"I was a christian", theist argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2015, 12:28 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 12:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 11:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why is it you theists always need a governing body, an absolute authority? Consider

The standards for evidence are a consensus.

Consensus among who?

The members of the scientific community.

Quote:Is there a consensus view among these distinct branches? Does the Historian and the Biologist work together to form a consensus view on what evidence is? Or do they likely have distinct meanings associated with their particular professional endeavors?

History is not a science.

And, yes, all branches of science agree on evidence being objective, available to all.

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
11-10-2015, 12:28 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 12:18 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And people believed the earth was flat. Who gives a fuck what ignorant humans believe?

Because we can account for why they believed it. Just like we can explain why people believed the earth was flat.

How would you account for the beliefs in a historical Jesus? The only real way you could do so, is by appeals to a mass conspiracy among early Christians, to create a messiah whole cloth, placing him at particular point in history close to their own, and that they intentionally tried to sell him as historical, fooling everyone along the way, even historians 2000 years later. Is there any other viable explanation for this in lieu of there not-being a historical Jesus?

The dishonesty among your type, is that while you acknowledge that we can say a variety of things about people's beliefs in a flat earth, about Obama being a Kenyan Born muslim, you try and suggest that we should say nothing about the beliefs in a historical Jesus. In fact to account for this belief, as being based on a non-existing person, put you right in the camp of flat-earthers, and folks who believe Obama is a Kenyan Born Muslim.

"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
11-10-2015, 12:30 PM
"I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 12:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 12:18 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And people believed the earth was flat. Who gives a fuck what ignorant humans believe?

Because we can account for why they believed it. Just like we can explain why people believed the earth was flat.

How would you account for the beliefs in a historical Jesus? The only real way you could do so, is by appeals to a mass conspiracy among early Christians, to create a messiah whole cloth, placing him at particular point in history close to their own, and that they intentionally tried to sell him as historical, fooling everyone along the way, even historians 2000 years later. Is there any other viable explanation for this in lieu of there not-being a historical Jesus?

The dishonesty among your type, is that while you acknowledge that we can say a variety of things about people's beliefs in a flat earth, about Obama being a Kenyan Born muslim, you try and suggest that we should say nothing about the beliefs in a historical Jesus. In fact to account for this belief, as being based on a non-existing person, put you right in the camp of flat-earthers, and folks who believe Obama is a Kenyan Born Muslim.

They believe not because of evidence, but because of hearsay and stories.

You want evidence of an opinion to be evidence for the opinion.

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
11-10-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 12:14 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 12:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Shifting the goal posts again (evidence of an opinion vs evidence for an opinion) and a straw man. No one has claimed that there aren't people stupid enough to believe in a literal Jesus. But people believing it, isn't evidence it's a true opinion.

It's a fact that every writing we have during that period, about Jesus, whether Jewish, Christian, or Roman, believed or suggested he was a historical person

There wasn't any writing about Jesus during his life or the lives of any possible eyewitnesses. It is all hearsay from decades later.

Quote:Now you can say that even so, this is not evidence that Jesus was a historical person, but just a belief that he was. But is it evidence that there was a conspiracy among early Christians to create a messiah out of whole cloth, and pass him off as historical?

It would not require a conspiracy, just a community. Communities are self-reinforcing in their beliefs.

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
11-10-2015, 12:32 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 12:11 PM)Aoi Magi Wrote:  C'mon tomasia, stop avoiding the question, what is your definition of evidence?

I did earlier, but I'll do so again:

"Evidence is anything a person uses in support of any particular view or position they hold as true. And that definition is consistent with with anyones appeal to it, and doesn't require the magical lines in the sand that others resort to."

Your definition is incorrect. In fact, it's backwards.

What people use in support of their position is what they consider evidence, whether it is or not.

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
11-10-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 12:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  It would not require a conspiracy, just a community. Communities are self-reinforcing in their beliefs.

Reinforcing what beliefs, that Jesus was a historical person?

We have folks like Paul, writing of meeting Jesus's brother James, and meeting his disciples. We have Josephus writing about James death, referring to him as Jesus brother. IS this more supportive that there was a historical Jesus, or that it was some reinforced fictional belief perpetuated by the christian community?

"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
11-10-2015, 12:49 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 12:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  What people use in support of their position is what they consider evidence, whether it is or not.


Who decides whether it is or not, besides them? Me? You?

"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
11-10-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 12:45 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 12:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  It would not require a conspiracy, just a community. Communities are self-reinforcing in their beliefs.

Reinforcing what beliefs, that Jesus was a historical person?

Yes. Like cargo cults.

Quote:We have folks like Paul, writing of meeting Jesus's brother James, and meeting his disciples. We have Josephus writing about James death, referring to him as Jesus brother. IS this more supportive that there was a historical Jesus, or that it was some reinforced fictional belief perpetuated by the christian community?

Those writings were not contemporaneous. They are writings from after the time alleged events.

Josephus wasn't even born at the alleged time of the alleged crucifiction.

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
11-10-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 12:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  History is not a science.

And, yes, all branches of science agree on evidence being objective, available to all.

If history is not a science. Then what constitutes as historical evidence, wouldn't be what constitutes as scientific evidence.

It would appear history would have it's own definition of evidence, independent of the definition by the sciences.

The question of whether Jesus existed or not, according to your suggestion wouldn't be a scientific claim, but a 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
11-10-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 12:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 12:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  History is not a science.

And, yes, all branches of science agree on evidence being objective, available to all.

If history is not a science. Then what constitutes as historical evidence, wouldn't be what constitutes as scientific evidence.

It would appear history would have it's own definition of evidence, independent of the definition by the sciences?

Historical evidence consists of artifacts and documents that support each other, along with physical evidence from science like ash layers from volcanoes or fires.

http://www.historicalskills.com/Evidence/definition.htm

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: