Goliath

Metacrock,

I would be very interested in seeing this dubious claim proven.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Baloo

REALLY? So you would agree with the following statement: No otherwise rational person would ever give up their lives for a lie, even if they had lied to everyone they knew, gained a great deal of stature by telling the lie, and even if it meant that telling the truth would result in a miserable, lonely life, an alienation from their families, a loss of friends, a complete loss of public reverence, and a complete loss of honor and respect from all; whereas by sticking to their story, they would die a honorable death (in the eyes of those they cared about). ?

Are you aware that otherwise rational people choose death just because their stock holdings drop in value? Just because short-term relationships end? Just because they're in a particularly bad mood? Do you still agree with my statement in bold?

Goliath

Atticus_Finch,

You have shown yourself to be a weasel and a coward. Why do you not respond to my simple question?

I'll state it yet again.

You posted:

I replied:

Well...? I'm still waiting.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(edited for rewording)

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Baloo

Meta,

I don't doubt that you've met four people who have convinced you that they at one point met some definition of "dead", and are now, by some definition, "alive." I don't think anyone doubts that. Similarly, there are people who have looked me straight in the face and told me that aliens do kidnap and anally probe humans (and that they happened to know four such people).

MadMordigan

Now why don't modern Christains raise form the dead? Well they do! that's just ciruclar reasoning. they do. I've met four of them.

Please, I want to see the evidence!

Jefferson

Finch--[personal insult deleted] let me explain a few things, in case they haven't been covered for you. Proving the divinity of a man, that doesn't exist in history--without controversy-and then proving his divinity is almost impossible. It is impossible to prove that someone is divine, that they have the features and qualties of a mono-theistic God-type.
(1) In order to be a God, or divine, one must be omnipotent. And since omnipotence is a paradox, it doesn't exist, therefore we have already disqualified the divinity of Jesus, however there are other ways to disprove his divinity...
(2) Omniscient is another qualification that is impossible to prove, because in order for someone to understand and prove--to an audience with doubt--one must present conclusive evidence. So the only way to prove that Jesus is omniscient is for him to share with us everything he knows, which (a) according to Christians is impossible [Jesus doesn't know the "end time"], (b) I doubt we would understand everything Jesus would have to save (if he were who he said he was) and (c)in order to verify that Jesus knew everything (was omniscient), we would have to be omniscient ourselves. Impossible!
(3) One quality that is most impossible to prove is one of eternal existance; the argument is unstable, irrational and impossible. In order to prove that one exists forever--i.e. Jesus, God, souls etc.--one must exist forever, and one can never prove this, because as the words forever and eternal state, there is never an ending. Therefore it is impossible to prove that someone or something exists forever! Impossible.
* If Jesus is omnipotent, then couldn't he just have taken our sins away, instead of having to die on the cross. Or did he just like blood and violence, a glutton for punishment?
** There are many more examples of why Jesus and his divinity are a myth, I was just getting "warmed up" so to speak. This is the reasons Christianity sucks. It is such a weak and pathetic argument.

Unfortunately Finch--for you--it is impossible to prove the divinity of Jesus. Therefore the argument on which your whole reason for being a christian rests, has been destoryed [personal insult deleted]

Jefferson,

Please keep our <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/forumrules.html" target="_blank">Forum Rules & Policies</a> in mind and do not use abusive language towards other posters. Thanks much, PB.

Having said that, let me be the first to welcome you to II!

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Jefferson ]</p>

Datheron

A particular dirty way to hold an argument - use definitions away from the norm, proceed as if it was the norm, then reveal the actual definition twenty posts later after numerous replies have been made in regard to the ambigious definition. It wastes everyone's time, and for some reason, theists love doing this (Leonarde just used a version of this on Koy, Albert Capriani just loved doing this to his opponents). Maybe it's just a stalling tactic...

GunnerJ

Compliments always appriciated, but not as much as a debater who doesn't run away after getting his arguments thrashed.

Tercel

Madmax,

In one sentence you’ll telling me that what I think “has no bearing” on the truth, yet with the next you are stating your opinions as truth! At least I had the honesty to point out that it was my opinion.

As to your point, I must disagree. In my opinion you are confusing Methodological and Metaphysical Naturalism.
Methodological naturalism I would define as the idea that the universe works in general by intelligible and consistent “laws” which are discoverable by analysis of the natural world without reference to the supernatural.
Metaphysical naturalism on the other hand is the idea that the supernatural does not exist.
To see the difference, it may help to note that I am a Metaphysical Supernaturalist and a Methodological Naturalist. I believe that the Christian God exists and can and does upon occasion interfere in the natural order (Hence my Metaphysical Supernaturalism). I also believe that my God, as an intelligent agent, is responsible for the creation of the world and that a world created by him would be governed in general by intelligible and consistent “laws” which he established and which we can discover by analysis of the natural world - By “thinking God’s thoughts after him” so to speak. (Hence my Methodological Naturalism)
To me my Methodological Naturalism seems to be right at home in my Metaphysical Supernaturalism. I would say it’s implied by my particular version of Metaphysical Supernaturalism.

Methodological naturalism is I agree dependant upon a universe that has an order. The whole point of a methodology is to provide explanations. Hence your point that “the universe [being] largely or entirely random [would nullify] naturalism’s <strong>ability to explain</strong> anything” clearly shows you are here talking about Methodological Naturalism. I completely agree with such a statement.
However, my entire point is that Metaphysical naturalism does not imply Methodological Naturalism. If as you suggest above that the universe appeared disorderly to us then Methodological Naturalism is going to be useless. But I see no compelling reason to think Metaphysical naturalism would find such a universe problematic. Rather I am inclined to think that Metaphysical Naturalism would be perfectly accepting of such an absurd and random universe.

No, if you know some stats you’d know it adds up to 65%.
You can calculate this by:
P(At least one argument is true) = 1 - P(All arguments are false)
= 1 - P(Probability an individual argument is false) ^ Number of Arguments (*)
In this case:
= 1 - 0.9^10
= 0.651321...

Note that I assumed independence of arguments on (*) which may quite possibly not be a good assumption, so any calculation with real examples may have to be modified appropriately.

I made up a number.

Not true, as demonstrated by the above example.

Of course. Any estimation of how likely you believe an argument is of working will be entirely subjective.

I’m not saying that it should. However, IMO “in principle” is a much more all-encompassing phrase than is necessary here.

Not at all. Rather, I am wanting to conclude that:
C) Naturalism will never be able to explain X if naturalism in our current state of knowledge says that X does not occur.
Anything which is currently a “mystery” or not well understood is clearly not going to fit this criteria since naturalism will make no claims that X cannot happen if the area is not understood.

An impossible task in some respects: who knows what will be explained in the future? Hence my complaint that you are making naturalism impossible to disprove. The only solution that I see is for you to grant C above, which I believe is a reasonable solution.

To some extent I agree: arguing with complex ill-defined words is always difficult. However, I believe your apparent confusion between what I term Metaphysical and Methodological naturalism warrants at least a brief examination despite the difficultly.

If theists are using arguments involving mysteries then they are using the God of the Gaps technique. I suggest you content yourself with pointing out the fallacies of that whenever you see it, as opposed to trying to define their arguments out of existence.

You’re back to confusing methodological and metaphysical naturalism here.

Agreed.

And there we disagree...

Yes. Whether we understand how it operates or not does not change it’s status. (At least, not by the definition given above) Belief in the supernatural is not the same as belief in that which is not yet understood.

Whether Paul specifically gave the ones he arrested the chance to recant would seem to me to be irrelevant. Any of the Christians could observe that other Christians were being persecuted. Any “Christians” who didn’t want to face the persecution could desert as soon as they saw that other Christians were being persecuted.

I am not arguing that not a single Christian ever recanted. Rather I am arguing that none of those who are ever claimed as witnesses of the risen Jesus ever recanted. (As I mentioned earlier, there is not even the remotest hint of any major recantations recorded in either Church or opposition writings. In addition we have positive recordings of what each and every major figure went on to do for the faith)

These are the FIRST Christians here, people who were Christians with a couple of years of the date of the supposed resurrection. They included a large group (see my list below) of people who claimed to have personally seen the risen Jesus.

Does it matter? If Paul had been unwilling to endure persecution or not sure of his beliefs don’t you think he’d have stopped preaching Christianity and getting himself persecuted?

Paul claims to be have seen the risen Jesus. Paul claims he teaches the same gospel as other Christians. Paul claims he spent two weeks with the apostle Peter talking to him about the faith. All of which is recorded in Paul’s undisputed letters.

I’m still not sure I see the point of this question. If the persecutors are persecuting X because of X’s beliefs and/or preaching of those beliefs then if X no longer believes and/or preaches those beliefs the persecutors are no longer going to be interested in persecuting X.

According to Paul in 1 Cor 15 (not to mention the Gospels), James, Peter and John had all seen the risen Jesus. Whether Stephen had is not clear, but according to Acts he was certainly one of the first generation of Christians and was regularly in the company of all the witnesses.

My discussion of James begins half-way down <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000192&p=4" target="_blank">page 4</a> of this thread. Paul claimed that James had seen the risen Jesus. James was killed by the Saducees which could only have been because of his preaching of the resurrection. (Please read my earlier post before discussing this)

Same answer: He is claimed as a witness to the resurrection by the Gospels and Paul.

There is an page of discussion between some atheists on the evidence <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/martyrs2.htm" target="_blank">here</a>. (At least I know both Peter Kirby and Steven Carr are atheists).

The argument is not that one person would not "died for a lie”. But that many people would be prepared to endure persecution (and sometimes repeated persecution and death) for something they knew to be a lie without any of them ever admitting it as such.
I can but again quote Blaise Pascal:
“The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery.. or still more because of possible imprisonment, torture and death”
Yet despite this universal truth, all those who claimed to have seen the risen Lord remained dedicated to their stories in the face of these things.

You’re equivocating. They were witnesses of the resurrection in that they saw Jesus after God raised him from the dead.

Agreed.

We have Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15, that’s hardly anonymous. He refers to specific people some of whom he elsewhere mentions personally meeting, that’s not anonymous either.
We have Mark and Luke, for both of which I think it can be reasonably argued are by the people their titles’ attribute them to. Even if I accepted that all four gospels were anonymous, what basis does that give for ignoring what they say? For example the joint books of Luke/Acts have shown themselves accurate in over 95% (and for the remainder of that it is not at all certain they are wrong) of the cases we have been able to test their historical accuracy.

How “very late” is late enough to completely destroy our confidence in their accuracy? And why is it bad to use earlier traditions or writings - Historians do it all the time!

Tercel

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

lpetrich

[/quote]
However, the only sort of God it would likely support is some sort of Deist God; it does not fit the God of the Bible very well.

So what about persecution? The Roman authorities only objected because the early Christians had refused to worship the official gods. And many of the stories of persecution are little better than myth.

Pliny the Younger recorded some recantations.

So what? He had some sort of vision. And that was all that Christ was to Paul -- a vision. Paul never tried to visit the places where some supposed historical Jesus Christ had lived and died; he never tried to visit Golgotha, despite the importance of Christ's crucifixion in his creed.

Visions again. Anyone can have a vision of something.

If they had simply had visions, then so what?

Also, I wonder if all the people who have been willing to die for Islam over the centuries have impressed Tercel enough to make him convert to Islam.

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on that.

That's probably correct for background details, but any good historical novelist would likely score at least as good. And it would be interesting to score the Iliad using the same "technique". If the Iliad turns out to score high, then will Tercel convert to Hellenic paganism?

A misunderstanding. The problem here is that the "accounts" of the life of Jesus Christ show evidence of having been rewritten, which may not be surprising when one considers their hagiographical nature.