show_no_mercy

Interesting, I've never heard of any of these points before.

skepticdude

No, they are not credible history:

1) they assume that miracles took place. It is the Christian who has the burden of showing miracles happen, because the miracles are part of their gospel assertion. He who asserts must prove. I see no evidence that miracles can occur, nor ever did occur. I don't care if 50,000 eyewitnesses swear on a stack of bibles that they all say one person levitate with no physical means of support: it is not irrational to prefer the laws of physics against the testimony of crowds, the preference for the physical laws would be the more scientific thing to do, since, apart from absolute proof, crowd delusion or trickery are more likely to account for the phenomena than is any suspension of physical law. Further, apologists have no scientific data to show that mass eyewitness testimony can sometimes be more correct than the law of physics they allege was suspended. Without such data, we are not irrational to side with a conclusion that has already proven itself scientifically

2) since they are written with an apologetic tone, concerns of bias are legitimate. Yes, everybody has bias, but not every ancient author has the same amount of bias, yet it is clear that a story made for the purpose of gaining converts would be hyped just like any news station hypes the news to make you want to tune in regularly, or any friend exaggerates what happened to him so you'll pay attention. I am consistent, I reject ALL ancient religious writings and deem their historical content unconfirmed until corroborated by at least 3 independent witnesses. Religious histories are especially prone censure and embellishment (remember all those book burnings demanded by the orthodox in their effort to give posterity the idea that Christianity was a monolith of truth from the beginning? That's the first evidence that ancient Christians cared less about objective history and more for making sure history is slanted in their favor, see Acts 19:19)

3) The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy admits that exaggeration in the bible doesn't count as error (though the dictionary says exaggeration is error), which means they admit biblical authors sometimes exaggerated. Not good news for an apologist wishing to enforce trust in the gospels.

Amaleq13

The credibility of a source is irrelevant to determining if claims from that source are true? There is a Nigerian prince who would like your email address.

I would think the more rational approach would be to hold claims from questionable sources to a higher level of critical thinking.

Knowing (believing) what you do about "the devil", wouldn't you do more research into any claim he made than, say, someone you already had reason to trust?

Lucis

anybody who knows anything about mythology would see the connection between astrology and the new testament and the old testament.

Roger Pearse

The more rational person doesn't prejudge his sources.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Without getting involved in the actual issue, might I make an observation on this particular post and the arguments deployed?

But isn't this the fallacy of the petitio principi? -- we presume that miracles never happen, because no credible source records them, because any source that does not record them is not credible.

I wonder how many ancient sources would pass this test, incidentally. Or do 'credible sources' only start with the first atheists?

This looks quite a bit like the fallacy of the ad hominem; the authors can't be trusted because they are biased. But as you rightly remark, the same accusation can be levelled at everyone, which makes it useless as a comment on this specific issue.

This statement, which I had never heard of, is here. I do not find the word 'exaggeration' in it, so some remanufacture is going on here. Since we're some way from what the original actually says, are we not in danger of committing the fallacy of the strawman?

None of this bears on the original issue; merely on the arguments used in reply.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

You think it an unfair prejudgment to consider "the devil" a questionable source? :rolling:

Only a fool ignores the evidence of previous claims when considering a source.

Don't you get tired of smacking yourself in the face with those knee-jerk reactions?

Amaleq13

So, is that a "No" response or just an attempt to avoid addressing the obvious problem with your position?

Ben C Smith

Some say that the devil (in the guise of a serpent) was the only one who told Eve the truth in Genesis 2.

Ben.

Johnny Skeptic

One thing that you fail to realize is that most skeptics would love for miracles to be available to help humans with their needs. If miracles happen, great, but why should anyone believe that they happen?

What criteria do you use to evaluate claims of miracles from all ancient sources?

Are you aware of any good reasons why people should believe that the Gospels are historical?