Jayhawker Soule

It is possible that evidence for claims (X) and (Y) differ in probative value irrespective of the legitimacy of either claim. How would you arrange the Loch Ness, the Resurrection, and Yeti in order by 'strength of evidence', and of what value is the resulting list?

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Layman

Umm, yes. Of course it is. An invalid claim can have more or less support than another invalid claim. That's not in dispute.

I have not spent much time studying Nessie or Big Foot. And since they are not reputed miracles I doubt that any such list would have much value at all to the relevant discussion.

Radorth

No.

Is that as far as you read? He talks about his rationale further down. If I had time to type it all in, you would know that he earlier lists all the standard objections to the story including "a suspicious resemblence to some Pagan myths." Your objections aren't exactly new. Only your conclusions are novel.

In any case, he thinks that given the tendency in that era to exaggerate, and follow after myths, "the synoptic Gospels agree remarkably well." In other words, he sees the agreement as the more remarkable, given the tendency to interpret history and rumor as fact. Merely concluding "everybody lied, redacted, failed to check sources, made up stuff back then" doesn't explain a hundred details "mere inventors would have hidden" nor does it explain the large number of people telling the same story.

When some say we are avoiding the question about why Christianity's miracles should be believed and not other accounts, they are simply avoiding the question Durant raises, i.e., which conclusion strains one's credulity the more? How did these "simple men" pull it off and what did they possibly have to gain. The answers are patheticaly simplistic IMO. Not sure who the skeptics are here. But with Durant there is little doubt. He is famous for seeing witches, but in this case he is suspicious of both sides.

The fact is Doherty and his ilk will not even speak to people who use the word "he" in reference to Jesus, while Durant brushes off no argument without at least presenting it. He's not a Christian by any stretch and by saying "nobody can doubt the reality..." he must have lost ten of his doubting friends- brave soul. He doesn't make any Christian friends either because he doubts Jesus died on the cross.

Radorth

Family Man

[QUOTE
Yawwwn. I hate arguing with myself. I always win.

Radorth[/QB][/QUOTE]

Yes, you are full of yourself, aren't you?

Family Man

Considering that that is your usual modus operandi, you should know. I, on the other, prefer to fill my posts with evidence that supports my position (which, of course, you strive mightily to ignore).

Had trouble staying awake in history class? I didn't, thus I do know what most historians would say.

True, but why? Because supernatural claims are unverifiable, thus we can't say with any degree of certainty that they happened.

Now there's a dubious and unsupported claim. The point is that there are no supernatural claims outside of the Christian tradition that are considered to be true. Thus, the Christian claim that they're supernatural claims are true must be considered special pleading. To date, you've done everything but tackle the point, so I've emphasized it so you can't miss it. Maybe you'll even address it, though I doubt that.

No, I think that the supernatural claims of Christianity are poor reasons to think it is true.
Other supernatural claims are utterly besides the point aside from noting how inconsistent Christians are.

It is also a strawman.

Of course they're content. They're Christians. The question is whether they are justified in their beliefs. I contend not. And you haven't addressed the point.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Family Man

I'd say the sophistry is coming entirely from your keyboard.

Actually, all of them if they want to work at reputable institutions and publish papers that will promote their careers.

Well, duh. I was using the term in the historical sense.

No, it is not restating my assumptions. When you study history, you presume that supernatural events did not occur. However, in your beliefs, you do presume that supernatural events occur. That's a contradiction that I can't abide. That doesn't mean that supernatural events haven't occurred, it simply means that they are not proven to have occurred. And considering the extremely weak evidence we have for supernatural events, I have trouble understanding the Christian enthusiasm for them except as an excuse to believe.

No, the objection is based entirely on the evidence, which you conveniently edited out and refused to comment on. And wonder why I turn the charge of sophistry against you.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Family Man

Do keep in mind, Radoth, that I do think that there was an HJ, so most of what he says doesn't bother me. But this one portion...


...amuses me greatly. Why anyone would put so much stock in the hyperbole of one probably Christian author while ignoring the evidence his opponents present to him is just incredible. No wonder you end up arguing with yourself. You have no answers for your critics.

Radorth

"He disagrees with us. He must be one of THEM!"

He's not Christian at all. He is rather unkind to Paul, IMO. That's the point. But I suppose you need to believe that to maintain your ego, untrue as it may be. I knew you'd find a flaw somewhere, but he's way more fun to read than Doherty, who seems like one running between fires he never quite puts out.

He probably did have Christian parents though.

Rad

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I knew you'd find a flaw somewhere, but he's way more fun to read than Doherty, who seems like one running between fires he never quite puts out.

Radorth, nobody as dumb as you pretending to be could write a delightful metaphor like that. Why don't you just come out?

Vorkosigan

Amen-Moses

He isn't pretending! He probably copied that metaphor from somewhere else because I'm sure I've seen or heard it before.

Amen-Moses