GakuseiDon

Yes, I know, that's why I was wondering if you'd got the wrong article from Holding since the article you linked to is on authorship and not supernatural claims. I would have been interested if Holding had really been talking about "supernatural claims" vs "secular claims", but it seems to me that you wanted to show you 'addressing' Holding, so you quote-mined that article.

Actually, regardless of anything (including whether pigs can sprout wings and fly or not): "Supernatural claims are different from secular claims" (I assume that "secular claims" mean "non-supernatural claims".)

No.
It seems unlikely.

Tell me, if a pet pig really did sprout wings and fly, and four people told you that but they had no evidence, would you believe them?

Johnny Skeptic

So in other words, you choose to believe in things that appeal to your emotional self-interest, and if it was alleged that heaven, hell, and eternity depended upon believing that the pig flew, you would believe it.

Johnny Skeptic

I previously asked to you read my reply in my post #6 to rhutchin regarding the issue of authorship. Apparently you did not read it. I said:

Regardless of what Holding meant, I clarified the opening post by saying "At any rate, it is well-known that many Christians have made an issue out of comparing the authenticity of the Bible with secular documents, including the authenticity of supernatural events." Thus, there is no need for you to keep making an issue out of James Holding.

If you do not mind getting back on topic, do you believe that the recommended methods for comparing the authenticity of supernatural claims and secular claims are the same?

Johnny Skeptic

Yes.

Yes.

Good.

I do not understand your question. What do you mean by "if a pig really did sprout wings and fly"? How could I reasonably verify the claim based upon the testimony of four alleged eyewitnesses? Similarly, how can we reasonably verify that the four Gospel writers told the truth about supernatural claims? The claim that Jesus performed miracles is no less strange and difficult to reasonably verify than the claim that a pig sprouted wings and flying.

GakuseiDon

Well, it was YOU who introduced a quote from Holding that has nothing to do with the topic you want to discuss. So I thought it was worth pointing out. I know this is feeding the paranoia of a certain moderator on this forum, but I don't like misrepresentation of anyone, atheist or theist, Doherty or Holding.

I didn't even know they had recommended methods for those topics. What are they, exactly, and who recommended them?

Really? You don't understand that? I'm not sure how to make my meaning more clear. What I am asking is: if a pig really had grown wings (such that it happened in reality), but there was no evidence for it, how would that change how you would evaluate eye-witness testimony?

You couldn't. You can only interpret the evidence based on your worldview. If you have decided a priori that flying pigs and miracles are impossible, then no number of eyewitnesses will convince you. If you have decided that they are not impossible, then it is still more likely that eyewitnesses are wrong rather than the event occurred. Such is the nature of one-off bizarre events. So you reasonably cannot verify the claim -- even if it occurred in reality -- based on eyewitnesses.

You can't.

I agree.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: When you get some time, please reply to my post #12.

Johnny Skeptic

Good, that is all that I am trying to reasonbly prove in this thread.

Johnny Skeptic

I clarified what I said in the opening post.

In my post #6, I said "If I had not quoted the entire paragraph, it would not have been as clear as quoting the entire paragraph." I also said "I assume that Holding did not intend to limit the issue of authenticity just to the issue of authorship, in which case my arguments are appropriate."

So far, you have not produced any credible evidence that I have misrepresented Holding, and have only offered an uncorroborated speculation that I misrepresented him. If you believe that Holding does limit his authenticity argument about comparing the Gospels with secular writings to the issue of authenticity, you are free to have your own opinion, and you are free to contact Holding ask ask him about these issues.

Johnny Skeptic

Aside from the fact that you have not provided any credible evidence that I have misrepresented Holding, there is adequate evidence at a website at
http://the-anointed-one.com/search2.htm that Holding has gone way beyond anything that I might have done is this thread. Such being the case, it would be fair if you criticize him too, both at this forum, and at the Theology Web. If I misrepresented Holding, it was accidental. Much of what he has done that was wrong appears to have been deliberate. His frequent rudeness and ad hominem attacks are definitely deliberate. It is a good guess that Holding did not intend for his authencity argument regarding comparing the Gospels to secular writings to be limited to the issue of authorship.

GakuseiDon

Yes, and on the basis of assuming what Holding MIGHT have said if he'd discussed "supernatural claims vs secular claims" in an article of his that had nothing to do with supernatural claims, you said he had 'missed the boat'.

And I notice you do the same thing with Roger Pearce in post #6! You wrote:

At this forum, as far as I recall, Roger Pearse once said something like "If we cannot trust secular writings of antiquity, then we cannot trust anything, let alone the Bible." If Roger said something like that...

So you aren't sure he said that, but you throw his name in anyway. Why not just go with a general "someone said" if you aren't sure?

You really need to quote people, Johnny, otherwise at some point it comes out as dishonesty. Don't assume, don't put words into people's mouths; QUOTE them on the actual point you want to make. If you aren't sure of what they either did or would say, DON'T use their name.

May I suggest that it would be fair better (and far more decent) if YOU confirm this with people before assuming what they would say? WHY doesn't the onus rest on you?