|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2003 : 11:00:49
|
quote:
darwin alogos wrote:
To deny logic you must use it. To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world.
Since both of these sentences are clearly inaccurate (whether or not Jesus existed), I wonder what darwin alogos thinks they mean.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2003 : 19:02:23 [Permalink]
|
| You are making the assumption that DA thinks. He cuts and pastes, he regurgitates creationist drivel but we have seen no sign that he actually thinks. |
 |
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2003 : 23:58:16 [Permalink]
|
> You are making the assumption that DA thinks. He cuts and pastes, he
> regurgitates creationist drivel but we have seen no sign that he
> actually thinks.
It wouldn't surprise me if he quoted a long and tedious "justification" for the sentences in his signature. |
Antie. DIES GAUDII.
Facies Fabulosarum Feminarum
If you can name all six of the females in the picture above without looking up their names, and you can read the Latin phrase, pat yourself on the back. You're smart. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2003 : 23:22:14 [Permalink]
|
CA: quote:
Since both of these sentences are clearly inaccurate (whether or not Jesus existed), I wonder what darwin alogos
thinks they mean.
Since your to much of a logician(when you want to be) I'll take it that you are referring to only the statements concerning denying Jesus existence and classical literature.We've already covered this ground,more than once, so I'll just highlight: Bibliographic:more mss's closer to the originals than any other classical document(NT over 5000 some dated 200AD one130;Buddah over 600 year gap before 1st written record,Zoroaster between 1000 & 6000 year gap -
Internal:claims to have been written by either eyewitnesses or close companions to;claims are consistent on primary details1.Jesus Son of David(Messiah)and God the Son;2.Was crucified and considered dead:3.Was seen Alive after his death by those close to him (some were not believers James,Thomas,latter Saul) -
External: The NT has more corraboration from archaeology than any other ancient document- When we last discussed this issue I asked a question of you that you never answered concerning your claim that the NT was influenced by to many political pressures to be reliable(though I disagree),I then pointed out that both Josephus and Phliostratus were definitly "politically pressured" and yet most historians (in spite of their historical blunders) still consider them,for the most part, reliable.Again my question to you is they can accept those writers why can't you accept the NT(which far greater evidence to support it) ?
  |
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 02/11/2003 00:35:51 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 01:45:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When we last discussed this issue I asked a question of you that you never answered concerning your claim that the NT was influenced by to many political pressures to be reliable(though I disagree),I then pointed out that both Josephus and Phliostratus were definitly "politically pressured" and yet most historians (in spite of their historical blunders) still consider them,for the most part, reliable.Again my question to you is they can accept those writers why can't you accept the NT(which far greater evidence to support it) ?
First you agree that they were politically pressured, but then you really put your face in it and stand behind bumbling historians that make historical blunders as long as the end result makes you happy. Yikes.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 04:18:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
... the NT(which far greater evidence to support it) ?
You are welcome to present this evidence. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 07:32:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
You are welcome to present this evidence.
You will find that he does not understand the term.
Some people are cogent, and deserve consideration. Some are stupid and deserve pity. Unfortunately, darwin alogos is not stupd, but he is also rarely coherent. His silly signature is diagnostic in his regard. I suspect that he has a clinical problem and is best simply ignored.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 08:47:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
You will find that he does not understand the term.
Yea, I know. Along with several other terms.
quote:
Some people are cogent, and deserve consideration. Some are stupid and deserve pity. Unfortunately, darwin alogos is not stupd, but he is also rarely coherent. His silly signature is diagnostic in his regard. I suspect that he has a clinical problem and is best simply ignored.
"Stupidity has a certain charm. Ignorance does not."
-- Frank Zappa |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 09:42:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheistquote:
darwin alogos wrote:
To deny logic you must use it. To deny . . . .
Since both of these sentences are clearly inaccurate (whether or not Jesus existed), I wonder what darwin alogos thinks they mean.
I must take umbrage, CsequAth, at your comment "Since both of these sentences are clearly inaccurate . . . ."
How could anyone possibly "deny logic" without using a logical construct to do it?
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 12:00:48 [Permalink]
|
Computer Org wrote:quote:
How could anyone possibly "deny logic" without using a logical construct to do it?
Easily, if you're talking about common English usage. Anyone can say "that there logic stuff don't work" without even knowing what the word 'logic' means.
And if we're not talking about common English, but instead the technical meanings, then I believe it's really quite difficult to show, using sound and valid logical constructs, that those same constructs are invalid and/or unsound, except in certain tiny subsets of constructs (paradoxes). If that's true, then you really cannot deny the entirety of logic using logic, and so DA's statement is still ridiculous.
What I think he means, though, given the context provided by the next sentence, is that one needs to use logic to refute his logic (DA's), which is of course true, and has been done many times on these forums. Except DA denies it's ever been done, because he's not using logic to deny logic, he's using something else to do it. Logic hardly enters into the discussions from his side. Oh, he claims "logically fallacy" on everyone else, but misses his own, and changes the subject or redirects the blame when called on it.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 15:17:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
How could anyone possibly "deny logic" without using a logical construct to do it?
"No" is not a logical construct. |
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 - 02/11/2003 : 20:59:41 [Permalink]
|
Atomic: quote:
quote:
[DA] When we last discussed this issue I asked a question of you that you never answered concerning your claim that the NT was
influenced by to many political pressures to be reliable(though I disagree),I then pointed out that both Josephus and
Phliostratus were definitly "politically pressured" and yet most historians (in spite of their historical blunders) still consider
them,for the most part, reliable.Again my question to you is they can accept those writers why can't you accept the NT(which far
greater evidence to support it) ?
[Atomic] First you agree that they were politically pressured, but then you really put your face in it and stand behind bumbling
historians that make historical blunders as long as the end result makes you happy. Yikes.
I agree I must rephrase my signature statement to If you want to refute something you first must "know" what logic is,then use! With your post as a clear example.First,what I said is that CA justified his bias phobia against the NT documents because he claimed they were written under "political pressure"(see p.9 of Was NT Written By Orthodox Jews ),in the my quote above,which Atomic quoted, I made it clear that "I disagree" with his view but stated (on p.9 WNTWOJ)that even IF you take that position you can't willy-nilly reject them.The reason being is that historians are confronted with that problem all the time.I used two examples Josephus&Philostratus both their works were definitely written under "political pressure" and they contain "historical blunders" (see p. 9 WNT... ) and yet historians still consider them excellent sources for information.The NT contains no "proven" blunders ,so your criticism is foolish.You totally misrepresent my postion to get cheap debaters points,not that I blame you because they seem to be the only ones you can score.Next,is the issue with CA since he first raised the question as to what I think my signature statement means,then turns and runs ,like a coward,from my question as to how(given the above info on Joe& Philo) instead of making an attempt to answer them like a man. (ed for missing words) |
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 02/11/2003 22:46:54 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 22:59:19 [Permalink]
|
Starman: quote:
You are welcome to present this evidence.
I already have (some of it is above), but since you Skeptics seem to be at odds with what secular Classical Historians (i.e.Charles Sanders,Michael Grant,A.N.Sherwin-White)consider evidence for the reliability of historic documents perhaps you could share what your objective unbiased criteria is? |
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 02/11/2003 23:00:06 |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2003 : 07:34:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
How could anyone possibly "deny logic" without using a logical construct to do it?
"No" is not a logical construct.
Alas, CsequAth, you are utterly, totally, 100% wrong, wrong, wrong!!
Not is one of the fundamental of logical constructs,--if not the most fundamental.
Indeed, the and, or, and not gates are the three fundamental [hardware] logical structures of the computer on which you, and I, are trading these messages. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2003 : 08:15:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org: Not is one of the fundamental of logical constructs,--if not the most fundamental.
When you learn the difference between the declarative "No" and the logical "Not", get back to me. |
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 02/12/2003 13:52:51 |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2003 : 11:55:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
The NT contains no "proven" blunders
The NT does contain blunders:
1. The "Slaughter of the Innocents" is not recorded anywhere outside the Bible, even though Josephus went to great lengths to describe the atrocities of Herod the Great. (Mt 2:16-18)
2. Herodias was Herod's wife, according to Josephus, not Phillip's wife (whose wife was Salome). (Mt 14:3)
3. According to Josephus, John was killed for inciting the people to the point of rebellion, not for condemning Herod's (or anyone else's) relationships. (Mt 14:3)
4. According to Rabbinic literature, prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, only priests were required to wash before they ate. After this date Rabbinic law required that all Jews wash before meals. (Mt 15:1)
5. Teachers did not acquire the title Rabbi until late in the first century. (Mt 23:8)
6. Jesus said that the Temple would be destroyed such that "there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down", but the Western Wall (also called the Wailing Wall) of the Temple still stands today. (Mt 24:1-2)
7. Under Roman law, stealing was not a capital offence. (Mt 27:38)
8. Herod was the tetrarch not king. (Mk 6:14)
9. The Sabbath ended in the evening, at sundown, not anywhere near dawn. (Mt 28:1)
10. The Praetorium (Pilate's residence) was in Caesarea, not Jerusalem. (Mk 15:16)
These should be enough to refute your claim of no blunders.
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
