Who Wrote The Gospels?

[headinhands]

"Matthew contains 606 of Markâ??s 661 verses. Luke contains 320 of Markâ??s 661 verses. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce, Luke reproduces 31; therefore there are only 24 verses in all of Mark not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke."

A good diagram here

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believable

If someone is capable if believing it is believable. Added to which in the English language, usage is 'king', meanings are not absolute, they can evolve and change over time, as David Crystal would argue we have a 'living' language.

I believe my usage of the word 'believable' is consistent with the definition above...

^of. Typo.

people chose wether to worship idols?

Okay firstly what would it matter if, as you said earlier other beliefs would be true for the people holding them

And to that person worshiping that idol, that's their Jesus or Yahweh. They chose it because they believed it to be true. They had as much reason to believe it to be the true god as you do yours and god knew this.

This is why I like facts. It's the best and only way we have of determining what is actually real.

head that personal truth may not be a very healthy or freeing one IMO depending in the belief. In warrior type cultural belief for example they want to live fighting, die fighting and continue to fight on in the after life, it is seen as desirable.

I did say that apart from my Christian belief, I would be relativist or Post Modern in my thinking. I think patterns belief can actually change people's perceptions on a physiological level. (See psychology article posted earlier in this thread).

So establishing facts is a really moot point for me.

establishing facts

In the areas of your life that matter you're pretty much as concerned with, and swayed by facts as I am, and of that I'm certain.

"I believe my usage of the word 'believable' is consistent with the definition above..."

No, it's not.

From that link:
Believable = capable of being believed especially as within the range of known possibility or probability.

So 'believable' isn't anything that at least 1 person believes in somewhere in the world, like Flat Earth. It means something that can be believed within the range of known possibility or probability.

Again, from your link:
Synonyms: Credible, creditable, likely, plausible, presumptive, probable.

Do we really have to do this? I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about, but can't admit that I'm right. We can go on for a hundred posts on this if you like, or you can accept that some people have beliefs that are not what anyone with sufficient knowledge and a clear rational mind would call 'believable'.

head Cote of course I know what both of you are talking about, however both are subjective to human interpretation / usage which renders the resulting conclusion not absolute enough for me to agree with absolutely.

I did say that apart from my Christian belief I get too caught up in relativism and Post Modernism, which is not an easy way to live. I can infuriate myself with it. This is part of the reason I cling onto Christian belief, it allows for some rest at least. Christian belief recognises the need for Faith, because without absolutely conclusive evidence this is all that is left.

"Christian belief recognises the need for Faith, because without absolutely conclusive evidence this is all that is left"

You seem to be saying that Christianity agrees with me that its mythology is not believable without suspension of disbelief self-hypnosis faith.

"both are subjective to human interpretation / usage "

I bet you would like that to be true. It's not, though. "Believable" already has a meaning and you cannot define it as "whatever at least one person believes".

As I said many times before, if that were the definition of 'believable', you could say "Earth is flat" and "Earth is 4000 years old" as believable statements.

A friend was saying the other night that she believed until recently that the moon gave off its own light. Now, do you think "The moon is a start that makes its own light" a believable statement? It should be, if we go by your incorrect definition of 'believable' that you continue to insist on.

I'm entirely with Cote and head on believable. It does not mean 'believed by somebody, somewhere', cap, which is what your definition amounts to. But I think you know that.

All depends on how absolute you believe language to be really...

Our language is fluid, it's meaning 'organic'. It evolves and changes with usage. Just study etymology to see this.

It's why scientists use Latin (dead language) and have Glossaries of terms, why people have a Professional language.

It's why others prefer maths. Although I say maths is just another language, but we won't get into that one!

Regarding my interpretation of believable I would say the literal meaning concerns capability in terms of being believed, but you are welcome to believe otherwise. I do not regard an assertion's capability (of being believed) as requiring consensus, that is all.

Regarding consensus though, a lot of people hold Christian beliefs. A non believable belief, seems like an oxymoron to me...

You're correct though, Cote, in one respect, Christians do require Faith.

Capsium, I know what you mean about language, but consider this. By your definition someone could say "it's quite believable that my teapot is secretly running the country" and you would have to agree that it was indeed believable.

Even without the dictionary I'm pretty sure that when people use the word 'believable' they don't mean that.

In fact if that were the normal usage of believable then the word itself would be completely redundant. There'd be no situation in which you needed to say that a particular claim was believable because all claims would be.

The word believable IMO refers to personal capability in terms of belief rather than an intrinsic quality present in the assertion. From a personal perspective believability might be dependent on all sorts of factors.

Believability is not an absolute quality. There can be scale present, some things might be more or less believable than others, but again this scale is unique to the individual IMO.

IMO all claims that are genuinely believed are believable. I do not think generalisations in terms of belief are valid.

Otherwise, if what I say is false, there are lots of non believable beliefs existing in the world today - an impossibility.

Try saying out loud (don't let anyone nearby hear you) "it's believable that back's teapot is running the country" and see how it sounds to you :)

and "non believable beliefs" is not a paradox. That just means there are lots of people who believe things without thinking about them.

Your amazing teapot though Back is not believable to me, although it might be to you and I would respect that, so would view it as something that can be considered believable from your perspective.

To live with the diverse nature there is in this world, regarding perception, I think we have to.

Earlier I referred to an article crescentmoon had posted regarding perception.

www.psmag.com/magazines/magazine-feature-story-magazines/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

I think you have to remember differences in perception between individuals and societies. Epistemic humility is worth remembering IMO.

That's interesting stuff and I'm still reading it. But while we know that people perceive things somewhat differently there is only one reality. A chair in the middle of an empty room can look large, small, pretty or ugly to each of a group of test subjects, but blindfold them and they will all trip over it, as it is equally 'there' for them all.

In matters of opinion we should be flexible and polite about the perceptions of others, but we shouldn't lose sight of reality and opinion isn't always harmless.

If someone believed that crocodiles were gentle creatures that might be their business, but if they started inviting the neighbourhood kids to "come and cuddle a crocodile" then you'd have to tell them they were wrong and stop them. If they believed that air was thick enough to walk on you'd stop them stepping out of a window.

But I'm doing none of the more outrageous things you are suggesting Back, all I doing is holding onto my Christian beliefs. Beliefs which many others value and hold onto too.

Of course I know there is reality, truth, regardless of people's perceptions of it. What I am advocating is just respect and humility. We cannot say our own human perceptions of reality are better than another persons, for sure, unless we can prove, without a doubt, their perceptions are leading them to do harm.

I agree opinions do have the potential to be harmful. Fully appreciating this potential, though, is a moot point, whilst they are still opinions. In this country religious belief is not regarded as harmful, people are allowed to hold religious beliefs.

capsium - I'm sorry but you really are not making any sense.

"We cannot say our own human perceptions of reality are better than another persons, for sure, unless we can prove, without a doubt, their perceptions are leading them to do harm. "

Harm has nothing to do with it.

Objective reality does exist. And if you say something that is totally against this provable objective reality, we can very easily say you are wrong, regardless of whether or not this error is leading you to 'harm'.

I am happy to respect other people's opinion on matters of opinion - like, what is the best colour, which food tastes yummy etc. We are each different and like different things.

I won't respect blatantly wrong stuff on matters of objective reality, however you try to redefine concepts, saying English is a living language so we can all understand words differently The Earth is not flat. It is not 4000 years old. Humans have not just appeared from nowhere ('created in God's image') - there are clear paths of evolution between early humanoids and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Anyone who espouses those and similar shockingly wrong beliefs should not expect "respect and humility" just because they are hiding under the banner of 'religion' but prepare themselves for ridicule.

Cote I think you might me misunderstanding me. No where have I said objective reality does not exist. I am just questioning human kind's ability to be absolutely objective, due to the diversity present in human perception.

It is your own choice whether to regard people and their individual beliefs with respect and humility. I like to think doing so allows for greater compassion and empathy. This is the best starting point IMO for true dialogue to occur.

^be misunderstanding...Typo.

....oh and I'm not easily shocked.

"I am just questioning human kind's ability to be absolutely objective"

The astronaut taking the Earth's picture (showing it to be round) is absolutely objective. The camera he uses is absolutely objective. The picture that results is absolutely objective. Therefore it is entirely possible to be absolutely objective in saying that Flat Earthers are completely wrong and that their belief is not believable.

The scientist dating dinosaur bones and finding them to be millions of years old is absolutely objective. The radioactive dating isotope he uses is absolutely objective. The result is absolutely objective. Therefore it is entirely possible to be absolutely objective while ridiculing the belief of "The Earth is only 4000 years old because the Bible tells me so" which is of course not believable.

My 8-year-old DD could understand the above. It is astonishing that you are incapable or unwilling to do so.

Cote I am not arguing the earth is flat, don't know where you got that idea. Yes data is objective, providing the equipment is working correctly. It is our interpretation of it which can vary.

Dating techniques are think are more of a grey area and are not 100% reliably interpretable. I am not certain about the way people claim they are able to interpret dates in the Bible is completely accurate, either. Both would require a great deal of extra study for me, so I remain open minded, which means I do not really hold a firm opinion.

However this does not mean I regard certain views concerning these subjects as unbelievable. From that other perspective, if you put yourselves entirely in their shoes, their views are believable because they believe them.

If you have additional information, I do not think ridicule is particularly helpful either, in this case scenario, if they do genuinely hold what you consider to be outrageous beliefs. It does not help them to learn, only informs them that you have a low opinion of them. Just present the additional information for them to either accept, reject or question.

Yes, sometimes, if we consider a belief to be extremely harmful we must speak out very passionately against it. However often, I do not think the context is urgent enough, to express such high emotion or scorn.