|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2002 : 11:04:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Allow me to point out that although the Greek, Roman, and Norse pantheon were quite similar, none of these were the result of any State-driven conspiracy. The similarity of Mirthra and Dionysus is circumstantial evidence at best.
And remember what happened when Amenhotep IV tried to BS his own monotheistic religion and impose it on his people? Right after he died, they all went back to worshipping their old gods. The same thing should have happend with Christianity, had it been a government-created religion.
Anyways, what is simpler: That Jesus was a real person and founded his own religion OR that the entire religion and its founder were manufuctured as part of some Byzantine government conspiracy? Obviously someone hasn't been shaving with Ockham's Razor lately.
(Full text of the quote added by C. Org)
That is a misapplication of Occam's Razor, e.g.,:quote:
Here it is important to point out that nowhere does he assert that the simpler explanation is always more correct or that the more complex explanation is always less correct. Had he done so, he would have been mistaken and remembered quite differently. The point is to start from the simplest possible explanation and only make it more complex when absolutely necessary.
- see Occam's Razor
The simplest of all propositions is God Did It.
(emphasis added by C. Org)
From yr own reference, ReasonablyDoubtful, one reads:quote:
There is one thing for which Ockham is well known and remembered - his so-called "razor." What is his razor? It is a logical tool he used to cut absurdities out of arguments and philosophical systems. According to Ockham, the simpler an explanation is, the more preferable it ultimately is. In other words, if it is not necessary to introduce certain complexities or hypotheticals into a situation or explanation, then don't do it. Just say No. Not only would the result be less elegant and convincing, but it would also likely be less correct.
We do, after all, live in the 20th and 21st Centuries and, to me, it makes sense to use the methods of proof of these modern times.
Why hash logical premises as if we were students in a logic class using Quine as our text? ("Been there; done that;" albeit, 40 years ago.)
Why dredge out obscure and arcane references (--or the lack thereof--) and base our proof of existence or, perhaps, proof of nonextistence as if we were students under Aquinas or Origen?
Why not just use observational techniques evolved over the past several centuries and say: Huge numbers of humans adhere to religious beliefs (--many who are not a part of any formal religion--) based on the teachings brought by one man--Jesus? Proof enough! Q.E.D.!! (--So it seems to me, anyway.)
Biologists do that. Physicists do it that way. Sociologists, too. Even some Chemists and Mathematicians conclude proofs that way. An entire field has evolved which reaches inferences (--Statistics--) through such a posteriori observational methods. (Occam would probably be well-pleased with the simplicity of Modern Inferencial Techniques and Proofs. 
Today there is huge, widespread belief in the actual, historical existence and teachings of Jesus. What non-existent entity/person in known religious or philosophical history has withstood that level of a "test of time": 1,500-2000 years??
_________________________________
As to some of Slater's contentions: Contrasted to what Jesus himself is recorded as saying (in the Gospels) about wealthy clergy, I again quote from ReasonablyDubious' referenced article on Occam:quote:
The question about whether or not the church should be poor is an issue which still creates controversy today. A leading contender to succeed Pope John Paul II insists that while poverty may be a virtue, it is not a virtue for the church itself. Cardinal Giacomo Biffi said Catholics should follow Christ's example of poverty by donating all their wealth to the church, which should, in turn, be rich.
Ah yes. Formalized churchs and religions--always out for more loot and power. How different are nearly all modern religions supposedly based on Jesus from the actual (--as recorded in the Gospels--) teachings of Jesus himself!
Teachings so simple; so few; but, oh, so revolutionary!!
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
| Edited by - Computer Org on 12/12/2002 11:34:46 |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 11:16:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Huge, widespread belief in the actual, historical existence and teachings of Jesus. What non-existent entity/person in known history has withstood the that level of a test of time: 1,500-2000 years??
Your juvenile ad hominems aside, this argument works equally well for the belief in ghosts, astrology, and Hinduism. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 11:17:10 [Permalink]
|
From Ketisbios: quote:
What primary, contemporary (not a generation later) sources are there to support the existence of a historical Jesus? What traces did a preacher who, according to the later official story achieved considerable celebrity in his life and ended up executed as a criminal leave in the record of his day?
As I pointed out earlier kb the NT claims to have been written by both EYEWITNESSES or people who heard them(1st Jn.1:1-3,2nd Peter 1:16Luke 1:1-4,Acts2:22,32) many of them gave their testimony in front of hostile witness who would have loved to contridict their testimony,but they didn't.The reason I brought up Josephus and Tacitus was in response to TD's request for info on Jesus outside the NT.His attempt at refuting those sources should be evidence itself as to how dogmatically blind the Christ-Myther will distort evidence to the contrary(ie on the Josephus quote he attacks a passage in his Antiquities 18.63-64 I quoted 20.200,whats worse for him is his unnamed source also refers to 20.200" quote:
But here's a nice summary as to why Josephus is unreliable, just for you, DA:
From "Biblical Errancy", Issue 32, August 1985:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) Josephus nowhere else mentioned the word Christ in any of his works, except in reference to James, Jesus' brother (Antiquities, Book 20, Chp. 9,1). [this is the reference I posted]
hows that for seeing only what you want to see?)His attempt to refute Tacitus is likewise self destroying,what source does he give that informs us as to how Tacitus received his information on Jesus?TD is grasping at straws and constructing a theory in der luft. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 12/12/2002 11:21:15 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 11:39:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
As I pointed out earlier kb the NT claims to have been written by both EYEWITNESSES or people who heard them ...
But the Yugo must be a great car. The salesman told me so! |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 11:45:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
5. Try not to post things that are thoroughly discredited everywhere except in your own mind
6. Don't favor books, articles, research etc from decades or centuries past that support your position over recent research, articles, books etc. which have built on the past knowledge and in some cases exposed errors and even forgery.
7. Learn to spell or use a spellchecker
8. Stop thinking something doesn't need to be inerrant to be reliable. When and if you look these words up you will blush. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm
@tomic
- Try not to post things that are thoroughly discredited everywhere except in your own mind
- Could you give a few examples? I hope your not referring to TD's lame attempt?
- Try not to post things that are thoroughly discredited everywhere except in your own mind
- same as above
- 8. Stop thinking something doesn't need to be inerrant to be reliable. When and if you look these words up you will blush. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm
- Stop and think what your implying,are you saying that all of our sources of historical information are inerrant?
- 9. Stop using Pro-Christian sources and referring to them as objective or experts when anyone with half a clue can see right through this. Setting out to prove a point and ignoring data that contradicts your faith is not scholarship. Doing research and being honest if it takes you somewhere you did not expect with results you might not like is.
- You can't be serious? I've quoted hostile experts,Jewish Experts(Prof.Schlomo Pines of Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and neutral secular Classical Scholars(Michael Grant ect) to support my views.But let's turn that around what sources other than your Christ-Mythers websites can you give that support your faith in the non-existence of Jesus?
-
|
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 11:53:31 [Permalink]
|
Why not just use observational techniques evolved over the past several centuries and say: Huge numbers of humans adhere to religious beliefs (--many who are not a part of a formal religion--) based on the teachings brought by one man--Jesus? Proof enough! Q.E.D.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.
You cannot vote on facts. They are not determined by democratic means. If every single last person in the entire world wanted Jesus to exist he would not pop into existence.
Biologists do that. Physicists do it that way. Sociologists, too. Even some Chemists and Mathematicians conclude proofs that way.
Are you out of your mind? Or do you just think that we on this board are idiots.
An entire field has evolved which reaches inferences (Statistics) through such post facto observational methods.
What the Hell does that have to do with unsupported exisential claims?
What non-existent entity/person in known history has withstood the that level of a test of time: 1,500-2000 years??
Mithra, Zeus, Lugh, Odin, Pele, Apollo, Aphrodite, Diane, Loki, Osiris, Isis, Raven, Vishun, Krishna, Brama….shal I go on?
Ah yes. Formalized churchs and religions--always out for more loot and power. How different are nearly all modern religions from the actual (--as recorded in the Gospels--) teachings of Jesus
Oh boy, another one of these "I'm-better-than-Catholics-and-organized-religion-because-I-got-it-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong-even-though-I-just-said-that-you-should-agree-with-the-majority----christians"
The sole purpose of Christianity is money and power. That is the only[/I] reason it exists. The high and mighty "teachings of Jesus" are the "diversion" the "mis-direction" that you are tricked into watching while your pocket is being picked
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 11:56:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
RD blurbs:But the Yugo must be a great car. The salesman told me so!
But note he doesn't pay attention to the[devil]in the details:As I pointed out earlier kb the NT claims to have been written by both EYEWITNESSES or people who heard them(1st Jn.1:1-3,2nd Peter 1:16Luke 1:1-4,Acts2:22,32) many of them gave their testimony in front of hostile witness who would have loved to contridict their testimony,but they didn't  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 11:57:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
I've quoted hostile experts,Jewish Experts(Prof.Schlomo Pines of Hebrew University of Jerusalem), ...
Sorry, DA, but could you please supply that Schlomo Pines quote again? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 11:58:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
many of them gave their testimony in front of hostile witness who would have loved to contridict their testimony,but they didn't
According to whom? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 12:04:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Huge, widespread belief in the actual, historical existence and teachings of Jesus. What non-existent entity/person in known history has withstood the that level of a test of time: 1,500-2000 years??
Your juvenile ad hominems aside, this argument works equally well for the belief in ghosts, astrology, and Hinduism.
I confess to being unfamiliar with the term, but an MSN search says that ad hominem means an attack on a person while avoiding the arguments. I have hunted my post but can't find any ad hominems. I have nothing against Quine--it was a very good and long-time useful course (--Mathematical Logic--), taught by my own academic advisor.
I think that (--roughly about the same time that it has been posited that "Christianity" was concocted--) history has badly used Origen--one of, IMO, the all-time "Greats"; and did not mean to slur Aquinas---merely to say that such logical "nit-picking" is out of date, and would be better being left as "historical reference" than to be used as modern "proof".
I did, I suppose, sneer at Cardinal Giacomo Biffi in an indirect but unseemly manner, and that, perhaps, qualifies as an ad hominem; but I don't think so.
Could you, perhaps, be more explicit in your criticism?
_____________________________
I was, I admit, sloppy in my terminology by trying to be precise: By "entity" I only meant some single thing which one might not be willing to call a "person"; such as, for example, the Ganges River or the holy Bo Tree.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 12:28:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I have hunted my post but can't find any ad hominems. ... Could you, perhaps, be more explicit in your criticism?
Sure, although I doubt your honesty in this regard. From above: - From yr own reference, ReasonablyDoubtful, one reads: ...
- I again quote from ReasonablyDubious' referenced article on Occam: ...
Admittedly, ad hominem elevates this infantile name-calling to a level that it, perhaps, does not deserve, which is why I focused on your ad populum fallacy. So, have you chosen to embrace astrology, Vishnu, and those other curiosities that constitute "widespred belief[s]" that have withstood the "test of time"? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 12:42:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Why not just use observational techniques evolved over the past several centuries and say: Huge numbers of humans adhere to religious beliefs (--many who are not a part of a formal religion--) based on the teachings brought by one man--Jesus? Proof enough! Q.E.D.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.
Somehow, Slater, I'm afraid that I believe that you believe that. 
quote:
Originally posted by Slaterquote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Biologists do that. Physicists do it that way. Sociologists, too. Even some Chemists and Mathematicians conclude proofs that way.
Are you out of your mind? Or do you just think that we on this board are idiots.
No, actually, Slater, I think that most-all of the poster on this board are pretty smart and very widely read. There do seem to be, sadly, a couple of exceptions though. 
quote:
Originally posted by Slaterquote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
An entire field has evolved which reaches inferences (Statistics) through such ... observational methods.
What the Hell does that have to do with unsupported exisential claims?
May I suggest that you take some courses in Statistics? A good "Statistical Decision Theory" or "Stocastic Processes" course might answer yr question.
quote:
Originally posted by Slaterquote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
What non-existent entity/person in known history has withstood the that level of a test of time: 1,500-2000 years??
Mithra, Zeus, Lugh, Odin, Pele, Apollo, Aphrodite, Diane, Loki, Osiris, Isis, Raven, Vishun, Krishna, Brama….shal I go on?
No, please, please don't!
I had considered most of this list before I posted my comment. None who are not actual historical persona have any substantial following whatsoever---and knowledge of most have been lost to all but anthropologists and readers of ancient fables. (I admit, though, that there are likely a few adherents still "hanging-on" in hopes of a religious revival--such as, perhaps, the Followers of Mithra.  )
quote:
Originally posted by Slaterquote:
Ah yes. Formalized churchs and religions--always out for more loot and power. How different are nearly all modern religions from the actual (--as recorded in the Gospels--) teachings of Jesus
Oh boy, another one of these "I'm-better-than-Catholics-and-organized-religion-because-I-got-it-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong-even-though-I-just-said-that-you-should-agree-with-the-majority----christians"
As it turns out: I was born a Catholic, attended 8 years of Catholic School---and a good education it was, 50 kids per class and all---and, as far as I know, am still a Catholic. 
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
The sole purpose of Christianity is money and power. That is the only reason it exists. The high and mighty "teachings of Jesus" are the "diversion" the "mis-direction" that you are tricked into watching while your pocket is being picked
Ahhhh. Are u sure that you are not mixing this up with the Communist Manifesto? 
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 12:55:55 [Permalink]
|
Refering to, among others, Vishnu and Brahma ...
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
No, please, please don't! I had considered most of this list before I posted my comment. None who are not actual historical persona have any substantial following whatsoever---
Is this a case of Western ignorance or Western bigotry? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 12:59:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I have hunted my post but can't find any ad hominems. ... Could you, perhaps, be more explicit in your criticism?
Sure, although I doubt your honesty in this regard. From above: - From yr own reference, ReasonablyDoubtful, one reads: ...
- I again quote from ReasonablyDubious' referenced article on Occam: ...
Admittedly, ad hominem elevates this infantile name-calling to a level that it, perhaps, does not deserve, which is why I focused on your ad populum fallacy. So, have you chosen to embrace astrology, Vishnu, and those other curiosities that constitute "widespred belief[s]" that have withstood the "test of time"?
Bah! Humbug!! Or....Are u just toying with me??
Neither of those qualify as "name-calling"; they are just slight twists on ur handle--done in good taste and leaving the exact meaning of ur handle fully intact.
Now: Had I posted "DoubtfullyReasonable" then.... But that would have been in poor taste.
I think that my two are much, much better than the usual "RD" that I read all the time here and there in various posts.
__________________________________
As to Vishnu: It's been nearly two decades since I read the Hindu texts but I seem to have an internalized skepticism that Vishnu was other than a real, live historical personage. (Or am I thinking of the Indian Battle-Captain Krishna?)
Never having become anti-Hindu, I confess that I've never researched the topic---nor probably ever will. That's why I read boards such as SFN which seem to have so many learned posters.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2002 : 13:35:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
I think that my two are much, much better than the usual "RD" that I read all the time here and there in various posts.
I'll accept the commentary and stand corrected, noting only that I always took "RD" to mean Remarkably Deep.
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
It's been nearly two decades since I read the Hindu texts but I seem to have an internalized skepticism that Vishnu was other than a real, live historical personage.
You might benefit from learning more about the Hindu Trinity.
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Why not just use observational techniques evolved over the past several centuries and say: Huge numbers of humans adhere to religious beliefs (--many who are not a part of any formal religion--) based on the teachings brought by one man--Jesus? Proof enough! Q.E.D.!! (--So it seems to me, anyway.)
Now, returning to your ad populum fallacy, ... |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
