Freethought & Rationalism Archive

~M~ · 05-19-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

Right...again, it's still dependent on the culture which determines how big of a deal he is or not.

It would be dishonest and ahistorical to deny or ignore the jesus figure as a paramount influence in western culture. But, yes, it is ultimately up to us. I still don't see any solid relevance to this thread though.

openlyatheist · 05-19-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

You are not making a whole lot of sense matey!

~M~ · 05-19-2007, 11:57 AM

openlyatheist:

Do you contend the fallacy I charged you with?

darstec · 05-19-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

Why would this make a significant difference?

A scenario: I have a sore on my lip. I see 10 doctors and 8 tell me it is a cold sore albeit 2 tell me it is a bacterial infection. What am I reasonable to believe? I do not see it all that different from this. I would like to know whether Jesus existed or not. Yet, i do not have the background nor the time to put forth to form my own informed opinion. Thus, I turn to the experts.

If Jesus was real and everything he was said to said was real then you should make the time even if it means the rest of your life. A Christian will suffer for the rest of eternity if wrong. On the other hand if he did not exist, you will have wasted your entire life believing in a fairytale. And there are much nicer fairytales to believe it.

What happens if those two tell you it is a virial infection? Besides 'cold sore' is not a medical term and the 2 doctors calling it a bacterial infection may be far closer to accurate. From http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...rticlekey=9547

Quote:

There is no cure for fever blisters. Medications that can relieve some of the pain and discomfort include ointments that numb the blisters, antibiotics that control secondary bacterial infections, and ointments that soften the crests of the sores. Acyclovir, an antiviral drug, prevents the herpes simplex virus from multiplying and, in pill form, has been reported to reduce the symptoms and frequency of recurrence.

If your thinking about an historical Jesus is as sloppy as your thinking about the majority in your doctor scenario, no wonder you believe as you do.

Soul Invictus · 05-19-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

It would be dishonest and ahistorical to deny or ignore the jesus figure as a paramount influence in western culture.

Since you're speaking wrt western culture, I would agree with you.

spin · 05-19-2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

As a layman to Biblical Criticism & History or any relevant field regarding the historicity of the Jesus figure, I rely on relevant scholarly opinion to guide my beliefs. This, to me, is a rational and practical strategy; I do the same with medicine, law and many other arcane fields that I am not familiar with nor care to be. I rely on expert opinion--the more asserting one thing over another the better.

Now, I am aware of the minority voice that pleads a case for Jesus' nonexistence and while I have read the case, it, alas, flies over my head. Indeed, I have not a freakin clue as to what the fuck Doherty is talking about or his opposition for that matter.

So, what am I to do? They cannot both be true. So, if I had to bank on one hypothesis, then wouldn't I be rational to follow the one with the most scholarly support?

You don't have to accept either one of them. For me, neither HJ and MJ has sufficient foundation to convince my cat. In fact, it is quite possible that neither of them is true. Either of them may be true.

They don't constitute the whole range of possibilities. You have out-on-a-limbers who want christianity to be fictional, ie based on deliberate invention. I can happily envisage that christianity is based on developments of traditions that holders of those traditions believed to be true and reflective of some sort of history that need not have reflected history at all. Once again, of course, a Jesus need not have existed -- though this is inconsequential, as there is no way to show one way or another from the tradition. Traditions can be based directly on reality or indirectly and if the latter there is no necessary way of extracting any reality from it. Once information enters a tradition it cannot be separated from other information in the tradition (unless the sources are preserved elsewhere) and it is therefore rather useless for doing most historical research.

I think a person can easily sit on the fence, knowing that the evidence is so insufficient we can only get these hopeful explanations that people push as realities.

spin

Toto · 05-20-2007, 01:39 AM

Some posts that got overly emotional have been split off here: Trash talk etc

~M~ · 05-20-2007, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You don't have to accept either one of them.

I am getting annoyed with this response. I asked clear hypothetical question.

M: If I had to do X, then....

People who have trouble reading: You don't have to do X!

:banghead:

spin · 05-20-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

I am getting annoyed with this response. I asked clear hypothetical question.

M: If I had to do X, then....

People who have trouble reading: You don't have to do X!

No, you don't. Usually though, when one starts out "if I had to do X" they want to do X anyway, despite the fact that it is probably silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

:banghead:

OK. Go ahead and choose one of these two unjustifiable positions. Neither will get you anywhere. And don't bang your head too much... though it'd probably make it easier for you to choose. :wave:

spin

Soul Invictus · 05-20-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

So, what am I to do? They cannot both be true. So, if I had to bank on one hypothesis, then wouldn't I be rational to follow the one with the most scholarly support?

I know you've been in want for an answer to your OP, so I have one question.

What do you mean when you say mention the idea to 'follow' the one with the most scholarly support?

What exactly are you (for lack of a better word) 'doing' here?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-19-2007, 11:57 AM	#33
~M~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Toronto. Posts: 2,796	openlyatheist: Do you contend the fallacy I charged you with?

05-20-2007, 01:39 AM	#37
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Some posts that got overly emotional have been split off here: Trash talk etc

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.