Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 09-29-2001, 07:54 PM

In history, no idea is autimatically incorrect 100% or fact.

Oy ve. So in fact there is some probability that an army commanded by Julius Caesar fought an army commanded by Gen. George Patton?

Some things are 100% fact. Some things are arguable. Some things are absurd.

There is not proof, just historical probability. You have to look at the facts and decide which is the most likely, and be willing to change your answer if and when new evidence comes up.

That's a good point of view. Keep it up, you'll be an atheist in no time.

And some things you just take on faith.

Around here we don't take anything on faith. Faith is what turns decent people into bigots, divides brother against brother, and puts jets into office buildings. Faith in the sense you mean is a great evil, and most of us want to see it gone from the world.

Michael

Quatermass · 09-29-2001, 10:21 PM

Since the miracles in the bible no longer happen, it seems the main principle you use is faith, and back it up by saying you believe the biblical writers were trustworthy. But using your own guidelines, are there any non-biblical miracles/legends that you believe to be historical?

I contend that the criteria you use to dismiss non-biblical legends as non-historical can be applied equally to dismiss the bible miracles.

Deathscyth Hell · 09-30-2001, 01:20 AM

I did not say that it would dismiss those miracles. It could, I'm sure that in some cases it has.

Ironic, you used patton in saying that he couldn't have lead the Roman Army instead of Caesar. If memory serves me correct, Patton thought that he was A Roman general in a past life. But I do see what you mean. I take back my statement that nothing is a hundred percent false, or factual. However, just about any arguement that you can come up with that fits the evidence is a valid one. It may not be the most likely one, but it is possible. And data can change. For all you know, Caesar had a nickname. Patton. There is no evidence for this (at least as far as I can tell) but that doesn't mean that it is impossible. Just not likely.

Echo · 09-30-2001, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathscyth Hell:
]First of all, I would look at their account of the story compared to other accounts. If their account matched up with others then there would be much more of a chance that what he said did happen, or a lot of people thought it happened.

Good idea...too bad so many biblical "miracles" are not verifiable in this way.

Quote:

I also try to find the earliest copies available (or the origional) to see if the evidence has been tampered with.

Another good idea..but not good news for the bible though.

Quote:

I would also study the culture in the place and time where it happened. If such happening where frequent, then it would not be considered so important. I would also look for any motives that the writer might have for writing what he wrote that seems unlikely.

Another good idea...doesn't seem to help biblical miracle claims though.

Quote:

In history, no idea is autimatically incorrect 100% or fact. There is not proof, just historical probability. You have to look at the facts and decide which is the most likely, and be willing to change your answer if and when new evidence comes up. And some things you just take on faith.

I hope stories of talking donkeys and sticks turning into snakes aren't among those things I'm expected to "take on faith."

diana · 09-30-2001, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Deathscyth Hell:
However, just about any arguement that you can come up with that fits the evidence is a valid one. It may not be the most likely one, but it is possible.

Sure. One explanation is as good as the next. I'm with you there.

I posit the involvement of the IPU, Most Merciful, Most Compassionate, Most Equestrian. The fall of Jericho had nothing at all to do with Joshua and trumpets, as stated by the "Infallible" Word of God, and it wasn't an earthquake (you silly scientists, who feel you understand the Creation of the IPU!). The Book of Pink clearly says that the IPU took a mighty dump on the city, and it crumbled to its foundations.

One explanation is as good as another.

Occham, meet DH. DH--Occham. I'll leave you two to get to know each other....

And data can change. For all you know, Caesar had a nickname. Patton. There is no evidence for this (at least as far as I can tell) but that doesn't mean that it is impossible. Just not likely.

I just spent five minutes searching for your point, having momentarily forgotten that one of the characteristics of dull things is that they have no point.

d

Queen of Swords · 09-30-2001, 09:16 AM

Gaius Julius "Patton" Caesar. Yes, that sounds possible.

Bree · 09-30-2001, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathscyth Hell:

<STRONG>Actually, you are the one that needs to get the archaeology straight. The Destruction of Jericho is dated in the Early Bronze age, Joshua Didn't show up until the late bronze age. According to current Archaeology Joshua didn't show up at jericho until about a thousand years after it was destroyed.</STRONG>

Nope, you're wrong again. Archaeologists have not been able to prove that Joshua lived at all. Since they can't prove that he lived at all, they don't know when he supposedly showed up at Jericho.

And yo buddy, they haven't physically found Noah's Ark yet. Just FYI, in case you're planning on using that arguement, too.

[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: greenbean51 ]

Quatermass · 09-30-2001, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathscyth Hell:
However, just about any arguement that you can come up with that fits the evidence is a valid one. It may not be the most likely one, but it is possible. And data can change.

Earlier I thought you were suggesting that there were guidelines for evaluating stories from antiquity in order to determine whether they should be considered legendary or historical. Here you seem to suggest that anything is possible. This doesn�t fare too well for Christianity. Perhaps Mohammed and Joseph Smith talked to angels, just as they claimed. It�s possible.

Devnet summed it up nicely, miracles could have happened, most probably they didn�t. Perhaps if additional supporting data were available, such as Billy Graham taken, alive, into heaven in a flaming chariot, it would provide reason to reconsider.

Deathscyth Hell · 09-30-2001, 12:58 PM

bean said
---------------------------------------------
Nope, you're wrong again. Archaeologists have not been able to prove that Joshua lived at all. Since they can't prove that he lived at all, they don't know when he supposedly showed up at Jericho.

-------------------------------------------
My response

I fail to see whether it matters whether joshua existed or not, we do know that the Israelites did come up out of egypt. Don't believe me, they found egyptian writing describing a group of people living in hebron. Guess what they were called? Israel. Whether Joshua existed or not doesn't really matter, what we do know is that Jericho was already destroyed when the Israelites showed up. The Israelites showed up around 1200 B.C. Unless you are going to claim that Joshua was alive at the same time as Abraham then I don't think that this attack of yours is going to work. I recommend you do a little more research on this subject before you continue arguing whether Joshua Destroyed it or not. First you say that he did destroy it. Then you say that we don't know whether he existed or not so how can we know when he would have destroyed it? You say there is no proof for the existance of Joshua. I say why does it matter? And do most historians doubt the existence of Joshua, or when he would have existed? I very highly doubt it.

--------------------------------------------

And yo buddy, they haven't physically found Noah's Ark yet. Just FYI, in case you're planning on using that arguement, too.

----------------------------------------------
You sure, you were wrong before.

Deathscyth Hell · 09-30-2001, 01:16 PM

--------------------------------------------
Earlier I thought you were suggesting that there were guidelines for evaluating stories from antiquity in order to determine whether they should be considered legendary or historical. Here you seem to suggest that anything is possible. This doesn’t fare too well for Christianity. Perhaps Mohammed and Joseph Smith talked to angels, just as they claimed. It’s possible.

-------------------------------------------
I said that anything is possible. I did not say that every possible answer is likely. I won't comment on Mohammed, because I don't know enough about him to do so. But as for Joseph Smith, Yes it is possible that angels talked to him. But it isn't likely and this is why. His teachings are so similar to the Egyptian book of the dead that it isn't even funny. It is more likely that he got his answers from the Egyptians than the Angels.
------------------------------------------

Devnet summed it up nicely, miracles could have happened, most probably they didn’t. Perhaps if additional supporting data were available, such as Billy Graham taken, alive, into heaven in a flaming chariot, it would provide reason to reconsider
--------------------------------------------
I agree. Extrordinary actions call for extrordinary evidence. If a man said that Jesus Sat down on a log, and no one else said so in their writings I would say that it probably happened. It's not that big of a deal.
But miracles? That is another story. What do we have that supports Jesus's Miracles? We have a couple of Gospels written between the middle and the end of the First century. (with the exception of John, which my have been written after 100AD we don't know) We have 12 Disciples who claim to have seen it, and countless others. (well maybe not countless, but there were a few). The early christians said that Jesus did perform miracles. So, my question to you is, if he didn't, why didn't anyone speak up? The Pharisee's would have loved to have Killed Christianity before it could even exist the womb. So if Jesus never performed miracles, why didn't they.

I think that Jesus performed those miracles. Whether he actually did or not is in question. Whether the Jews and Christians
of the first century thought that he did should not be in question.

I hope this helps, let me know if you find any real weaknesses so that I can improve on it.

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

09-29-2001, 07:54 PM	#21
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	In history, no idea is autimatically incorrect 100% or fact. Oy ve. So in fact there is some probability that an army commanded by Julius Caesar fought an army commanded by Gen. George Patton? Some things are 100% fact. Some things are arguable. Some things are absurd. There is not proof, just historical probability. You have to look at the facts and decide which is the most likely, and be willing to change your answer if and when new evidence comes up. That's a good point of view. Keep it up, you'll be an atheist in no time. And some things you just take on faith. Around here we don't take anything on faith. Faith is what turns decent people into bigots, divides brother against brother, and puts jets into office buildings. Faith in the sense you mean is a great evil, and most of us want to see it gone from the world. Michael

09-29-2001, 10:21 PM	#22
Quatermass Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 69	Since the miracles in the bible no longer happen, it seems the main principle you use is faith, and back it up by saying you believe the biblical writers were trustworthy. But using your own guidelines, are there any non-biblical miracles/legends that you believe to be historical? I contend that the criteria you use to dismiss non-biblical legends as non-historical can be applied equally to dismiss the bible miracles.

09-30-2001, 01:20 AM	#23
Deathscyth Hell Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Anderson, Indiana Posts: 138	I did not say that it would dismiss those miracles. It could, I'm sure that in some cases it has. Ironic, you used patton in saying that he couldn't have lead the Roman Army instead of Caesar. If memory serves me correct, Patton thought that he was A Roman general in a past life. But I do see what you mean. I take back my statement that nothing is a hundred percent false, or factual. However, just about any arguement that you can come up with that fits the evidence is a valid one. It may not be the most likely one, but it is possible. And data can change. For all you know, Caesar had a nickname. Patton. There is no evidence for this (at least as far as I can tell) but that doesn't mean that it is impossible. Just not likely.

09-30-2001, 08:56 AM	#25
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	Originally posted by Deathscyth Hell: However, just about any arguement that you can come up with that fits the evidence is a valid one. It may not be the most likely one, but it is possible. Sure. One explanation is as good as the next. I'm with you there. I posit the involvement of the IPU, Most Merciful, Most Compassionate, Most Equestrian. The fall of Jericho had nothing at all to do with Joshua and trumpets, as stated by the "Infallible" Word of God, and it wasn't an earthquake (you silly scientists, who feel you understand the Creation of the IPU!). The Book of Pink clearly says that the IPU took a mighty dump on the city, and it crumbled to its foundations. One explanation is as good as another. Occham, meet DH. DH--Occham. I'll leave you two to get to know each other.... And data can change. For all you know, Caesar had a nickname. Patton. There is no evidence for this (at least as far as I can tell) but that doesn't mean that it is impossible. Just not likely. I just spent five minutes searching for your point, having momentarily forgotten that one of the characteristics of dull things is that they have no point. d

09-30-2001, 09:16 AM	#26
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Gaius Julius "Patton" Caesar. Yes, that sounds possible.

09-30-2001, 12:58 PM	#29
Deathscyth Hell Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Anderson, Indiana Posts: 138	bean said --------------------------------------------- Nope, you're wrong again. Archaeologists have not been able to prove that Joshua lived at all. Since they can't prove that he lived at all, they don't know when he supposedly showed up at Jericho. ------------------------------------------- My response I fail to see whether it matters whether joshua existed or not, we do know that the Israelites did come up out of egypt. Don't believe me, they found egyptian writing describing a group of people living in hebron. Guess what they were called? Israel. Whether Joshua existed or not doesn't really matter, what we do know is that Jericho was already destroyed when the Israelites showed up. The Israelites showed up around 1200 B.C. Unless you are going to claim that Joshua was alive at the same time as Abraham then I don't think that this attack of yours is going to work. I recommend you do a little more research on this subject before you continue arguing whether Joshua Destroyed it or not. First you say that he did destroy it. Then you say that we don't know whether he existed or not so how can we know when he would have destroyed it? You say there is no proof for the existance of Joshua. I say why does it matter? And do most historians doubt the existence of Joshua, or when he would have existed? I very highly doubt it. -------------------------------------------- And yo buddy, they haven't physically found Noah's Ark yet. Just FYI, in case you're planning on using that arguement, too. ---------------------------------------------- You sure, you were wrong before.

09-30-2001, 01:16 PM	#30
Deathscyth Hell Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Anderson, Indiana Posts: 138	-------------------------------------------- Earlier I thought you were suggesting that there were guidelines for evaluating stories from antiquity in order to determine whether they should be considered legendary or historical. Here you seem to suggest that anything is possible. This doesn’t fare too well for Christianity. Perhaps Mohammed and Joseph Smith talked to angels, just as they claimed. It’s possible. ------------------------------------------- I said that anything is possible. I did not say that every possible answer is likely. I won't comment on Mohammed, because I don't know enough about him to do so. But as for Joseph Smith, Yes it is possible that angels talked to him. But it isn't likely and this is why. His teachings are so similar to the Egyptian book of the dead that it isn't even funny. It is more likely that he got his answers from the Egyptians than the Angels. ------------------------------------------ Devnet summed it up nicely, miracles could have happened, most probably they didn’t. Perhaps if additional supporting data were available, such as Billy Graham taken, alive, into heaven in a flaming chariot, it would provide reason to reconsider -------------------------------------------- I agree. Extrordinary actions call for extrordinary evidence. If a man said that Jesus Sat down on a log, and no one else said so in their writings I would say that it probably happened. It's not that big of a deal. But miracles? That is another story. What do we have that supports Jesus's Miracles? We have a couple of Gospels written between the middle and the end of the First century. (with the exception of John, which my have been written after 100AD we don't know) We have 12 Disciples who claim to have seen it, and countless others. (well maybe not countless, but there were a few). The early christians said that Jesus did perform miracles. So, my question to you is, if he didn't, why didn't anyone speak up? The Pharisee's would have loved to have Killed Christianity before it could even exist the womb. So if Jesus never performed miracles, why didn't they. I think that Jesus performed those miracles. Whether he actually did or not is in question. Whether the Jews and Christians of the first century thought that he did should not be in question. I hope this helps, let me know if you find any real weaknesses so that I can improve on it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.