as that - God incarnate in the NT. Isaiah also said about "his name" - "and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 9:6"

[Kurmudgeon]

23. Freedom of religion means putting up with other people's choices

cleanhippie is just doing his incessant attacks on faith thing.
You've to have a lot of inherent intolerance to go on and on like that.

[exboyfil]

2. I give another example

Knowing the prophecy in advance helps you in satisfying it. Consider for example the Palm Sunday entry riding a foal. He sent his disciples out to get that foal.

[Deep13]

5. Right. Plus how hard is it to write a new book as an answer to an old book?

What Christians call the fulfillment of prophecy, I call a sequel.

[Deep13]

4. Wasn't the Isaiah prophecy resolved in Isaiah?

It's been awhile since I looked at it.

Rec. to zero. I wonder if those reflexively unrecc'ing anything that challenges their apparently fragile faith would care to post a reasonable counter argument. I mean one that doesn't accuse us of bigotry simply for noticing the logical flaws in their claims.

[humblebum]

16. And just what was the Isaiah prophecy? nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Luke was quoting Isaiah out of context

If you read the whole passage around the "Behold a virgin shall conceive" verse (and it's not actually a virgin in Hebrew, but a young woman, but it was mistranslated into Greek), it's clear that it's not talking about a distant future but about something that is going to happen in the prophet's lifetime:

<13>And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
<14> Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
<15> Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
<16> For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

[humblebum]

27. Certainly appears to be referring to a future event to me.

"the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." Both the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom fell before Jesus was born. And to say that anything is clear is ridiculous. It appears that the term "virgin" in both Greek and Hebrew can mean maiden, which is a young woman, and also a virgin. A hebrew maiden was considered a virgin. After intercourse, she was no longer considered a maiden.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. Right, a future event, but not as far in the future as the time of Jesus n/t

I don't have the exact dates, but I do know that both Judah and Israel were conquered by others centuries before Judea became a Roman province.

[humblebum]

31. The Northern kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC and

the Southern kingdom of Judah was destroyed by Nebacanezer and the Babylonians in 586 BC. That ended the rule of the 12 tribes and the Kings of Israel. The tribes never again had control.

[MarkCharles]

28. I had never thought of the thinking of religious Christians this way before, but..

it is very true, they pick the random wonderful events cures, people saved from almost certain death, reunions of abducted children to their parents, guns of shooters that didn't go off on their intended victims, etc. They think of these things as having something to do with a guy in the sky, and it reinforces their belief system. But when bad things happen to good or bad people, it's just NOT related to a guy in the sky, it's just stuff that happens.

They only count certain cherry-picked events. The rest, the unexplained bad things, well, too bad, they don't take those into consideration.

Go figure!

[NMMNG]

30. Enumeration of Favorable Circumstances

Hits are remembered more frequently than misses. When misses are acknowledged they're dismissed.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

35. There are no Frost Giants around...hence I'm right and Thor is doing his job

I like this game.