Kosh

Fallacy:
Argumentum ad verecundiam

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#authority" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#authority</a>

CX

I agree that the claims of the Xian tradition should not be ruled out a priori because they contain supernatural elements, but neither should they be given any special consideration over other mythic frameworks from other traditions.

That being said the only "evidence" for the Xian myth is the Xian texts themselves which amount to anecdotal accounts far removed from the present (and probably far removed from the original events as well). In general, within the framework of critical thinking and the scientific method, anecdotal evidence is not evidence because it relies on human perception which is demonstrably unreliable. It becomes exponentially more unreliable when you are dealing with 2nd and 3rd hand accounts. I'm sure this is what the original poster means when he says that the evidence for Xianity is of the weakest type.

CX

Hmmmm. It seems to me, though this is probably repetetive to the point of tedium, that the burden of proof is on the claimant. For myself it is not so much that there are arguments against Xianity, but rather there are no compelling arguments for Xianity. We simply do not have enough information about Jesus that is of a good quality and unassailable reliability to draw any conclusions about him.

For me personally, since you asked about the "skeptic's" view, a lifetime of study across multiple disciplines has lead me to the conclusion that a personal god does not exist and consequently traditions relating to any such are fictional. This includes comparative religion, NT text criticism, the sciences of cosmology and biology as well as observations of history and the way the world works presently.

Godless Dave

Sotzo, should the Biblical account of the resurrection of Jesus be taken more seriously than the Koranic account of Mohammed being taken up to heaven at Jerusalem? If so, why?

sotzo

Fallacy:
Argumentum ad verecundiam

Max's claim was that theism defies common sense. As evidence against such a claim I offered my list of respected theists. Of course, those theists may be wrong in their conclusions about God(which would commit the fallacy with which you've charged me).

However, in the context of this thread, I offered it as counter-evidence against Max's claim, not as a positive argument for these popular theists' claims.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

Kosh

Balogna. Stop backpedling.

Jayhawker Soule

Speaking of popular theistic claims, what is the compelling evidence for the resurrection?

madmax2976

Quite right. But why point out something that is irrelevant in regards to my statement?

I do believe that the more extraordinary the claim the more evidence there should be to support it - don't you?

<strong> Christian arguments depend a great deal upon ancient textual historical arguments: This writing was written at this time - approximately. This text was written by this person - maybe. So and so might have been a governor at this time. This person wrote that these people saw or did such and such, etc. .

Is it your contention then, that historical science is as accurate and reliable as other sciences such as physics, chemistry, genetics, biology, medicine, forensics, etc. .?

Where on the proverbial totem pole would you place the kind of evidence Christian arguments typically use? Equal with that used by other sciences? Equal with that used in criminal law cases (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt)? Civil law cases (i.i. a perponderance of the evidence)? Should the fantastic nature of some Christian claims be held to a higher standard than common claims?

<strong> Who said anything about changing the laws of nature? I just want to see any supernatural hypothesis demonstrated to actually be true. It's up to supernaturalists to figure out how this is to be done since they are they ones who advocate the existence of supernatural entities or forces. Its not my business or place to figure it out for them.

<strong> The inability of supernaturalists to support their claims of supernatural entities and/or forces is evidence against the existence of such things, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. The fact that no supernatuaral claim has ever been verified to actually be true, weighs very heavily against the probability of the supernatural ever being true.

The fact that you define the supernatural as that which doesn't "permit detection" changes nothing, it only exacerbates the problem. If you readily admit that you cannot demonstrate the supernatural claims to be true, then why would you ever expect anyone to accept such claims?

Just as a side note, I find this "defining" tactic to be quite ad hoc. It is a relatively easy task to define an entity or force such that it is impervious to critique - all you have to do is keep defining it such that it can't be critiqued. However, while one's personal beliefs may be protected in this manner, it is hardly convincing to anyone else.

<strong> Sorry, but the failure of supernaturalists to demonstrate their claims to be true does give justification in discounting those claims. Again, its not my problem to figure out how this is to be done - its up to the supernaturalist.

<strong> How so?

<strong> How so? I've got tons of evidence for naturalism. I have practically zilch for supernaturalism. At the very best, all I have is a possibility of the supernatural, but such possibilities are hardly all that interesting since a great many things are possible.

I'm much more interested in what is probable or likely, rather than just what might be possible.

<strong> Well frankly I am fairly skeptical of all ancient history - whats the problem with that? I'll bet your skeptical of a great many historical claims as well. The more fantastic the claim or the more it conflicts with your own beliefs, the more skeptical I'm sure you are. Its only natural.

But its not like any part of my life depends on whether or not Lincoln really wrote the Gettysburg address himself, whether Alexander the Great really sacked some city, or whether the Egyptians believe in a 50 Gods or just 49. History, particularly ancient history, is about maybe's and possibly's - not about certainty or even about the level of probability we find in other areas of scientific research.

In any case, is it your contention that people did think critically when it came to supernatural claims? Where is your evidence for such a thing? To my knowledge, no one went around disproving deities or debunking religious/supernatuaral claims, but perhaps your privvy to some information I lack.

It's my understanding the Romans, Greeks, Mayans, Aztecs, Nordic peoples, and the Chinese all believed in a great many deities and had a numerous supernatural beliefs. I don't know of anyone or any group that attempted to examine all these beliefs, or any of these beliefs, with a critical eye.

<strong> If such a setting wasn't true and your brain didn't "fire off chemical reactions" you'd be physically dead or at least brain dead, and by all the evidence available to us, unable to even ask the question. So I don't get your point. Do you have something against the chemical reactions in your brain?

<strong> And there are some very bright people who don't think it is very common sense to be a theist. And? Is this an argumentum ad populum?

What is "common sense" is chiefly a matter of opinion. I was just offering mine and of course your free to ignore it.

If you wan't me to believe that Christian theism is sensible, then you'll have to actually argue for it. I've seen lots of arguments over the past 25 years and I've yet to see any stand up to critique.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

lpetrich

However, nobody else seems to have noticed those marvelous goings-on. A mysterious darkening for a couple hours in the daytime would have been very noticeable, but nobody else seems to have noticed. Also, the Bible does not have a monopoly on accounts of miraculous cures, or miracles in general. Do the cures attributed to the Greek god Asklepios mean that that being is a real one and ought to be worshipped?

Richard Carrier discusses these sorts of questions in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/" target="_blank">Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story</a> and <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/" target="_blank">Review of "In Defense of Miracles"</a>, and he has some very interesting arguments.

But if supernatural hypotheses are untestable, that makes them meaningless.

But I do think that some tests have been made. Consider the task of protecting buildings from lightning. Lightning rods have proved much more successful at that task than such supernatural-based techniques as ringing church bells. Especially bells baptized for that task. Now why might that be the case?

No, it's simple extrapolation. See Richard Carrier's <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html" target="_blank">Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire</a> for a good discussion. Some people were willing to be skeptical, but many. Also, many people show critical sense in some areas but gaping-mindedness in others.

I will concede that this depends on what is considered common sense.

Which does not keep their arguments from being full of holes. I wonder what sotzo thinks about apologists for religions other than his, and the arguments that they present.

sotzo

Balogna. Stop backpedling.

Pastrami. I explained why I believe I did not commit the fallacy. If you disagree with me, feel free to explain why.