Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Smullyan-esque · 06-08-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Because the evidence that it was fiction was readily apparent. The point was that people taking a fictional story as truth has happened other times, contrary to your earlier post. Causing a worldwide religious phenomena lasting 2000 years was not a condition of your assertion.

But never for 2000 years. You're refering to hoaxes. Name another hoax that has lasted 2000 and involved dozens of authors and a billion hoodwinked victims.

Name another "hoax"?

From the point of view of the Christians: Every other religion, from Buddhism to Mormonism.

Why should the founding documents of Christianity be treated differently than the founding documents of other religions? If someone claims that their religion says a mountain moved to go to their prophet, you would demand to see corroborative evidence, since a moving mountain would be a pretty big deal. And not just a report from 100 years later from someone who says "There are these folks, quite a lot of them, who claim this mountain moved. They are starting this new religion, and causing the authorities all sorts of trouble..." That's not corroborative evidence! You'd want something contemporaneous, from someone outside the religion in question.

"Corroborative evidence" is pretty much what this thread is SUPPOSED to be about. I mean, read the freaking NAME of the thread: "Extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus."

Sauron · 06-08-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

So Heroditus, the father of history, wasn't an historian, since he has almost no first-person accounts.

His contribution was in the attempt and process to collect the history. But he was not a historian, in the forensic sense of the word, no.

Don't believe me? Herodotus wrote about flying serpents:

[2.75] I went once to a certain place in Arabia, almost exactly opposite the city of Buto, to make inquiries concerning the winged serpents. On my arrival I saw the back-bones and ribs of serpents in such numbers as it is impossible to describe: of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps, some great, some small, some middle-sized. The place where the bones lie is at the entrance of a narrow gorge between steep mountains, which there open upon a spacious plain communicating with the great plain of Egypt. The story goes that with the spring the winged snakes come flying from Arabia towards Egypt, but are met in this gorge by the birds called ibises, who forbid their entrance and destroy them all. The Arabians assert, and the Egyptians also admit, that it is on account of the service thus rendered that the Egyptians hold the ibis in so much reverence.

[2.76] The ibis is a bird of a deep-black colour, with legs like a crane; its beak is strongly hooked, and its size is about that of the land-rail. This is a description of the black ibis which contends with the serpents. The commoner sort, for there are two quite distinct species, has the head and the whole throat bare of feathers; its general plumage is white, but the head and neck are jet black, as also are the tips of the wings and the extremity of the tail; in its beak and legs it resembles the other species. The winged serpent is shaped like the water-snake. Its wings are not feathered, but resemble very closely those of the bat. And thus I conclude the subject of the sacred animals.

Should we accept his accounts of such serpents?

If "yes", you're a fool.
If "no", then you understand why skepticism about NT accounts is warranted.

Quote:

Also official documents aren't historical documents because they aren't first person accounts? A law isn't an historical document?

It depends upon what purpose you use it for.

Quote:

Please. History is simply written texts. That's all history means.

THen you're tragically uninformed. History is far more than written texts. It's places, artifacts, physical items, as well as the analysis of all these items.

Quote:

We must evaluate those texts for reliability. Often a first person text is less reliable than a text far removed from the first person. Is Mein Kampf a better history of pre-Nazi Germany than third person accounts from newpapers. I don't think so.

No, but it's a better history of the mental state of Hitler than third-person accounts are. As I said: it depends upon what purpose you try to use the item for.

Patriarch Verlch · 06-08-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seraphimkawaii

No...we'll stop refuting your sources when you present the obvious, mind-blowing, all conclusive proof of jesus we've been waiting 16 pages for. Though to be fair, you're not the 1st person who should step up with those. Patriarch Verelch should come back and show us these documents, really. But if you can find this source, by all means show it to us.

Yet another inappropriate evolution tangent deleted.

Please check your PM's.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Sauron · 06-08-2006, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

But never for 2000 years. You're refering to hoaxes. Name another hoax that has lasted 2000 and involved dozens of authors and a billion hoodwinked victims.

From the point of view of christians, Islam would qualify here (1400 years vs 2000, but who's counting?). You aren't making any progress on this point, by the way.

Sauron · 06-08-2006, 10:52 PM

You've been here long enough to know better, Sauron. Quit indulging evolution discussion tangents.

Avatar · 06-08-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Apparently the only thing that impresses you is one part of a complex fossil, and an artist sketch of what the fossil "should" look like.

Completely biased, and untested in the wild.

The truth is evolution scientists are in such need of transitional fossils, that they create them.

And the dodging and evading continues.

Please contribute something concrete that fits the title of the thread. There's a whole other section of this BB for discussions about evolution.

Patriarch Verlch · 06-08-2006, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldYgg

History - as all sciences and social sciences - evolves and has been refined over time. What was considered history once in the past - does not necessarily pass must now as history. Herodotus (spelled correctly) was great in that he gathered a lot of information from a wide number of resources and wrote it down. This doesn't say anything in particular about the sources he used - or in the end the accuracy of his statements.

See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus

Mein Kampf has its place in history, but a reader should certainly be skeptical of the contents of that book and actual events as Hitler - to say even the most polite way - had an agenda.

Newspapers, are actually great forms of first person reports on events - when they exist. They have to be assigned weight about events - depending on the bias of the paper or if the paper is truly unbiased in its reporting.

Official documents vary in their form. Birth certificants - which are witnessed and sealed represent first person documents. CIA reports of spying activity against various people may sometimes need to be filtered by the bias of the reporting agents, their bosses or the politicians they work for.

There is an incredible file on Albert Einstein - and one too on John Lennon. These files are filled with slander and allegations at even the hint that either spoke to a person from another country. This - after Albert Einstein asked our government to investigate a certain theory about nuclear weapons - so that we had it before any other country on Earth. The ethical long term value of this is debatable, but also it is known that we would rather have had it before the Soviets.

A law is a historical, first person document, but what it tells you about the past is questionable. It really depends on the law. As we all know some laws are passed that few in the populace at large believe. We couldn't take laws and say - 'this is what everyone believed at that time.' You could only say that this is what the politicians saw benefit in passing at that time.

Court records are excellent first-person documents. Indeed there are records of Inquisition trials that are full of information - especially when exploring a person like Giordano Bruno - killed for his belief that the stars were other suns and that life was possible on other planets - and the fact that he wouldn't recant like Gallileo did.

You even have to question and have verifying documents about things like diaries. You verify as many facts through other sources before you go out on a limb and claim that everything (or even most things) in a particular diary are in fact - facts and not false statements.

There was the diary of Ann Frank. By itself, with no other documentation of the events in WWII, would you say what she wrote was true and factual? No.

But we have many documents about the way things were at that time, and what was going on. We have context and independent verification that leads us to say that Ann Frank's diary talks about events that happened in the real world, not fictional.

And lastly, we have to watch out for people that both alter historical documents on purpose in the future of those records or that alter them as they are created. Indeed, some of these may remain questionable - and without independent verification, cannot be held as truth. There have been many forgeries in history. And there are many countries that form the opinions of their children by giving them history books that are limited at best - and grossly biased at worst.

Court documents are great first person documents about what is going on in that court room, but do they really detail the truth? Do people lie under oath? Hell yeah, they do. Determining if they did or not, that is the trick.

Given that even normal human events have to be verified from multiple sources - imagine the proof that is necessary for abnormal events or supernatural events? If the events happened as you allege about Jesus, there should have been hundreds of people who would have talked about it, written about it, talked some more and continued on and on - as we do today when things happen. There were fewer of them and fewer of them were writers, but when something important happens it was documented, and not just by a couple of people.

Something as simple as the real identity of Shakespeare is quite difficult to discern with 100% accuracy - as there are inconsistencies in the historical record. Was it even a single individual?

So, you tell me Jesus exists and was a real person. You role out some pitiful proof - that I can count on my two hands, that was not written during the life of Jesus Christ, and furthermore stretches the time frame in which someone could possibly have been alive at the time of Jesus Christ and you tell me 'oh I've got proof! If you don't believe me you're being deliberately stubborn!' Well, I've got to tell you, that you have 1) too few documents, 2) documents in the wrong time period 3) documents that are not specific about the events they claim to tell us about 4) Books that fit mythological, not factual in style, description and substance (the bible).

There were many things that happened in JC's lifetime that are well documented and taken as historical fact. If he existed and the things that happened to him did in fact happen, where is the documentry proof?

I'm not saying that things don't happen that aren't documented. If they did happen, you might say that you personally believe that x or y happened, but you can never say you have historical evidence that x or y happened.

Old Ygg

Then you have to try and live physically as the bible teaches, and see if that will change your mind.

The bible is a testament. Apparently one that does not impress you, of anything.

Just as we were not alive to witness Jesus on earth, you don't know how life came into being.

Inappropriate evolution discussion removed.

Sauron · 06-08-2006, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch

Then you have to try and live physically as the bible teaches, and see if that will change your mind.

You have it backwards. Why should anyone live as the bible teaches, until after their minds are changed?

Are you willing to live as a good Muslim, to see if that changes your mind? No, I didn't think so.

Quote:

The bible is a testament. Apparently one that does not impress you, of anything.

No, the bible is a book. The bible is not a testament. That's a name given later, by book publishers.

Quote:

Just as we were not alive to witness Jesus on earth, you don't know how life came into being.

And since you don't believe evolution is correct (because you weren't here to see it) then you also should not believe in Jesus (since you weren't here to see him).

If you want to be consistent, that is.

Quote:

I think you are missing the miracles of life, the complexity of life, and how we are so complex that to say we came into being by accident is ludicrous.

Naw. You're just uninformed about science, so to you anything you dont understand -- like oh, I don't know -- microwaveable popcorn -- falls into the "miracle" category.

Avatar · 06-08-2006, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Then you have to try and live physically as the bible teaches, and see if that will change your mind.

Had you read any of the deconversion stories in the Secular Lifestyle forum, you would know that quite a few of us have tried in our youth. Unless you're suggesting that we should go around stoning disrecpectful children, reinstating slavery, and approving rape as a just punishment for an accusation.

Quote:

The bible is a testament. Apparently one that does not impress you, of anything.

Unsupported claims are not impressive.

Quote:

I think you are missing the miracles of life, the complexity of life, and how we are so complex that to say we came into being by accident is ludicrous.

Actually, most of us do have a deep appriciation for the vast complexity and variety of life on this world. Hopefully one day our knowledge will expand to include other worlds as well. Another common theist msitake: That somehow being an atheist robs us of the ability to be awed and inspired by the universe around us.

No one ever said that we came about by "accident" except you.

rlogan · 06-09-2006, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch

Then you have to try and live physically as the bible teaches, and see if that will change your mind.`

You mean like for nine hundred years? That would be cool. It would change my mind, too. Heck - even coming back from the dead would do it.

Quote:

Just as we were not alive to witness Jesus on earth, you don't know how life came into being.

Sheesh. Can't even get an analogy straight.

Just as we were not alive to witness grandpa banging grandma we can't know how to make cartwheels.

Quote:

Personally I think that a second century would have know knowledge that jotting down the fact that Christians still lived in his day, would know that one day evolutionists would be clamouring to deny Jesus existence.

Arranging these words in any permutation does not in the least detract from the rhetorical powers of the original ordering.

Quote:

Had he known the secular would would be hostile to this revelation, I'm sure he would have stilled his hand. The fact that these men didn't, speaks volumes. Those men that lived early on, would have had grandparents, great grandparents, fathers, with first hand or second hand knowledge of what went on.

I'm guessing there is a code here that, although baffling in its appearance, has some organized thinking when decoded.

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

06-08-2006, 10:52 PM	#395
Sauron Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: In the dark places of the world Posts: 8,093	You've been here long enough to know better, Sauron. Quit indulging evolution discussion tangents.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.