|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2011 : 11:56:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
One of the things I think I have learned recently, is that the word "agnostic" does not properly exist in the Skeptic's lexicon. I did not know that a short time ago.
What is your view on this, Moakley?
|
I am certain that the word "agnostic" is well understood by skeptics. If you feel this answer misses the point of your question, then perhaps you could rephrase your question in a clear and concise manner reflecting your intent. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 11:57:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by le Penseur
filthy: | Jesus the rabbi, the human not the alleged god, lived in a time when there were no birth certificates nor indeed very much personal documentation at all. And few could read what there was. |
No shit. Hence, no documentation. You haven't a shred of evidence this character existed, outside of four books written a hundred years later that turn him into a god. LOL If you aren't going to take your own claims seriously, why should I bother to respond?
| Since then, the paperwork has been and continues to multiply, albeit mostly apologetic bullshit. |
None of which is documentation, glad you admit that. They continue to write Harry Potter books too.
| He is a lot better documented than Uncle Abner, for which we have only DNA to ID him. |
Your question was whose existence is better documented, not whose cadaver could be ID'ed. But even by that standards, the uncle wins. Jesus has no remains, no dna.
I guess you simply chose to ignore my list. Here it is again.
Now, documentation of the existence of my uncle?
1.A birth certificate (more documentation than some prominent people can produce)
2. Photographic documentation of an entire lifetime, home movies, play on a high school sports team and the games are videotaped. Even a lot of third-party images of my uncle, cameras in parking garages, from security cameras. Every visit to a bank or supermarket.
3. a lifetime of medical records; documents like X rays, MRI cat scans, ultra-sounds. Even such meticulous points of documentation like cardiograms and genetic testing.
4. School records provide more than a decade of meticulous documentation.
5. Children, whose lineage can be genetically established.
6. my uncle's handwritten papers, even the hundreds of signatures on canceled checks.
Nobody has Christ's autograph.
7. wedding announcements, social security numbers, library card, gym membership and photo id, drivers license, credit rating, mortgages, bank loans.
8. A body. A physical body.
You see, there is far more documentation that my uncle existed, than documentation Jesus Christ existed.
In fact, there is no more documentation for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Huckleberry Finn, or Sherlock Holmes.
|
But you see, I don't take it seriously. You have come in here with unsupported bullshit, so why should I? As for your documentation of "uncle Abner", so what? We are talking about a fictional character. These days, everybody has that nickle & dime crap plus credit cards, none of which existed back in the day. Which is why identity theft is so easy and profitable now.
C'mon le Penseur, Which one is the ghost? Or, whaddahell, I’ll settle for just any ol' ghost at all.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 11:58:37 [Permalink]
|
Le Penseur....
Do the aliens possess any powers that could materially help the people in Japan today? If so, to the best of your knowledge, would they use them or not? Or is this a parochial and foolish question, as I realize it may well be? If that is the case, in your view, I apologize for asking it. |
|
|
|
le Penseur
Banned
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 12:47:30 [Permalink]
|
Filthy | But you see, I don't take it seriously. You have come in here with unsupported bullshit, so why should I? |
Thank you for admitting your posts are simply bullshit. I have thought that was the case for some time now, but it's better that you confirmed it. I only responded because I thought you may not have realized your post was bullshit. This will save me the time and effort of responding to you in the future. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 13:05:40 [Permalink]
|
Moakley.....
Originally posted by bngbuck
One of the things I think I have learned recently, is that the word "agnostic" does not properly exist in the Skeptic's lexicon. I did not know that a short time ago.
What is your view on this, Moakley? |
Moakley responds:
I am certain that the word "agnostic" is well understood by skeptics. If you feel this answer misses the point of your question, then perhaps you could rephrase your question in a clear and concise manner reflecting your intent. |
I will give you two rephrasings in the clearest and most concise language I can muster:
Moakley, What is your viewpoint on this statement? Is the word 'agnostic' (as used in one or another of it's standard Dictionary definitions,) an appropriate word to be used by Skeptics who adhere strictly to the precepts of Critical Thinking, (as defined by the Wikipedia), the List of Logical and Rhetorical Fallacies (as defined by the Wikipedia)and the Scientific Method (as defined by the Wikipedia,) in their examination of claims of any sort that are either supported by appropiate evidence or not?
Appropriate to be used as an adjective describing a conclusion reached by the use of the above named methodologies? |
Or, alternatively...
| Is it possible for Skeptics who use the methodology of critical thinking, logical fallacy, and the scientific method to reach conclusions that they would define as "agnostic" as in the appropiate dictionary definition of "agnostic"? |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 13:15:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Is it possible for Skeptics who use the methodology of critical thinking, logical fallacy, and the scientific method to reach conclusions that they would define as "agnostic" as in the appropiate dictionary definition of "agnostic"? |
I'm not Moakley, but the answer is "yes." Don't know why you'd think it wasn't.
Well, the answer is "yes" if you replace "logical fallacy" in your question with "logic." I don't know what it means to "use the methodology of... logical fallacy." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 13:42:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by le Penseur
Filthy | But you see, I don't take it seriously. You have come in here with unsupported bullshit, so why should I? |
Thank you for admitting your posts are simply bullshit. I have thought that was the case for some time now, but it's better that you confirmed it. I only responded because I thought you may not have realized your post was bullshit. This will save me the time and effort of responding to you in the future.
|
My heart is broken; whatever shall I do? 
Don't have any ghosts handy, huh?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 14:30:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by le Penseur
The only documentation of the existence of Jesus Christ are the four books of the gospel, which were written between 80 years and 150 years AFTER the birth of this alleged Jesus Christ. None of these books were written by anyone who actually met Jesus Christ.
|
The four gospels are good evidence for the existence of Jesus. Mark may have been written about 35 years after Jesus' death. Paul's letters were written before that. Also, the gospels might have been written by Jesus' disciples.| In fact, there is no mention of Jesus Christ during his entire lifetime, or for decades after his alleged death, despite the many historians in the region at the time, and the meticulous record-keeping of the Romans. There have been a lot of stories written about Jesus in the centuries since, but they couldn't be considered documentation any more than a Batman comic is documentation. |
There's a lot of evidence for Jesus' existence when you consider the amount of evidence one would expect to find for a religious figure from that time period. The Jesus myth theory demands a level of evidence that doesn't make sense.
It does makes sense to let ECREE rule here. The existence of Jesus is not an extraordinary claim. |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 15:10:58 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| I'm not Moakley, but the answer is "yes." Don't know why you'd think it wasn't. |
Thanks for those two declarations. I asked:| Moakley, What is your viewpoint on this statement |
What is it in that question that either states or implies that I would think either that it was or was not "yes"? I simply asked for Moakley's viewpoint.
I previously posted that....| One of the things I think I have learned recently, is that the word "agnostic" does not properly exist in the Skeptic's lexicon. I did not know that a short time ago. |
I did use the term "I think I have learned" which may be to what you are referring. I intended to convey considerable doubt by the use of "I think" before "I have learned" A better construction would have been "it is possible that I have learned recently..." If I had phrased it that way, you would better understand how tentative my opinion on that subject is.
I have learned from you today, Dave W.
I would also appreciate Moakley's viewpoint
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 18:02:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I asked:| Moakley, What is your viewpoint on this statement |
What is it in that question that either states or implies that I would think either that it was or was not "yes"? I simply asked for Moakley's viewpoint. |
Since what you were asking for a viewpoint on was itself a question, is such a viewpoint not identical to what one thinks the answer is? I mean, aside from viewpoints like "that's a stupid question."I previously posted that....| One of the things I think I have learned recently, is that the word "agnostic" does not properly exist in the Skeptic's lexicon. I did not know that a short time ago. |
I did use the term "I think I have learned" which may be to what you are referring. I intended to convey considerable doubt by the use of "I think" before "I have learned" A better construction would have been "it is possible that I have learned recently..." If I had phrased it that way, you would better understand how tentative my opinion on that subject is. |
And I still don't know how one would come to even the most tentative of conclusions "that the word 'agnostic' does not properly exist in the Skeptic's lexicon." Can a proper application of critical thinking result in an agnostic conclusion towards some hypothesis? Since this is not an empirical question but a philosophical one, there's no hint of even an iota of uncertainty that the answer is "yes." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
le Penseur
Banned
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 18:31:38 [Permalink]
|
Baxter: Also, the gospels might have been written by Jesus' disciples.
|
let's see some evidence for that. The vatican admits the gospels were not written by the apostles, are you privvy to information they are not?
| There's a lot of evidence for Jesus' existence when you consider the amount of evidence one would expect to find for a religious figure from that time period. |
Really? What evidence are you referring to exactly? There is absolutely no mention of Jesus during his entire lifetime, the gospels were written 80 years -150 years after his alleged birth. And they only purport to document the last three years of his life. You say there is alot of evidence ? Where, exactly?
| The existence of Jesus is not an extraordinary claim. |
Yes it is.
You claim the existence of a man who raised people from the dead, cured leprosy and blindness with a touch, a man who rose from the dead himself is not an extraordinary claim? Of course it is.
And you can't separate christ from his miracles when the only evidence for his existence are the four books of the gospel which all dwell on his alleged miracles. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 19:17:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by le Penseur
| The existence of Jesus is not an extraordinary claim. |
Yes it is.
You claim the existence of a man who raised people from the dead, cured leprosy and blindness with a touch, a man who rose from the dead himself is not an extraordinary claim? Of course it is.
And you can't separate christ from his miracles when the only evidence for his existence are the four books of the gospel which all dwell on his alleged miracles.
|
I don't know if Jesus existed or not. I have heard very persuasive arguments that he didn't exist. But someone was the model for the myth, eh? Or are you saying that he was invented out of whole cloth? Do you have evidence for that?
So the Romans crucified a rebellious Jewish rabbi. And the rebel had followers. And over the years the myth of Jesus grew well beyond what Jesus actually was. What's so extraordinary about that?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 20:22:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by le Penseur
| The existence of Jesus is not an extraordinary claim. |
Yes it is.
You claim the existence of a man who raised people from the dead, cured leprosy and blindness with a touch, a man who rose from the dead himself is not an extraordinary claim? Of course it is.
And you can't separate christ from his miracles when the only evidence for his existence are the four books of the gospel which all dwell on his alleged miracles.
|
I don't know if Jesus existed or not. I have heard very persuasive arguments that he didn't exist. But someone was the model for the myth, eh? Or are you saying that he was invented out of whole cloth? Do you have evidence for that?
So the Romans crucified a rebellious Jewish rabbi. And the rebel had followers. And over the years the myth of Jesus grew well beyond what Jesus actually was. What's so extraordinary about that?
|
While there very well may have been a human jesus, the myths surrounding the religious figure have clear roots in previous myths from the region. Virgin birth, death (for some purpose) and resurrection (and various other things, like healing the sick, being visited by wise men and kings at birth..) are attributed to multiple religious figures prior to jesus. Mithra, Horus, Krishna, Attis, and many others. They don't all share the exact same attrubutes, but the overlap is more than enough to make an argument that the christian gospels deify jesus by taking pieces from other myths and incorporating them into the story of the man.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 20:58:36 [Permalink]
|
le Penseur, the point is that if you reject the existence of Jesus because you cannot confirm it, then you must certainly understand why we must reject your claims of aliens when you cannot confirm them either. Especially when you damage your credibility by misidentifying flying insects as alien vehicles.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/11/2011 20:58:45 |
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2011 : 22:07:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by le Penseur
let's see some evidence for that. The vatican admits the gospels were not written by the apostles, are you privvy to information they are not? |
It's possible that the authors of Matthew and John may have been Jesus' disciples, or at least eyewitnesses. It may not be likely, but it's not out of the question.
| Really? What evidence are you referring to exactly? There is absolutely no mention of Jesus during his entire lifetime, the gospels were written 80 years -150 years after his alleged birth. And they only purport to document the last three years of his life. You say there is alot of evidence ? Where, exactly? |
These things that you list are neither surprising nor important requisite evidence for a religious teacher of that time. The gospels, extra-biblical references and the early Christians constitute a lot of evidence for historicity. There's no good reason to doubt that Jesus was a man widely regarded as a teacher/healer who was executed.
Yes it is.
You claim the existence of a man who raised people from the dead, cured leprosy and blindness with a touch, a man who rose from the dead himself is not an extraordinary claim? Of course it is.
And you can't separate christ from his miracles when the only evidence for his existence are the four books of the gospel which all dwell on his alleged miracles.
|
Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure fares quite well regardless of the validity of the miracle accounts. |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ETs are here, despite guesses to the contrary
