Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2015, 02:29 PM
Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
(01-10-2015 02:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 02:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You. Are. Too. Stupid. To. Interact. With.

Yea, says the guy who thinks the Gospels, the NT Writings, the early Christian cult, are better explained by a non-existing Jesus.

But run along, and don't forget your tinfoil hat.

Another set of straw men. Facepalm

You really don't understand what people are telling you, do you? You really are that fucking stupid.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2015, 02:35 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2015 03:11 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
(01-10-2015 02:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 02:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You. Are. Too. Stupid. To. Interact. With.

Yea, says the guy who thinks the Gospels, the NT Writings, the early Christian cult, are better explained by a non-existing Jesus.

But run along, and don't forget your tinfoil hat.

Actually they are. The general concerns and preaching of the Rabbis, (and of course you, Tomasia, know absolutely NOTHING about this period of history) from MID-LATE FIRST CENTURY, not EARLY 1st Century are reflected in the gospels and the early Xtian writings. So unfortunately for you, Thebeardeddude is absolutely correct, if that is what he really thinks.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-10-2015, 02:38 PM
Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
(01-10-2015 02:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 02:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, says the guy who thinks the Gospels, the NT Writings, the early Christian cult, are better explained by a non-existing Jesus.

But run along, and don't forget your tinfoil hat.

Actually they are. The general concerns and preaching of the Rabbis, (and of course you, Tomasia, know absolutely NOTHING about this period of history) from MID-LATE FIRST CENTURY, not EARLY 1st Century are reflected in the gospels and the early Xtian writings. So unfortunately for you, Thebeardeddude is absolutely correct, is that is what he really thinks.

A human named Yeshua existing seems inevitable but that human connecting in any logical way to the NT writings does not. Nor would a man existing named Yeshua give any validity to any gospels in any way. Thumbsup

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2015, 04:35 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2015 06:13 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
(01-10-2015 01:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You basically want to claim that historians shouldn't be able to use the the New Testament sources to recreate what happened in first century Jerusalem, to suggest what gave rise to the Christian movement, and the various beliefs, and writings associated with it?

Exactly. They shouldn't. The gospels differ in very important ways. They are proclamations of belief, written for liturgy. No one "sat around reading gospels" in those days. 5% were literate. They changed the narative, depending on the audience, and the perspective. John changed many things. The nature of the "divinity" is different in each gospel. The day of death, (so his view of Jesus as the *paschal lamb* would fit the narrative), the Last Supper had no Eucharistic institution in it, but did have a long very developed (obviously from a MUCH MUCH later time) theological statement put in the mouth of Jesus, (no Jew would EVER suggest that other Jews eat his flesh and drink blood ... an "abomination" to them, and a long speech in the passion, whereas the synoptics said he was silent "as a lamb to the slaughter" during the trial. Never once in all of history, was the Sanhedrin called into session on Passover weekend. That was just made up from nothing. The metaphor of the resurrection was so embellished that in Matthew it has many others rising too, and a zombie army (500) invading Jerusalem, yet not one Jewish historian ever mentions all these other dead people walking around. If the Jews had colluded with the Romans to go to all the bother to arrest and crucify someone on Passover week, they would have mounted a search-party to try to locacte him, IF stories of his being alive again were really going around. The fact is, it was all invented later, in an age when there was no way to fact-check anything, and the populace was gullible. Get over it. It's all made up bullshit that gave rise to the Christian subsect (know as the "Way" for decades) of Judaism. Slowly, they were expelled from the Jewish communities, (but as late as the turn of the 1st Century, the "expulsion curses" were required to be read in the synagogues, to get rid of the unwanted newish sect of (still) Jews.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-10-2015, 07:43 PM
RE: Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
(01-10-2015 11:20 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(30-09-2015 02:42 PM)f stop Wrote:  Specifically on the topic "Did Jesus Exist?"

Atheist: There is no secular record of Jesus. He only appears in Christian sources.

Theist: That's an Argument From Silence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Atheist: You're saying that if I cannot prove that he did not exist then he must have existed. That's an Argument From Ignorance.

In this example the theist isn't arguing for the existence of Jesus at all. He is simply pointing out the fallacy of the atheist's argument.

That would be the non-existent fallacy, then. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2015, 07:45 PM
RE: Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
(01-10-2015 12:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 11:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Bible (including NT) = claim, not evidence.

I mean, for fuck's sake, this is basic stuff here Facepalm

Well clearly you don't have a clue as to what you're taking about.

The Gospels, the NT writings, the writing's of Paul encounters with the disciples, and Jesus brother, are all evidence for historical Jesus, whether you like it or not.

But let me guess if it's writing by non-christian sources at the time then it's evidence, if it's christian sources than it's not?

No, it is because it is almost entirely Christian religious writings. And those really are claims, not evidence, as they are unsupported. Tacitus, for instance, lived decades after the alleged events.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-10-2015, 07:51 PM
RE: Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
(01-10-2015 01:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 01:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  THE BIBLE OR NEW TESTAMENT IN ANY WAY.

I mean, I wrote that in the post you're replying to Drinking Beverage

So you're saying secular historians like Ehrman can't use the Gospels, or the NT writings in support of the existence of a Jesus, absent of all his miraculous and supernatural abilities?

You basically want to claim that historians shouldn't be able to use the the New Testament sources to recreate what happened in first century Jerusalem, to suggest what gave rise to the Christian movement, and the various beliefs, and writings associated with it?

The rest of the Bible is wildly inaccurate about the real world. Why do your think the gospels are accurate? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-10-2015, 07:55 PM
RE: Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
(01-10-2015 02:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 02:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You. Are. Too. Stupid. To. Interact. With.

Yea, says the guy who thinks the Gospels, the NT Writings, the early Christian cult, are better explained by a non-existing Jesus.

But run along, and don't forget your tinfoil hat.

He didn't say that.

Even if there was a Yeshua fellow who existed, it in no way corroborates the tales in the NT.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
02-10-2015, 07:29 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2015 07:35 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
(01-10-2015 07:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is because it is almost entirely Christian religious writings. And those really are claims, not evidence, as they are unsupported. Tacitus, for instance, lived decades after the alleged events.

No, it's evidence, even if you want to wave your magic pencil around and claim it isn't. Tacitus is evidence too. The question is which explanation is better supported by the evidence, one in which involves a Jewish Apocalyptic cult leader, named Yeshua, who went around preaching about the Kingdom of God, who was believed by his followers to be the messiah, and perhaps God himself, and was strung up the Romans, believed by his followers to have rose from the dead, and served as the bases of the Gospel accounts, and NT writings, and the christian movement as a whole.

Or an explanation that involves an early jewish cult, who not only believed in a poor and failure of Messiah, that died a humiliating death, but in one that didn't even exist. And no one was the wiser, including historian like Tacitus, until some two thousand years later when a band of atheists on the internet figured it all out. And you think this is more sound explanation huh? You don't think this is tin-foil hat stuff?

Do you think the tin-foil hat explanation is just as supportable as a secular historical one?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 07:57 AM
RE: Argument from Ignorance vs. Argument from Silence
Just out of curiosity let me ask you Tomasia, if a document was ever found that mentioned a yeshua ben yosef that was crucified and rose from the dead that could be reliably dated to a time prior to when a historical yeshua was supposed to live, would that change your mind about the historical yeshua?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: