Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Bowden · 03-26-2002, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
And I am interested to know what if any information you believe contradicts The Vedas. Please do not rely on a priori conclusions discounting miracles or supernatural events.

I'll second RD's statement of interest.

But even more important to me is your response to our criticism of your original argument, specifically regarding:

-Is Lee Strobel a primary source for your argument? (and if so, are you aware of the online material debunking his books?)

-Do you agree or disagree with Malaclypse when he states, "To be viewed as "fact", a datum must indeed be uncontradicted and beyond a reasonable doubt."

-Also, do you agree or disagree with Malaclypse when he states, "the evidentiary value of an attestation is dependent on secondary criteria, including lack of bias, actual independence, naturalistic plausibility."

-Where do you think that early Christian believers got their material for the picture of Jesus painted by the noncanonical gospels?

-What is the strongest criticism of Josephus' testimony that you're aware of, and how would you answer it in support of your own dependence upon Josephus?

-Do you realize that by admitting that the evidence for the Christian God isn't beyond a reasonable doubt, you're broadcasting to us the unusual apologetic claim that doubt is reasonable and therefore entirely justified?

-Without assuming the Bible's authority, why should we believe even a single one of its claims, let alone most or all of them?

-Why mention the growth of the Christian religion, since all surviving religions grow at some point?

-Which books critical of your position have you read? Would you like suggestions regarding what to read next, so as to anticipate some of our criticisms and to prepare your case accordingly?

-Can you justify this statement: "After almost 2,000 years of thought on the subject I doubt any of us will come up with anything really new."

-How do you answer CX's comment, "How do we know people who had been there didn't say, "Hey! That isn't what happened! I was there." We can't. We do know that by the 4th century the church was engaged in a wholesale destruction of heretics and heretical texts."

-What is your answer to Skeptical's comment that "If a document or set of documents makes claims that: (1) It is the one and only inspired word of God and (2) Tells of events occuring that refute all obvserved behavior of reality, the onus of proof is on the document and its supporters, not on the doubter."

Awaiting with genuine interest,
-Wanderer

HelenM · 03-26-2002, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:
HelenSL: and if I said that someone else was, a few decades ago, would you believe me?

Theli: Not a chance. It's even LESS likely. It's not even your own testimony.

Exactly

HelenSL: However, I do believe it's possible for information to be accurately perceived and handed down.

Theli: That might prove to be difficult. The only way it would be recorded and kept excacly like the original info, it would have to be writen down at the moment and never be translated.
However info is not like wine. It will NOT become truth just because it's old. If it was a lie thousands of years ago, then it's still a lie today.

...unless it's a prophecy which isn't perceived as true until it happens

But yes, a lie would remain a lie; but in the same way, truth would remain true, also.

I don't entirely agree with you that to be accurately handed down something must be written down immediately. That may be true in a culture where we know we can write things down. Then we are sloppy about what we remember.

But in a culture where they relied more on memorization it seems possible to me that they could have taken care to remember details.

It's hard to know...in my opinion.

Where the gospels differ slightly but not hugely does that mean we have independent traditions therefore enhancing the credibility of what is written? I don't know.

I don't consider myself to have an obvious way to assess whether the gospel narrative evolved into what we have today, between Jesus' death and the writing of the four gospels; or whether they are accurately handed-down remembrances.

I might say, by faith, that they are accurate. Or - accurate enough, anyway.

I realize it's 'by faith', if I say that. Not a proven thing.

Thanks for your comments, Theli

love
Helen

sidewinder · 03-26-2002, 11:55 AM

I just want to point out that once again Finch is avoiding most of the objections to his original post. He conveniently picks out some and attempts to answer them, and seems to avoid the rest. I suspect that his next topic will be something like "Now That I'm Convinced You That Christianity Is True".

Jayhawker Soule · 03-26-2002, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
I am completely comfortable with the OT. I have said nothing to the contrary.

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this, but not at the expense of answering my earlier question. Please indicate what if any information you believe contradicts The Vedas. Please do not rely on a priori conclusions discounting miracles or supernatural events.

Hans · 03-26-2002, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hans:


Why not assume there is no information that contradicts the NT? And lets ignore the OT, like you have, and pretend the OT is not part of the same bible. Even if we did all that, why believe the claims made there-in? What would we have to suggest they are accurate?

Atticus_Finch

Do you have anything that would suggest the claims made within the NT are accurate?

Who cares if they can't be disputed. What is important is if they can be supported. I would ask no less of any testimony.

GunnerJ · 03-26-2002, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Philo, a contemporary Historian of Jesus, makes no mention of him.

Forget it, Skeptical: If he didn't bother replying to that when I stated it, why would he reply to YOU?

Atticus_Finch · 03-26-2002, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wide-eyed wanderer:


I'll second RD's statement of interest.

But even more important to me is your response to our criticism of your original argument, specifically regarding:

-Is Lee Strobel a primary source for your argument? (and if so, are you aware of the online material debunking his books?)

I have read Strobel and I don't think his arguments are necessarily unique. I think his format was unique. Yes, I have read online attempts to debunk his books. I do not agree with their conclusions.

-Do you agree or disagree with Malaclypse when he states, "To be viewed as "fact", a datum must indeed be uncontradicted and beyond a reasonable doubt."

In a word, no. I saw a friend of mine at lunch today. That is a fact. If tomorrow he denies it, and therefore contradicts it, it is no less a fact.

-Also, do you agree or disagree with Malaclypse when he states, "the evidentiary value of an attestation is dependent on secondary criteria, including lack of bias, actual independence, naturalistic plausibility."

I believe the evidentiary value of an attestation should be considered in light of bias, independence and naturalistic plausibility. As I stated in an earlier response, "lack of bias" is an inappropriate standard to rule out attestations. In this context, as soon as a witness says, "I saw the risen Christ", you rule him out becasue he is a believer.

-Where do you think that early Christian believers got their material for the picture of Jesus painted by the noncanonical gospels?

Good question. The credible scholarship I have seen places the non-canonical gospels much later than those of the canon. See Luke Timothy Johnson "The Real Jesus". The gospels in the canon were written within the lifetime of witnesses to christ's life. That makes them more credible.

-What is the strongest criticism of Josephus' testimony that you're aware of, and how would you answer it in support of your own dependence upon Josephus?

I won't take the bait. Tell me what you think the strongest criticism is and we will discuss it. And yes, I too think that portions of Josephus were later additions. However, embedded in there is acknowledge that Jesus lived, worked miracles (if you were not a believer you would call it sorcery or magic), and died at the hands of pontius pilate.

-Do you realize that by admitting that the evidence for the Christian God isn't beyond a reasonable doubt, you're broadcasting to us the unusual apologetic claim that doubt is reasonable and therefore entirely justified?

I for one am willing to admit that intelligent thougtful people exist on both sides of this debate. I find that many non-believers are not so courteous. Is doubt "justified". One can construct a "reasonable" argument against the Christian god. Does that make doubt "justified". What do you mean by "justified".

-Without assuming the Bible's authority, why should we believe even a single one of its claims, let alone most or all of them?

What I meant by that phrase was that I would not quote the bible as the inerrant word of God and expect non-believers to accept it as such on its face.

-Why mention the growth of the Christian religion, since all surviving religions grow at some point?

Christianity grew at a time when it had no state or military power. It did not conquer its foes it won them over. It also flourished at a time when there were living witnesses who could have disputed its statements of fact. Christianity is unique in the fact that it relies almost entirely on a factual statement which subject to falsification. The fact that it flourished early on is evidence that counter evidence did not exist. Somebody suggested that how do we know anybody even cared to counter the evidence of Christianity early on. Does anyone really believe that the Jewish and Roman authorities did not care about the spread of Christianity. That is ridiculous. Rome required sacrifice to its gods as civic duty.

-Which books critical of your position have you read? Would you like suggestions regarding what to read next, so as to anticipate some of our criticisms and to prepare your case accordingly?

Most of my reading has been on internet sites much like this one and the Jesus Seminar site. Suggest away.

-Can you justify this statement: "After almost 2,000 years of thought on the subject I doubt any of us will come up with anything really new."

Yes. Do you believe you have had any truly original thoughts on the subject of Christ's life. If so, I would like to hear what it was. This is not a criticism of you or your intellect, please don't take it as such.

-How do you answer CX's comment, "How do we know people who had been there didn't say, "Hey! That isn't what happened! I was there." We can't. We do know that by the 4th century the church was engaged in a wholesale destruction of heretics and heretical texts."

The growth of the early church suggests that there was not serious counter evidence. Destruction by hostile authorities is probably also the reason why we don't have 1st century copies of the NT books.

-What is your answer to Skeptical's comment that "If a document or set of documents makes claims that: (1) It is the one and only inspired word of God and (2) Tells of events occuring that refute all obvserved behavior of reality, the onus of proof is on the document and its supporters, not on the doubter."

I do not have a problem with assuming the burden of proof. I have only questioned what the level of that burden should be. What level of proof did you apply to decide what political party to join, who to marry, what broker to give your life savings to, etc.

Awaiting with genuine interest,
-Wanderer

Regards,

Finch

Atticus_Finch · 03-26-2002, 01:40 PM

Whoops! Still trying to figure out the use of the quote function. I hope you can sort through my previous post.

Regards,

Finch

Jayhawker Soule · 03-26-2002, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
Whoops! Still trying to figure out the use of the quote function.

And you are still trying to avoid my question ...

Quote:

Please indicate what if any information you believe contradicts The Vedas. Please do not rely on a priori conclusions discounting miracles or supernatural events.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Goliath · 03-26-2002, 01:59 PM

And you are still avoiding my question, Atticus_Finch.

A more appropriate moniker might be Atticus_Weasel.

Sincerely,

Goliath

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

03-26-2002, 11:55 AM	#43
sidewinder Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: omnipresent Posts: 234	I just want to point out that once again Finch is avoiding most of the objections to his original post. He conveniently picks out some and attempts to answer them, and seems to avoid the rest. I suspect that his next topic will be something like "Now That I'm Convinced You That Christianity Is True".

03-26-2002, 01:40 PM	#48
Atticus_Finch Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Missouri Posts: 392	Whoops! Still trying to figure out the use of the quote function. I hope you can sort through my previous post. Regards, Finch

03-26-2002, 01:59 PM	#50
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	And you are still avoiding my question, Atticus_Finch. A more appropriate moniker might be Atticus_Weasel. Sincerely, Goliath

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.