Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Evangelion · 05-21-2003, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Paradox? Vinnie once told this guy that he went back in time and killed his grandfather before he impregnated his grandmother

You really need to stop hanging out with that Vinnie guy.

He's a bad influence!

Dominus Paradoxum · 05-21-2003, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Um... every time you respond, you crank the paradox factor up a couple of notches. It's getting difficult to follow your self-references here.

Here's a better parardox: "If this statement is true, then every statement is true."

Is it true?

Evangelion · 05-21-2003, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Here's a better prardox: "If this statement is true, then every statement is true."

Is it true?

OK, I think I can figure it out. You start with the... No, wait - that's... um...

Let's try again. "If this statement..." or maybe... No, that's not it either.

Er.

Evangelion · 05-21-2003, 01:29 AM

Quote:

But it depends on accepting Paul's letters as dating to the mid- first century in more or less their current state.

"I can't accept Doherty's proposal because it runs contrary to my own preconceptions. So please, let's try and find an alternative that doesn't require me to change my position. Preferably one which ignores any evidence for an early dating of the Pauline corpus. C'mon, help me out here, guys!"

Quote:

If Paul's letters are all outright forgeries, or heavily interpolated, then Doherty's theory would need to be revised.

"But at least I can always fall back on the old 'interpolation' claim. That solves everything."

Vorkosigan · 05-21-2003, 01:37 AM

Quote:

I think that Doherty's theory makes a lot of sense. But it depends on accepting Paul's letters as dating to the mid- first century in more or less their current state. If Paul's letters are all outright forgeries, or heavily interpolated, then Doherty's theory would need to be revised.

I tend to agree with Toto here. Doherty makes some powerful observations. Nevertheless, mythicism, like historicity, is a position that is difficult to subscribe to wholeheartedly based on the highly recomposed and distorted evidence currently available to us.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman · 05-21-2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
I tend to agree with Toto here. Doherty makes some powerful observations. Nevertheless, mythicism, like historicity, is a position that is difficult to subscribe to wholeheartedly based on the highly recomposed and distorted evidence currently available to us.

Vorkosigan

Lets forget about positions for a while and look at expectations that can justify adoption of a position.

What would it take to prove Jesus is a mythical (wholly fabricated) figure?

And what would it take to prove the historicity of Jesus?

What is the basis of expecting evidence that will prove the historicity of Jesus (hence the agnostic stance / "insufficient evidence" stance)? What about the argument for the best explanation (for everything about xstianity and Jesus) per Doherty?

The way I see it, one can look at all the evidence and arguments from both sides and either end up confused (puzzled), a HJer or a JMther. IMHO, one can only adopt an agnostic position if one has certain clear (but unmet) expectations (for either position to be valid) that have not been met and that still stand a chance of being met.

What are these expectations? Or is my viewpoint (concerning the "anchor" of the agnostic position) wrong? Or is this agnostic position a cover for resignation to "its unknowable whether Jesus existed or not"?

Llyricist · 05-21-2003, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Or is this agnostic position a cover for resignation to "its unknowable whether Jesus existed or not"?

What do you mean cover for?? that is the very definition of agnosticism in this case.

Ted Hoffman · 05-21-2003, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
What do you mean cover for?? that is the very definition of agnosticism in this case.

Oookay, is that so? I doubt it but lets say I believe you.

Now tell me Llyricist, how do you tell when something is unknowable?

And what can change the subject of the historicity of Jesus from uknowable to knowable?

Llyricist · 05-21-2003, 08:41 AM

Not sure where you are coming from IM. All I was stating that the definition of agnostic is:

1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

If you apply 1.a. to the question of Jesus' historocity, that becomes what I said. :shrug:

As for your first question, it's my position that you can't KNOW something is unknowable, as per the definition, it is a belief.

As for your second question... I don't know what might change that..... a time machine perhaps?

But you are reading into my response (unless you remember me saying it elsewhere) that I AM an agnostic on the issue, of course I am, mainly because I can think of too many possibilities that would fit the "evidence" at hand.

Here's another one: Doherty's right that the religion started out as a mythical mystery cult, somewhere along the line they heard of some would be messiah named Jesus that got killed by whatever means and incorporated him into their cult, building the gospels as they went.

So it could be that there was an HJ, but he didn't actually found the religion .... just a speculation of another possibility, that underlines my agnosticism. i.e., it's ALL speculation.

Llyricist · 05-21-2003, 12:37 PM

To further elucidate an answer to your first question, I believe you can tell if something is unknowable when the evidence can lead to more than one conclusion..

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

05-21-2003, 08:41 AM	#19
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	Not sure where you are coming from IM. All I was stating that the definition of agnostic is: 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. If you apply 1.a. to the question of Jesus' historocity, that becomes what I said. :shrug: As for your first question, it's my position that you can't KNOW something is unknowable, as per the definition, it is a belief. As for your second question... I don't know what might change that..... a time machine perhaps? But you are reading into my response (unless you remember me saying it elsewhere) that I AM an agnostic on the issue, of course I am, mainly because I can think of too many possibilities that would fit the "evidence" at hand. Here's another one: Doherty's right that the religion started out as a mythical mystery cult, somewhere along the line they heard of some would be messiah named Jesus that got killed by whatever means and incorporated him into their cult, building the gospels as they went. So it could be that there was an HJ, but he didn't actually found the religion .... just a speculation of another possibility, that underlines my agnosticism. i.e., it's ALL speculation.

05-21-2003, 12:37 PM	#20
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	To further elucidate an answer to your first question, I believe you can tell if something is unknowable when the evidence can lead to more than one conclusion..

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.