|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
 Posted - 12/04/2003 : 12:55:03 [Permalink]
|
Badman wrote:quote:
EG miracles are reported to have occurred and NOTHING goes against them. No shred of evidence will show that those miracles are fake.
Likewise, there's not a shred of evidence which suggests those miracles actually occured.quote:
Likewise, what is so impossible to accept that miracles occur TODAY...
Name one.
I completely accept the fact that there will be a lot of questions for which I will never get answers (the "mystery of life"). It does not follow that the "true" answer to those questions is therefore "God did it." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 13:19:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Likewise, what is so impossible to accept that miracles occur TODAY, that to believe in Jesus who lived 2000 years ago is not acceptable? So whether or not James (indeed even Jesus) is historical OR NOT, the main point is to understand that miracles happened, are happening and WILL happen tommorow.
Mircles happen everyday? What does that mean? Do you mean things that are impossible based on physical laws happen everyday?
It is hard to accept because physical laws are based on observation. It would appear that you cannot break physical laws. Jesus walked on water? Not unless it was frozen or he had beachballs duct taped to his feet.
Jesus brought dead people back to life? You have to ask why I have a hard time accepting this?
What miracles happen everyday? If you believe this - where does it stop. Bigfoot may be a miracle. Are aliens are probing anyone they can get their hands on (when they are not making crop cirles).
Is Jesus the only miracle worker? How about Ra, Krishna, Moneto, or Uri Geller.
Based on my observations and research miracles do not happen everyday. Based on my observations and research miracles never happen. I have seen the improbable happen. But not the impossible. As an extension of my observations I can say that I assume that miracles have never happened.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 12:30:33 [Permalink]
|
OK. I admit it, I was wrong. Miracles DO happen. Just check this out!!!
This is clearly a miracle that trancsends physical laws. This stump is clearly Jesus' mom. And it would not have been seen if the other trees around it were not cut down. That is the other part of the miracle. I mean who else but god (or and angel) could have cut them down. Here are some qoutes from the people that have come to worship the stump:
quote:
Several people claim an image of the Virgin Mary has appeared in a tree stump after a cluster of trees were mysteriously cut down.
Some visitors say the clearing was an act of God.
Even more to the point.
quote:
"It looks like Mary," Camilo Diaz, 41, told the Herald News of West Paterson for Tuesday's editions. "There's no way it was carved to look like that, no explanation other than it was a miracle."
So this proves to me that miracles do occur. Clearly Camilo and her compadres should not be able to muster the brain power to speak and dress themselves.
Praise the lord! |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 07:09:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
There is also lots of reason to think that Jesus of Nazareth never existed and James the brother ... of Jesus never existed.
Given that the absence of evidence is rarely evidence of absence, what might those many reasons be?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Humility (as well as open-mindedness) is accepting that you know very little, and not rushing to put a label like "miracle" on something that you don't understand.
Humility (as well as open-mindedness) may also be the recognition that there is little or no compelling evidence against the existence of an historical Jesus, and not rushing to put a label like "myth" on something that you don't like. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 12:56:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
[quote] Humility (as well as open-mindedness) may also be the recognition that there is little or no compelling evidence against the existence of an historical Jesus, and not rushing to put a label like "myth" on something that you don't like.
I think that's a little backward, scientifically speaking, that is. Until there is at least SOME compelling evidence FOR the existence of an historical Jesus, it's not unreasonable (and reason is what counts in matters of fact; humility is irrelevant) to suggest that it's more likely than not that he is a mythical figure. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 14:19:15 [Permalink]
|
Again, read the many books and web sites devoted to the subject, one of which I've already posted, and you'll see there is a reasonable amount of evidence, which you may or may not agree with, to show that there is no reason to think Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. Just like there was probably no historical Hercules, there was probably no historical Jesus or Moses or Abraham, for that matter. Again, if there were, so what?
quote:
Humility (as well as open-mindedness) may also be the recognition that there is little or no compelling evidence against the existence of an historical Jesus, and not rushing to put a label like "myth" on something that you don't like.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 15:07:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Les
I think that's a little backward, scientifically speaking, that is.
Then you should think harder.
quote:
Originally posted by Les
Until there is at least SOME compelling evidence FOR the existence of an historical Jesus, it's not unreasonable ... to suggest that it's more likely than not that he is a mythical figure.
Congratulations; you have managed to make 3 errors in one mangled sentence:
(1) Lack of compelling evidence for something does not constitute compelling evidence against it.
(2) There is a difference between suggesting that mythicism is more likely, and claiming to have lots of reason for such a claim.
(2) I never said that this claim was unreasonable. I simply asked that it be substantiated. Or, perhaps, you find it "a little backward, scientifically speaking," that someone should be asked to substantiate his or her claims.
Speaking of which, do you, "scientifically speaking" have lots of reasons you would like to share? Gorgo seems reluctant. |
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 12/06/2003 15:13:50 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 15:22:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
there is a reasonable amount of evidence ... to show that there is no reason to think Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.
[as opposed to]
There is also lots of reason to think that Jesus of Nazareth never existed and James the brother ... of Jesus never existed.
What are the compelling reasons to claim that Jesus, James, and the Jerusalem church are fabrications?
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 15:43:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Congratulations; you have managed to make 3 errors in one mangled sentence:
Gosh, CA, that's pretty condescending. But I'll try to address your points, nonetheless.
quote:
(1) Lack of compelling evidence for something does not constitute compelling evidence against it.
Did I say there was compelling evidence AGAINST the existence of an historical Jesus? Nope. I said that a lack of compelling evidence made it reasonable to DOUBT the existence of an historical Jesus. To change my words is either very clumsy or dishonest. You should be more careful so people don't get the impression that the latter is the case.
quote:
(2) There is a difference between suggesting that mythicism is more likely, and claiming to have lots of reason for such a claim.
This is a little confusing. I think it goes without saying that a claim is unlikely to be true if there is no compelling evidence to support that claim.
quote:
(2) (sic) I never said that this claim was unreasonable. I simply asked that it be substantiated. Or, perhaps, you find it "a little backward, scientifically speaking," that someone should be asked to substantiate his or her claims.
Speaking of which, do you, "scientifically speaking" have lots of reasons you would like to share? Gorgo seems reluctant.
I'm not making any claims, CA. If I were making the claim that, say, a person existed historically, then it would be my responsibility to provide evidence of that existence. It would not be everyone else's responsibility to DISPROVE the claim. If I claim to know that a purple dragon lives in my garage, but only shows itself to me, then thinking people don't accept that as a fact simply because no one can provide evidence to disprove it. Again, scientifically speaking, that's backwards. You can't prove a negative, nor should one have to.
That said, I would never assert that we KNOW that Jesus never existed. I do assert, however, that it's reasonable to suspect that something is not true if there is no evidence to support that thing, just as it would be reasonable to suspect that it's not true that there's a purple dragon in my garage. This isn't "closed-minded", but rather the basis for the most successful system of problem solving in the history of humanity.
If that annoys you, you have my sympathy. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 16:28:20 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAtheist wrote:quote:
Humility (as well as open-mindedness) may also be the recognition that there is little or no compelling evidence against the existence of an historical Jesus, and not rushing to put a label like "myth" on something that you don't like.
Since Jesus the man is the basis of Jesus the myth, which is in turn the basis for Jesus the Son of God, which is the basis for Redemption, which is the basis for many people's morality and outlook on life (not to mention their claims that I will burn in a lake of fire after I die), there'd better be a boat-load of evidence for the man. So much hangs upon His existence that any question of it throws much of Christianity onto the garbage heap. For example, if the Resurrection did not occur (because Jesus did not exist), then nobody has been "saved."
Science is driven by the search for the answers to fundamental questions about the universe, whether we "like" the answers or not. The search for answers to fundamental questions about religion, on the other hand, is discouraged - sometimes to the extreme of killing those who ask. If you're going to accuse someone of presumptively labeling something they didn't like, first point the finger of blame towards almost every Church leader who's ever lived, please. The term "heretic" is used in precisely the same manner in which you claim Gorgo used "myth," but with far more horrifying consequences in the last 2,000 years. "Humility" and "open-mindedness" are anathema to the Church.
By the way, ConsequentAthiest, did you have anything to add on 11/30, or did you just quote my previous post as a response to Darwin Alogos?
Of course, we are drifting wildly off-topic from Josephus. Perhaps someone would like to restart the old "Did Jesus Really Exist" thread? Here are links to Part 1, Part 2 (missing except one post), Part 3 (missing except one post), Part 4 and Part 5. If someone wants to start it up again, Part 6 would be the way to go. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 16:28:20 [Permalink]
|
Look for yourself. Are you saying that the claims are not true?
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gorgo
there is a reasonable amount of evidence ... to show that there is no reason to think Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.
[as opposed to]
[red]There is also lots of reason to think that Jesus of Nazareth never existed and James the brother ... of Jesus never existed.What are the compelling reasons to claim that Jesus, James, and the Jerusalem church are fabrications?
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 12/06/2003 16:30:42 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 22:48:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Look for yourself. Are you saying that the claims are not true?
I honestly do not know what you are asking? I presented two statements by you. I agree with the first, challenge the second, and, perhaps most importantly, assert that the two statements are not equivalent. |
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 - 12/06/2003 : 22:55:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since Jesus the man is the basis of Jesus the myth, which is in turn the basis for Jesus the Son of God, which is the basis for Redemption, which is the basis for many people's morality and outlook on life (not to mention their claims that I will burn in a lake of fire after I die), there'd better be a boat-load of evidence for the man.
Sophomoric rubbish. Historicity has nothing to do with the cogency or import of Christianity. |
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 - 12/06/2003 : 23:01:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Les
Gosh, CA, that's pretty condescending. But I'll try to address your points, nonetheless.
Gosh, Les, thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by Les
quote:
Lack of compelling evidence for something does not constitute compelling evidence against it.
Did I say there was compelling evidence AGAINST the existence of an historical Jesus?
So, you argue "that it's more likely than not that he is a mythical figure" in the absence of compelling evidence?
quote:
Originally posted by Les
quote:
There is a difference between suggesting that mythicism is more likely, and claiming to have lots of reason for such a claim.
This is a little confusing. I think it goes without saying that a claim is unlikely to be true if there is no compelling evidence to support that claim.
I'm sorry that you are confused. There was no compelling evidence for any number of things prior to the discovery of that evidence. Since the existence of a Jewish cult leader named Yeshua violates no natural law, it is simply untrue that the proclaimed absence of evidence renders the claim "unlikely to be true" or to assert that "it's more likely than not that he is a mythical figure.". At the very most one can argue for agnosticism with regards historicity. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 00:29:02 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAtheist wrote:quote:
Sophomoric rubbish. Historicity has nothing to do with the cogency or import of Christianity.
Ah! Preposition problems. You said "import of Christianity," which I will grant: whether or not Jesus existed makes no difference to what His teachings were, and what value we, as a society, can take from them. Fictional or not, the guy said some good things, and had some handy tips for living well (although he also says some pretty nutty stuff).
Of course, I wasn't talking about the import of Christianity, but the import to Christianity, in my "sophmoric rubbish." As I pointed out, if Jesus did not exist, then He did not die for our sins. How much more an important thing to Christianity (of any kind) could one possibly ask for?
It is the central belief. It is the reason that Christians cite Josephus as evidence that Jesus existed, since if they considered His death and resurrection to be simply metaphorical, Josephus' comments wouldn't matter. Why you should feel a need to admit to possibly being a "convert" due to Darwin Alogos' argument (based upon Kirby) regarding a metaphor would be puzzling, to say the least. Regardless of Jesus' import on the teachings of Christianity, His import on Christianity should he turn out to be fictional is very dire, indeed, and appears to be the sole reason why the reliability and authenticity of Josephus' words is of much import to Christians like Darwin Alogos.
So, since you responded to (and rudely dismissed) something I wasn't talking about, how about re-addressing my post (perhaps in its entirety, this time, since I asked you a direct question about a prior post of yours)? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
