"I was a christian", theist argument.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-10-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 10:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Evidence is relational to it’s explanation. And the strength of any explanation is it’s explanatory capacity, and it’s ability to rule out competing explanations. Darwin didn’t have to wait until he acquired detailed knowledge of genetics or the abundance of additional information later gleamed by us to acknowledge the explanatory range of his explanation.

Evidence is only a piece of a larger picture. If you can’t formulate a competing picture here, that offers a greater or equal explanatory range, anything you have to say about the evidence being used to formulate a conclusion is meaningless.

If in fact the evidence of historicity is weak, then we should be able to formulate non-historical explanations, that offer an equal degree of explanatory range. But this is not the case at all, even those here who argue about the weakness of evidence, can’t even offer a viable alternative explanations. You can say whatever you want about any individual piece of data, but it’s the question of the totality of all these little pieces that matter, and how best to account for them. The best accounting we have is a historicity, and unless you can provide a more compelling non-historical account, than you won’t be able to unseat this.

The half-baked argument being composed by folks like Chas, and TBD, no body makes them, not even those who write books in support of a non-historicity make them. They at least take the same sources and try and formulate an alternative explanation. But for CHAS, and TBD their thoughts are not even complete here, they’re just scatterbrained.


Red herring Drinking Beverage (wait, not a red herring. It's just stupid and dishonest)

Redefining what evidence is in an attempt to be able to use the word "evidence" to describe your faith, is a good example of your dishonesty in action

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
14-10-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 10:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Evidence is relational to it’s explanation. And the strength of any explanation is it’s explanatory capacity, and it’s ability to rule out competing explanations. Darwin didn’t have to wait until he acquired detailed knowledge of genetics or the abundance of additional information later gleamed by us to acknowledge the explanatory range of his explanation.

Blink

What?

(14-10-2015 10:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Evidence is only a piece of a larger picture. If you can’t formulate a competing picture here, that offers a greater or equal explanatory range, anything you have to say about the evidence being used to formulate a conclusion is meaningless.

Again, 'No'. It is never up to those questioning that which is presented to try and come up with an alternative.

People (You) present evidence. Others look at/review/compare/contrast said evidence and work out how 'good' etc it is. If it's thence deemed... 'Poor' and rejected then the presenter goes off and works on said evidence.

(14-10-2015 10:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If in fact the evidence of historicity is weak, then we should be able to formulate non-historical explanations, that offer an equal degree of explanatory range. But this is not the case at all, even those here who argue about the weakness of evidence, can’t even offer a viable alternative explanations.

Just repeating the whole "If you don't like the evidence, make up something better doesn't work.

(14-10-2015 10:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You can say whatever you want about any individual piece of data, but it’s the question of the totality of all these little pieces that matter, and how best to account for them. The best accounting we have is a historicity, and unless you can provide a more compelling non-historical account, than you won’t be able to unseat this.

The half-baked argument being composed by folks like Chas, and TBD, no body makes them, not even those who write books in support of a non-historicity make them. They at least take the same sources and try and formulate an alternative explanation. But for CHAS, and TBD their thoughts are not even complete here, they’re just scatterbrained.

Repeating it again and again doesn't work.

From what I can gather Chas, TBD are simply saying that while certainly some one named something like 'Jesus' might (And quite probably did) live about that time BUT (And this is the sticking point, possibly)

Person called 'Jesus' =/= Thing which is personification of deity called 'Jesus'.

See the difference?

*If Chas and TBD aren't saying this, please correct m'self. Blush
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
14-10-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 10:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If in fact the evidence of historicity is weak, then we should be able to formulate non-historical explanations, that offer an equal degree of explanatory range. But this is not the case at all, even those here who argue about the weakness of evidence, can’t even offer a viable alternative explanations. You can say whatever you want about any individual piece of data, but it’s the question of the totality of all these little pieces that matter, and how best to account for them. The best accounting we have is a historicity, and unless you can provide a more compelling non-historical account, than you won’t be able to unseat this.

This need for an equal alternative explanation is a common defense I see within many discussions about a believed deity or supernatural event. In your case, one does not require to put forth any other explanation to the historicity of a person or event. If the evidence available is not convincing or verifiable, then any claim can simply be dismissed - end of debate. I would not have to explain what else it could mean based on this "shotty" evidence.

I can agree with others here that a person that was written of 2000 years ago may have existed, but you can deny any claims that a person existed who walked on water, was birthed by a virgin, healed with his touch, and so on..... Why? Because that is what reason is supposed to do - weed out the possible from the impossible.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
14-10-2015, 10:54 AM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2015 10:57 AM by Aoi Magi.)
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 10:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Evidence is relational to it’s explanation. And the strength of any explanation is it’s explanatory capacity, and it’s ability to rule out competing explanations. Darwin didn’t have to wait until he acquired detailed knowledge of genetics or the abundance of additional information later gleamed by us to acknowledge the explanatory range of his explanation.

Evidence is only a piece of a larger picture. If you can’t formulate a competing picture here, that offers a greater or equal explanatory range, anything you have to say about the evidence being used to formulate a conclusion is meaningless.

If in fact the evidence of historicity is weak, then we should be able to formulate non-historical explanations, that offer an equal degree of explanatory range. But this is not the case at all, even those here who argue about the weakness of evidence, can’t even offer a viable alternative explanations. You can say whatever you want about any individual piece of data, but it’s the question of the totality of all these little pieces that matter, and how best to account for them. The best accounting we have is a historicity, and unless you can provide a more compelling non-historical account, than you won’t be able to unseat this.

The half-baked argument being composed by folks like Chas, and TBD, no body makes them, not even those who write books in support of a non-historicity make them. They at least take the same sources and try and formulate an alternative explanation. But for CHAS, and TBD their thoughts are not even complete here, they’re just scatterbrained.

1) The one making a positive claim needs to provide the evidence, and just in case you don't know, in this instance, YOU are making the positive claim.
2) Darwin did not get his hypothesis accepted by the scientific community immediately, in fact people are still trying to disprove it today. The only reason it can stand it's ground is because it predicts and provides observable evidence which stays strong under scrutiny. If anyone finds some evidence, like let's say, a naturally occurring crocoduck, the theory of evolution would be thrown out the window in a heartbeat.

[Image: 004.sig]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aoi Magi's post
14-10-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 10:27 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  From what I can gather Chas, TBD are simply saying that while certainly some one named something like 'Jesus' might (And quite probably did) live about that time BUT (And this is the sticking point, possibly)

Person called 'Jesus' =/= Thing which is personification of deity called 'Jesus'.

See the difference?

*If Chas and TBD aren't saying this, please correct m'self. Blush

You should also gather that I never argued for the deity of Jesus, or the validity of supernatural claims attributed to him. In fact it's for an entirely secular historical account, like the one offered by atheist historians like Bart Ehrman.

It's a question if the early sources, the early Christian movement, etc can be better accounted for a by a non-historical Yeshua, like we might say of Spiderman, that he can be better account for by a non-historical Peter Parker, or better by a historical account.

"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
14-10-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 10:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You should also gather that I never argued for the deity of Jesus, or the validity of supernatural claims attributed to him. In fact it's for an entirely secular historical account, like the one offered by atheist historians like Bart Ehrman.

It's a question if the early sources, the early Christian movement, etc can be better accounted for a by a non-historical Yeshua, like we might say of Spiderman, that he can be better account for by a non-historical Peter Parker, or better by a historical account.

Oh! Right! Thumbsup

So, there was some guy named 'Jesus' and he lived some where's around the place at that time.

Cool! Thumbsup

And everything that's in the bible is pretty much the same as just a glorified 'Spider Man' comic. Thumbsup

Yup, seems about right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
14-10-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 10:32 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I can agree with others here that a person that was written of 2000 years ago may have existed, but you can deny any claims that a person existed who walked on water, was birthed by a virgin, healed with his touch, and so on..... Why? Because that is what reason is supposed to do - weed out the possible from the impossible.

No one has tried sell you on any of the supernatural attributes of Jesus. The only Jesus being argued for is one in line with a secular historical explanation, like that of Ehrman's.

"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
14-10-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
A guy named Yeshua existed Dodgy Yeah, everyone is on board with a dude named Yeshua having lived because it isn't an uncommon name for the first century.

More dishonesty from you. How refreshing. 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
14-10-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 11:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No one has tried sell you on any of the supernatural attributes of Jesus. The only Jesus being argued for is one in line with a secular historical explanation, like that of Ehrman's.

*Holds up hand*

Wait... what 'history'? Secular or other-wise?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
14-10-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: "I was a christian", theist argument.
(14-10-2015 10:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You should also gather that I never argued for the deity of Jesus, or the validity of supernatural claims attributed to him. In fact it's for an entirely secular historical account, like the one offered by atheist historians like Bart Ehrman.

It's a question if the early sources, the early Christian movement, etc can be better accounted for a by a non-historical Yeshua, like we might say of Spiderman, that he can be better account for by a non-historical Peter Parker, or better by a historical account.

Spiderman and Parker are both imaginary. Though there could be a living Peter Parker, that is in no way connected to the comics.

And this is similar to the biblical jesus. There might have been a Yeshua person, but there is nothing that can prove this Yeshua and the one in the bible are the same guy.

[Image: 004.sig]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aoi Magi's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: