"I was a christian", theist argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 02:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If Jesus was non-historical he wouldn't have a brother. If Jesus did not exist, than James the brother of Jesus would also have to been made up, not just the encounter with him. And in fact one the made it all the way to Josephus who wrote of James's death, while noting that he was the brother of Jesus.

Is this detail explained better by a historical Jesus, or a non-histrocial one?
Yes, obviously if I am inventing a character, I should not invent the supporting cast, right?

[Image: 004.sig]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aoi Magi's post
11-10-2015, 02:58 PM
"I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 02:48 PM)Aoi Magi Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 02:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If Jesus was non-historical he wouldn't have a brother. If Jesus did not exist, than James the brother of Jesus would also have to been made up, not just the encounter with him. And in fact one the made it all the way to Josephus who wrote of James's death, while noting that he was the brother of Jesus.

Is this detail explained better by a historical Jesus, or a non-histrocial one?
Yes, obviously if I am inventing a character, I should not invent the supporting cast, right?

Harry Potter isn't real, but Dumbledore sure as shit is.

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, 03:03 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 02:45 PM)Aoi Magi Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 02:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's a good motive right. The early Christians, made up a Jewish messiah whole cloth, trying to pass him off as historical person, profiting and getting away with it for 2000 years, until some atheists on the internet figured it out, like they figured out the Rothschild banking conspiracy, and creationist figured out that dinosaurs bones are really just reconfigured chicken bones.

This is it was passes for skepticism, and rational thinking huh?
Hmm, let's see
I am a would be cult leader,
so it'd be really bad for me to add some historical credence to my claims, right?
Also if I make the claims myself I'll have to back them up myself, but I should never rely on a dead scapegoat and play his messenger instead.
.....
....
What, people still don't believe me, well I'll just add a "murder all non-believers" clause and pretend atheists/non-believers don't exist.

I thought Jesus was the cult leader? Oh yea he was made up by Paul? Perhaps Paul was the cult leader. But perhaps Paul was also a made up cult leader, speaking on behalf of another made up cult leader. Perhaps Paul was made up by James, and he's the actual cult leader behind these two made up ones. I mean the only sources we have regarding Paul is the NT writings. And we can't use that as evidence.

"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, 03:06 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 03:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I thought Jesus was the cult leader? Oh yea he was made up by Paul? Perhaps Paul was the cult leader. But perhaps Paul was also a made up cult leader, speaking on behalf of another made up cult leader. Perhaps Paul was made up by James, and he's the actual cult leader behind these two made up ones. I mean the only sources we have regarding Paul is the NT writings. And we can't use that as evidence.
We can't? But you said everything is evidence as long as it supports the conclusion

[Image: 004.sig]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aoi Magi's post
11-10-2015, 03:08 PM
"I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 03:06 PM)Aoi Magi Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 03:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I thought Jesus was the cult leader? Oh yea he was made up by Paul? Perhaps Paul was the cult leader. But perhaps Paul was also a made up cult leader, speaking on behalf of another made up cult leader. Perhaps Paul was made up by James, and he's the actual cult leader behind these two made up ones. I mean the only sources we have regarding Paul is the NT writings. And we can't use that as evidence.
We can't? But you said everything is evidence as long as it supports the conclusion

Don't use his "logic" against him!!!! That's not fair!!!!!!!!!!!!

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
11-10-2015, 05:55 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 08:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 07:30 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I tried to explain that to prevent that but you apparently don't quite see it.

It's not no-trust Scotsman, you're conflated 2 words which are related but not entirely the same word or have the same meaning as if they're solely the same 1 thing.

There seems to be no discernible difference between how any two people appeal to skepticism in relationship to any particular claim, other than applying it to different claims. The co-opt the same jargon, repeat the same propositions, perhaps some would label some other people's level of skepticism to be unhealthy, while others might think it to be entirely adequate.

While you may appeal to it being some method, or doctrine, there's no particular vatican like organization that defines it's meaning. And we all seem to acquire the terms in the same sloppy ways as we acquire every other colloquial term. Trying to claim that a person's skepticism regarding evolution is not true skepticism, while a those who are skeptical of the historical existence of Jesus are true skeptics, it's just one huge no true scotsman fallacy.

All that's being communicated when most people claim they are skeptical of any particular position, is that they themselves find it unbelievable, it communicates almost next to nothing about the actual claim itself, and they're likely to appeal to the same terminology and phrasings as others when provided the basis for why the find it unbelievable, like that's not evidence, etc....

This last paragraph is true, because that's what skeptical means. So yes, that's why it would be what people mean by it.

You keep attributing still as if any action of being skeptical counts to being Skepticism since there is no grand definer or overseers. Definitions work though communication and agreed upon usage.

You can have a biblical based skepticism approach. Like Ken Ham or someone like that, who says, if it's not based on or corroborating with the bible, I am skeptical of it and don't trust that information as valid. That would be skepticism because it's a doctrine/method of being skeptical. So if you were mature you'd realize how unrealistic your no-trust Scotsman repeating slant was because nobody was even saying it's not, true. YOU kept assuming and bringing in thinking that was the objection.

Skepticism needs to be more than 1 denial of a claim. It's an attitude, doctrine, method, disposition, etc. It needs to be somewhat of a pattern, not just a one church group saying I'm skeptical of this 1 instance of those saying Jesus doesn't exist.

The point is your analogy of a group in a church fitting. How you defend yourself constantly against this makes no sense. It's rather shocking how it continues this way after so much time. You always are in awkward spots making or defending your analogies because you don't seem to realize the terms or points you use don't apply the way you want them to apply.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
11-10-2015, 08:39 PM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 02:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 02:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no need to invent James - he could make up an encounter without making up James.

If Jesus was non-historical he wouldn't have a brother. If Jesus did not exist, than James the brother of Jesus would also have to been made up, not just the encounter with him. And in fact one the made it all the way to Josephus who wrote of James's death, while noting that he was the brother of Jesus.

Is this detail explained better by a historical Jesus, or a non-histrocial one?

I have made no claim about the historicity of Jesus, merely pointed out that the evidence is not strong.

Quote:
Quote:Please stop assuming what others' positions are.

You don't have a position, you just have nonsense. You raise points that you can't even think through.

I have not staked a position. Can't think through? Evidence or shut the fuck up. Drinking Beverage

Quote:
Quote:Both explanations"? What both is that? Consider

Explanations of a non-existence Jesus, and explanations of a historical one. Is the claim that James the brother of Jesus was a fictional character, just as reasonable as one in which he was actual historical person. Does one explanations explain the writing of Josephus and Paul better than the other? Or do they both posses the same explanatory capacity?

I have not argued explanations, just evidence. Please pay attention.

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
12-10-2015, 07:37 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 08:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have not staked a position. Can't think through? Evidence or shut the fuck up. Drinking Beverage

Quote:I have not argued explanations, just evidence. Please pay attention.


Yea, because you're just a muddied thinker, and all you have is a series of meaningless half thoughts.

Explanations are the vital component here, the explanation with the greater explanatory scope is what matters. It's question of which explanations makes better sense of the available information. It's that available information we refer to as "evidence", and it's a question of which explanation the evidence better supports.

And your position is what regarding this? Nothing.... You can't even formulate one, because you're that confused, and that deluded.

"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
12-10-2015, 07:45 AM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2015 07:49 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(11-10-2015 05:55 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Skepticism needs to be more than 1 denial of a claim. It's an attitude, doctrine, method, disposition, etc. It needs to be somewhat of a pattern, not just a one church group saying I'm skeptical of this 1 instance of those saying Jesus doesn't exist.


If skepticism is supposed to be some universal outlook or attitude, to all views and positions, than no one is a skeptic. Every group, person has some sets of belief their particularly skeptical about, and some they're not so skeptical about. There not skeptical about all the beliefs to the same degree.

I'm far more skeptical about objective thinking, rationalism, introspection, truth, even skepticism, then most folks here are who value these beliefs. If they were of some uniformed disposition, we'd like be on the same page, but we're not.

"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
12-10-2015, 08:37 AM
"I was a christian", theist argument.
(12-10-2015 07:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-10-2015 08:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have not staked a position. Can't think through? Evidence or shut the fuck up. Drinking Beverage

Quote:I have not argued explanations, just evidence. Please pay attention.


Yea, because you're just a muddied thinker, and all you have is a series of meaningless half thoughts.

Explanations are the vital component here, the explanation with the greater explanatory scope is what matters. It's question of which explanations makes better sense of the available information. It's that available information we refer to as "evidence", and it's a question of which explanation the evidence better supports.

And your position is what regarding this? Nothing.... You can't even formulate one, because you're that confused, and that deluded.

The irony of a theist claiming someone's thinking is muddled and that they are confused and deluded, is almost too much.

The fact that a dishonest theist is on an atheist site doing it, is utterly unsurprising. Drinking Beverage

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: