FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-26-2001, 10:57 AM   #21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Just bear in mind that I'm a true skeptic. Don't buy your God, but nor do I buy Doherty's thesis (though I find it intriguing). Maybe the problem was you.
 
Old 05-26-2001, 12:03 PM   #22
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

not a theist said:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Let me give an example here.
Lets say that D says that all animals are extinct and begans listing as his proof Sabertooth Tigers, Wooley Mammoths, and Giant Slothes. N then proceeds to list house cats, elephants, and puppy dogs as proof that not all animals are extinct. Is it really fair for D to fault N for not talking about Sabertooth Tigers, Wooley Mammoths, and Giant Slothes?!?!
Why should N??? He can disprove D's theory without even bothering to talk about what D wants to discuss.</font>
The only problem is that we arenít dealing with a hard science like biology or physics. In the above example you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt based on points totally unrelated to the original argument. However, the existence of a man who lived close to 2,000 years ago, there is no definite proof.

To make it a little clearer, letís break away from the Jesus example. Letís say I claim x existed. I have 7 sources that mention him. Another person claims x didnít exist and argues that 4 of the sources arenít arguing for the actual existence of a person at all, but a mythological figure. I say fine, but lets look at the 3 other sources. The other person might say, well, given that I can show there are lots of bogus things said about the actual existence of this character, including several arguments for people believing he was nothing more than a mystical figure, and there arenít a lot of sources talking about him, it is reasonable to assume that he didnít exist. One line in some ancient text does not prove the existence of someone. Iím not claiming that this is the case with Jesus, but I believe this was the argumentation style of Mr. D. He doesnít have to address every little detail and explain it away. You canít prove that Jesus exists like you can prove gravity exists or that animals are still alive.

Most liberal Christians except that so much of the bible deals with stories that are supposed to make a point, that I donít think it would be too much of a stretch for someone today to be a Christian and believe that Jesus was actually mythical.

For the record, Iím atheist, but I could care less whether or not Jesus was an actual human being. It seems odd to me that if Jesus was really the son of God that we wouldnít have more material about him. I would think that he would be something of an original and it would be ďobvious.Ē As others have pointed out, regardless of whether or not Jesus was an actual person, there are many miracles that could not have happened without others noticing.

Layman, does nomad pay you to pat him on the back every few posts or something? (Only half kidding.)
 
Old 05-26-2001, 10:52 PM   #23
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

(Withdrawn in favor of Sauce for the goose ...)

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited May 27, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.