|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2002 : 14:32:06 [Permalink]
|
I failed to mention, Slater, that during my 8 years in Catholic School (and 8 years of Religion classes), I got my hands wacked with a paddle for questioning various tenents of "faith"--as well as of dogma. The Nuns had Faith and I was expected to grow my own in their mold. (No pun intended.)
Nor was I always wrong--even in the eyes of the Church. One of the questionings I raised was: quote:
If someone eats meat on Friday night and fails to go to confession before they die, they have committed a "mortal sin" and, thus, they go to Hell for an eternity.
Yes?
Yes!
Well....NO! Whether the Church recognized the absurdity of that doctrine or just re-examined it, it no longer exists.
"Faith" can be a powerful (sociological and psychological) force; it can also be very dangerous. I fully understand and appreciate your analogy. |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 14:37:21 [Permalink]
|
As to the issue of "the resurrection", please recall that I am deeply skeptical that the Jesus as described in the Gospels could have possibly been executed.
The crucifixion described in the NT is strangely enough not a Roman crucifixion. There was no rope tied around his chest so that he would suffocate under his own weight. His legs weren't broken so, with the help of the spike in his feet would have supported his weight just fine. He wasn't up long enough to die of exposure. And he was taken down after only a few hours. There is no reason that a healthy man in his early thirties should die from this. In fact in the Philippines they reenact it every year and rarely does anyone die.
Given the premises from the NT, that conclusion seems, to me, to be nonsensical.
The premises of the NT, if you read carefully, are that the evil Jews wanted to kill the Christ. The Romans just went along with it to maintain peaceful relations with them.
As to the other things (walking on water; multiplying fishes; raising the dead; improving wine), they can all be successfully explained in the context of modern physics--without having to resort to the 'charged' word "miracle".
Modern physics covers these quite nicely. It says that they are impossible.
Modern study of ancient myths finds that Magi all "multiplied" fish and bread as part of the Mass. That the Son of God, and second part of the trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost {the virgin mother Semele}) Dionysos walked on water and turned water into wine. And that you couldn't throw a stone without hitting some god or demigod who was bringing someone back from the dead.
I suggest that we stop using the 'charged' word "miracle", and call a spade a spade. What we are talking about is MAGIC.
|
-------
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 - 12/14/2002 : 14:44:58 [Permalink]
|
Pure sophistry: quote:
So I was right. Thanks for the admission.
@tomic
If you mean your "right" about lying about who I cite as sources I couldn't agree with you any stronger.However,since you seem to be trying win an argument(the only way you can) redefing terms I disagree  |
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 12/14/2002 14:46:01 |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 14:54:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slaterquote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
As to the issue of "the resurrection", please recall that I am deeply skeptical that the Jesus as described in the Gospels could have possibly been executed.
The crucifixion described in the NT is strangely enough not a Roman crucifixion. There was no rope tied around his chest so that he would suffocate under his own weight. His legs weren't broken so, with the help of the spike in his feet would have supported his weight just fine. He wasn't up long enough to die of exposure. And he was taken down after only a few hours. There is no reason that a healthy man in his early thirties should die from this. In fact in the Philippines they reenact it every year and rarely does anyone die.
Fascinating!
I've read that Ivan the Terrible once had a corrupt Gov't official skewered on an iron fence stake, naked, in winter and that he lasted 3 days. I've always been skeptical but it was a history book---who knows??
quote:
Originally posted by Slaterquote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
Given the premises from the NT, that conclusion seems, to me, to be nonsensical.
The premises of the NT, if you read carefully, are that the evil Jews wanted to kill the Christ. The Romans just went along with it to maintain peaceful relations with them.
Ah. I was talking about the various premises as to "who" Jesus was and what he did during his "public years". If those premises were actually true, then I don't see how a formal execution (--or even a sneaky assassination--) was possible.
Sorry: Sloppiness in my use of the word "premises" led to misunderstanding.
quote:
Originally posted by Slaterquote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
As to the other things (walking on water; multiplying fishes; raising the dead; improving wine), they can all be successfully explained in the context of modern physics--without having to resort to the 'charged' word "miracle".
Modern physics covers these quite nicely. It says that they are impossible.
. . .
No. Sorry. [Very] Modern Physics says that almost anything is possible---and I, not the physicists, threw in the word "almost".  quote:
Originally posted by Slater
I suggest that we stop using the 'charged' word "miracle", and call a spade a spade. What we are talking about is MAGIC.
OK by me--if by "magic" you mean real magic, not clever trickery. 
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 15:14:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you mean your "right" about lying about who I cite as sources I couldn't agree with you any stronger.However,since you seem to be trying win an argument(the only way you can) redefing terms I disagree
Whatever DA, you posted some bozos book review as if it was some expert. It's called being dishonest. Look it up.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 15:34:02 [Permalink]
|
If those premises were actually true, then I don't see how a formal execution (--or even a sneaky assassination--) was possible.
It says that the Jews wanted him executed he claimed to be king so that was treason, he claimed to be God which is both blasphemy and heresy , and he caused a riot in the Temple court yard. Attacking innocent merchants with a bull whip, destruction of private and public property. And the Jews were just down right evil, hateful people. The Romans hands were tied, what could they do. According to the NT. You have to ignore a great deal of what you know about history to buy this story.
No. Sorry. [Very] Modern Physics says that almost anything is possible---and I, not the physicists, threw in the word "almost".
That is not true at all. It is the fact that certain things are impossible that allows you to know anything. Example: it is impossible for 2+2 not to equal 4. You won't wake up one morning and find that it equals 4.0002. It is impossible that you will turn into a chicken, a Rhode Island Red, while driving to the mall to finish your Christmas shopping.
If there was magic, or to use the religious term for magic "miracles," it would no longer be possible to know anything.
ALL the laws of physics would be wrong. You will never find a Physicist who says that.
OK by me--if by "magic" you mean real magic, not clever trickery
All magic is trickery. It is either a magician tricking you, or it is you tricking yourself. There is no real magic. You can drive to the mall without keeping a bag of cracked corn in the back seat.
|
-------
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 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 17:18:40 [Permalink]
|
I support the proposition that Jesus was a real personage with most-all of the first-person NT stories about him being reasonably-factual and true..
And you support it with what evidence?
And what "first-person NT stories" are you talking about. There was only one Gospel that was in the first person. It is the only one that makes the claim that it was written by a witness. It claim to be written by the Apostle John. However it is a Gnostic Gospel and is called the Apocryphon of John and has been a banned book since 325 CE. It says that Jesus was an entirely mythical god/man. It says that if you tried to touch him your hand would go right through sometimes and sometimes not. It says that everyone who looked at Jesus saw something different. Some saw a bald old man while the person standing next to them saw a young boy, some someone else.
quote:
…he came to me and James my brother, saying: "I have need of you, come unto me." And my brother, hearing that said to me: "John, what does that child want who is on the shore there and called to us?" And I said: "What child?" And he said again, "The one beckoning to us." And I answered: "Because of the long watch we have kept at sea, you are not seeing right, my brother James. But do you not see the man who is standing there, comely, fair, and of cheerful countenance?" But he answered: "Him, brother, I do not see. But let us go, and we shall see what he wants."
It says that Jesus never left footprints because his sandals never touched the ground.
The philosophy that first-person John said that Jesus taught is as different from the Gospels you are used to as the miracles are.
There are many who contend that this is an older Gospel than the modern ones.
Would you accept this Gnostic Jesus as being reasonably-factual and true or wouldn't you? On what grounds would you accept or reject the Apocryphon of John as a statement of fact?
|
-------
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 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2002 : 17:41:41 [Permalink]
|
Sometimes it seems as if what we call the gospels were some sort of entries into a story writing contest and all that made it into the bible were the best 4 submissions. The people that cling to thinking the 4 in the bible are real deal because they made it into the bible need to take a step back, pour some cold water over their heads and really think about this one. The ones that made it in are more like the winners of the Caesar's Choice Award. It's more than a little obvious that all of Christianity is exactly what Caesar wanted. A man that didn't think enough of it to bother becoming a Christian himself. A man who's deeds should make anyone question their devoting to the ideas this man wanted in this book. But that would take a really big step back.
@tomic
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2002 : 01:07:58 [Permalink]
|
Atomic still twist the obvious: quote:
Whatever DA, you posted some bozos book review as if it was some expert. It's called being dishonest. Look it up.
@tomic
However,I never claimed this reviewer was an "expert".So either be honest or shut up quote:
This review sums it up:
quote:
|
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? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2002 : 02:00:07 [Permalink]
|
Nice theory but... ?quote:
The ones that made it in are more like the winners of the Caesar's Choice Award. It's more than a little obvious that all of Christianity is exactly what Caesar wanted. A man that didn't think enough of it to bother becoming a Christian himself....@tomic
Hey I know your Hardheaded skeptics and all but do you guys even think about supporting your "wild eyed"speculations with maybe even a shred of historical EVIDENCE? Atomic do you have one historic source thats even close to supporting bizarre view? |
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 - 12/15/2002 : 07:29:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
As to the other things (walking on water; multiplying fishes; raising the dead; improving wine), they can all be successfully explained in the context of modern physics--without having to resort to the 'charged' word "miracle".
Any such naive distortion of 'modern physics' will likewise 'explain' unicorns, the Daoine Sidhe and suicidal pigs. |
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 - 12/15/2002 : 08:01:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Hey I know your Hardheaded skeptics and all but do you guys even think about supporting your "wild eyed"speculations with maybe even a shred of historical EVIDENCE? Atomic do you have one historic source thats even close to supporting bizarre view?
DA, you still don't get it. I don't know if it's a function of persistent stupidity or ubiquitous dishonesty, but you refuse to recognize that argumentum ad numerum is fallacious.
Nor do you seem aware of how childishly absurd it is to demand "a shred of historical EVIDENCE" for the absence of evidence for historicity. If you have evidence, you should submit it piece by piece and then defend it piece by piece as probative. But you are clearly unable or unwilling to do so. In fact, the more specific the discussion, the more incoherent your response seems to get - incoherent or absent. It's interesting, for example, that you chatter about Josephus but ignore the Josephus thread. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 12/15/2002 08:02:29 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2002 : 09:04:09 [Permalink]
|
RD Confused again : quote:
DA, you still don't get it. I don't know if it's a function of persistent stupidity or ubiquitous dishonesty, but you refuse to recognize that argumentum ad numerum is fallacious. 
I know this is a very stressful time of the year so I'm going cut you some slack,but just how did did you ever reason that I was committing a fallacy of argumentum ad nuerum for asking for evidence to support a claim to "know"(or at the very least masquerading as an intelligent guess)as to how we have the four gospels? Note whats being said by Atomic,he's claiming to KNOW one view, the accepted view,of the origin of the gospels is wrong! Next,he's proffering another view as what he thinks happened. The next logical question from anybody (let alone you so called skeptics) is "why" or "what kind of evidence do you have to support that view?" quote:
[Atomic] Sometimes it seems as if what we call the gospels were some sort of entries into a story writing contest and all that made it into the bible were the best 4 submissions. The people that cling to thinking the 4 in the bible are real deal because they made it into the bible need to take a step back, pour some cold water over their heads and really think about this one. The ones that made it in are more like the winners of the Caesar's Choice Award. It's more than a little obvious that all of Christianity is exactly what Caesar wanted.
quote:
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between the two, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief. The distinction is a fine one, and in general the terms can be used interchangeably in debate rounds. (I've found that ad populum has better rhetorical effect.)
Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. For an example, see above. This fallacy is nearly identical to argumentum ad numerum, which you should see for more details
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html All emph.mine. |
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? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2002 : 09:16:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
RD states:Nor do you seem aware of how childishly absurd it is to demand "a shred of historical EVIDENCE" for the absence of evidence for historicity
Are you on any pain medication?What on earth are you talking about? So someone post "I know who the third gunman is that killed JFK" and we should all just write back " We belive you because we knowhow childishly absurd it is to demand "a shred of historical EVIDENCE" for the absence of evidence for historicityThanks for sharing".I need a beer! |
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? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2002 : 09:41:37 [Permalink]
|
Interesting Slater accepts the historic existenceof Zoroaster,Buddha,Mohammed.and Apollonius of Tyana,but not Jesus hmmm? I wonder if he even has a criteria to judge how he knows this Info? quote:
Also if they are given an "historic" start they will have left no trace in history. Like the Angel Moroni. Spectacular as his story was he didn't actually exist so he went unnoticed. While religions of "punctuated equilibrium," as you put it, founders all got themselves noticed. So people like Zoroaster, the Buddha and Mohammed are noticed by their contemporaries and recorded into history.
To suggest that a person like Jesus could have existed and done the things he allegedly did and yet not he nor any of his Apostles have been noticed by anyone is ludicrous.
Apollonius of Tyana, at the same time, doing exactly the same healing "miracles" left a fine paper trail. And he wasn't God, never claimed to be.
|
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 12/15/2002 09:45:06 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
