Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2015, 11:14 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(14-09-2015 06:09 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 09:54 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  That is what we would expect from persons with an anti-supernatural bias.

Holy shit! The last time I saw that phrase mashed out from a keyboard was from Alpha Male! I almost forgot all about this!

I suppose the next time I cross the street, I should take some serious time to consider whether or not that car driving toward me is a real car or a ghost car. I'd hate to be biased in my decisions and just stand there wasting time for a ghost car!

If only there were some way to test this, and remove any unreasonable bias...

Robby, you have again asserted the benefits of inductive reasoning and empirical observation, as does science. Yes, you can be sure to step aside from real cars. However, you have not demonstrated how the supernatural can either exist or fail to exist, nor will you find citations of same. We already knew you put science above God.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 11:16 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(14-09-2015 07:13 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(14-09-2015 06:09 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Holy shit! The last time I saw that phrase mashed out from a keyboard was from Alpha Male! I almost forgot all about this!

I suppose the next time I cross the street, I should take some serious time to consider whether or not that car driving toward me is a real car or a ghost car. I'd hate to be biased in my decisions and just stand there wasting time for a ghost car!

If only there were some way to test this, and remove any unreasonable bias...

LOL! Yeah, the point you make will go completely over his head. How could you have a bias if you consider supernatural and natural explanations equally?

[Image: 4f26236a22999fc8.jpg]

Supernatural and natural explanations should not receive equal weight for most particular instances. But when confronted with a claim of the supernatural, one will have biases. I do. You do. Be consistent. Be honest, please.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(14-09-2015 08:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 09:54 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. Miracles "can't" occur.

2. Greco-Roman contemporary literature was panegyric in nature so the Jews were following suit.

The issues should be obvious to you. Of course, you resent my making Bible statements like "false prophets were to be executed under Mosaic Law" which would make the Jewish writers of the NT subject to FAR more extreme scrutiny by their peers than, say, a Roman writer extolling a Caesar.

PS. If you have a question based on what I just wrote, I will address it if you write "Jesus Christ" in your question.

Thanks.

There is no such thing as people in 2015 writing "Bible statements". It crap, and you know it. I have no questions to ask of someone with no Biblical education, such as you. You are incompetent to discuss the field, as you have repeatedly demonstrated. You for got to reference that "false prohets" were routinely and systematically executed, or that writers OUTSIDE Israel would be subject to any such threat. You have no proof that "Jewish writers" wrote the NT, and in fact we know at least John was NOT a Jewish writer. You really have your head so far up your fundie ass you will never see daylight.

One book I read recently cited 139 examples from John and Luke also where archaeology and history have verified the writers were contemporaneous to the period, very early, close to Christ's resurrection, and knew countless details regarding Jewish lifestyle and practice.

My question for you is "Can you type Jesus Christ" or not? 11 characters including a space. Perhaps you should question whether you are possessed by a devil.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(16-09-2015 11:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 10:20 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Yabut, "Mosaic Law" was pretty much irrelevant in first-century Palestine. The Jews were a subject people. Roman law was much more important -- especially after 70 AD, which is when the Gospels were probably written. This whole "The Jews would never have let them get away with it" argument doesn't work. The Jews had nowhere near the power the Gospels portray them as having -- and by the time the Gospels were written, they were scattered to the four winds anyway.

Jesus speaks of the Roman law in the Sermon on the Mount. But there were tens of thousands of pilgrims in town when Jesus was crucified precisely because of the Mosaic Law. The entire NT addresses the Law as do many of the characters and incidents within.

The Romans had your taxes, but God held souls--that's how the Jewish people lived.

So what? They weren't using the Mosaic Law to execute people, as you implied earlier. They didn't have that kind of power. According to your own Gospels, they couldn't even execute Jesus -- they had to get the Romans to do it for them (not that that's believable either).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
16-09-2015, 11:50 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(16-09-2015 11:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  One book I read recently cited 139 examples from John and Luke also where archaeology and history have verified the writers were contemporaneous to the period, very early, close to Christ's resurrection, and knew countless details regarding Jewish lifestyle and practice.

You keep making this claim, but it's still nonsense. Jewish lifestyle and practice didn't change that much over 50-100 years, and they had history and archaeology (and personal memory) back then, too. It wouldn't be that hard for someone in, say, AD 100, to know "countless details" about Jewish lifestyle and practice of 70 years earlier. It's a big "so what?" It doesn't prove anything like what you think it does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
17-09-2015, 03:42 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2015 09:50 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(16-09-2015 11:44 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 11:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Jesus speaks of the Roman law in the Sermon on the Mount. But there were tens of thousands of pilgrims in town when Jesus was crucified precisely because of the Mosaic Law. The entire NT addresses the Law as do many of the characters and incidents within.

The Romans had your taxes, but God held souls--that's how the Jewish people lived.

So what? They weren't using the Mosaic Law to execute people, as you implied earlier. They didn't have that kind of power. According to your own Gospels, they couldn't even execute Jesus -- they had to get the Romans to do it for them (not that that's believable either).

Because verifiable contemporary sources paint Pilate as an asshole that did everything to spite the local Jews under his jurisdiction; which got so bad it was the source of his recall out of the province and back to the capital before he caused even more resentment with the local populace. So if the Jews had an insurgent on their hands causing them trouble, the last thing he would do is do the Sanhedrin the favor of executing this thorn in their side, and at their behest no less.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
22-09-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(16-09-2015 11:50 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 11:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  One book I read recently cited 139 examples from John and Luke also where archaeology and history have verified the writers were contemporaneous to the period, very early, close to Christ's resurrection, and knew countless details regarding Jewish lifestyle and practice.

You keep making this claim, but it's still nonsense. Jewish lifestyle and practice didn't change that much over 50-100 years, and they had history and archaeology (and personal memory) back then, too. It wouldn't be that hard for someone in, say, AD 100, to know "countless details" about Jewish lifestyle and practice of 70 years earlier. It's a big "so what?" It doesn't prove anything like what you think it does.

No. There are specific details relevant to the time. Open and closed ports, harbor depths, leaders of people, place names, etc.

PS. Less than 30 years later the Romans assaulted Jerusalem and destroyed it. It's your argument that is incorrect.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(22-09-2015 09:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(16-09-2015 11:50 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You keep making this claim, but it's still nonsense. Jewish lifestyle and practice didn't change that much over 50-100 years, and they had history and archaeology (and personal memory) back then, too. It wouldn't be that hard for someone in, say, AD 100, to know "countless details" about Jewish lifestyle and practice of 70 years earlier. It's a big "so what?" It doesn't prove anything like what you think it does.

No. There are specific details relevant to the time. Open and closed ports, harbor depths, leaders of people, place names, etc.

PS. Less than 30 years later the Romans assaulted Jerusalem and destroyed it. It's your argument that is incorrect.

You're still not making any sense. So all knowledge of these "details" completely disappeared within 50 years or so, but somehow we know all about it now, 2000 years later? People in AD 100 knew nothing about the political leaders and place names of 50-70 years earlier? I'm not buying it. And where in the Bible are there any details about harbor depths?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
24-09-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(22-09-2015 10:58 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(22-09-2015 09:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  No. There are specific details relevant to the time. Open and closed ports, harbor depths, leaders of people, place names, etc.

PS. Less than 30 years later the Romans assaulted Jerusalem and destroyed it. It's your argument that is incorrect.

You're still not making any sense. So all knowledge of these "details" completely disappeared within 50 years or so, but somehow we know all about it now, 2000 years later? People in AD 100 knew nothing about the political leaders and place names of 50-70 years earlier? I'm not buying it. And where in the Bible are there any details about harbor depths?

Harbor depth--Luke. And yes, repeating, archaeology wasn't undertaken except millennia later by moderns. So when we find archaeological facts verify different writings in the Bible at different time periods...

...And again, my objection to the "years later" argument includes the fact that none of the 9 NT writers mention a single detail of history that would have occurred past 70 AD, with the exception of John's Revelation, showing that Revelation was written after 70 AD to close the NT.

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 02:01 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(24-09-2015 01:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ...And again, my objection to the "years later" argument includes the fact that none of the 9 NT writers mention a single detail of history that would have occurred past 70 AD, with the exception of John's Revelation, showing that Revelation was written after 70 AD to close the NT.

Except that almost all of them mention the destruction of the temple! Of course, you buy into their silly game of presenting this as a "prophecy". In reality, it is very good evidence that these things were written after AD 70.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: