Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2015, 07:27 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 12:25 AM)Stevil Wrote:  But being a Christian, having a belief in Jesus and a belief that your belief will give you a place in heaven, you are incapable of inferring from any amount of evidence that Jesus did not exist.

And that's just a projection of your own prejudices.

It might be interesting, if you offered evidence in support of a non-existing Jesus, and then try and argue that the reasons for why I don't buy it, are not because the conclusions stretches credulity, or is unreasonable, but because of some strong personal biases.

But it appears to me that Stevil understanding of mental incapabilities, is likely not founded on any strong understanding of the scientific literature, or extensive reading on the subject, but produced primarily by Stevil own ignorance on the subject. Armchair psychology doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

Your letting your own tendencies replace your intellect. You know next to nothing on the subject of historicity, lack support of any particular formed position, both mythicist and historicist arguments, but absent of this somehow you've been able to gauge my capacity to draw distinction between the two.

"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
04-11-2015, 07:30 AM
Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 07:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 12:25 AM)Stevil Wrote:  But being a Christian, having a belief in Jesus and a belief that your belief will give you a place in heaven, you are incapable of inferring from any amount of evidence that Jesus did not exist.

And that's just a projection of your own prejudices.

It might be interesting, if you offered evidence in support of a non-existing Jesus, and then try and argue that the reasons for why I don't buy it, are not because the conclusions stretches credulity, or is unreasonable, but because of some strong personal biases.

But it appears to me that Stevil understanding of mental incapabilities, is likely not founded on any strong understanding of the scientific literature, or extensive reading on the subject, but produced primarily by Stevil own ignorance on the subject. Armchair psychology doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

Your letting your own tendencies replace your intellect. You know next to nothing on the subject of historicity, lack support of any particular formed position, both mythicist and historicist arguments, but absent of this somehow you've been able to gauge my capacity to draw distinction between the two.

More shifting of the burden of proof

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
04-11-2015, 07:30 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 01:42 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Even if a preacher named Jesus existed, the leap from that to "son of god" is so immense that such knowledge is useless, utterly useless.

If it could be proved that the main character of the story is entirely fictional, it would be useful. 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
04-11-2015, 08:23 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2015 08:35 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 12:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  You really don't understand that no one has to choose any story at all when none are compelling.
There is no story that has convincing evidence. That is the argument I am making

Your argument is almost exclusively a grammatical one, an argument of over the appropriate use of the word evidence, the appropriate use of the word conclusion, or explanation, as opposed to an opinion.

If we were to map out your thought process here, it would look like this:

Step 1: Decide whether the sources use to drawn conclusions and inferences from, fall under the a particular definition of “evidence” or “not evidence”.

Step 2: If the fall into the category of “not evidence”, any inferences or conclusions drawn from them are to deemed as “opinions”. But there can be reasonable and unreasonable opinions. But historians are grammatically incorrect in referring to those sources and materials as evidence, or the explanations as historical conclusion.

That seems to be the gist of your argument, as far I can decipher it given our past experiences, in which you continuously reserve yourself to semantic distinctions, rather than substantive criticisms.

My thought process is a bit different here, and if my children or friends subscribed to your way of thinking, I’d be inclined to slap the shit of them, lol.

It’s a modified version of the basic thought process advocated to children when doing a science project, which is not based on drawing grammatical distinction between what falls under the description of evidence, but rather in terms of thinking of questions, drawing a conclusion, and gauging whether those conclusions fall in line with expected predictions.

The modification, has to do with the fact that we’re dealing with historical claims, as a opposed to future predictions of the experimental sciences.

Here we think in terms of a tentative conclusion, such as if there was a historical Yeshua living in the first century, believed to have been the Jewish messiah, and was crucified by the Romans, that gave rise to the Christian movement, what we would expect to find in the historical records of the time? Do our discoveries, the various sources, materials, fall in line with those expectations? Sort how we’d expect the fossil record to look a certain way, if the theory of evolution is true, and low and behold it does, and we have yet find those bunnies in the precambrian.

A mythicist on the other hand is one offering alternative conclusions, but where it falls apart is in considerations of whether the material and sources we have, fall in line with those predictive expectations. Would we expect to find people writing of meeting a non-existing persons brother, and disciples, historians writing of their brother death, accusations of his mother being raped by a roman soldier, etc… What we find is an endless stream on inconveniences to that particular conclusions, an endless stream of bunnies in the precambrian that need to be explained away.

Your thought process seems to be dictated by some grammatical distinction, mines involves thinking through a variety of questions, considering expectations, whether or not any particular conclusions offers a better predictive model of those expectations, whether the sources and materials we discovered all fall within that frame or not, what are possible variables, etc..

You seems to have problems with this thought process, and don’t particularly feel inclined to subscribe to it yourself. But that’s not my problem, that yours.

"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
04-11-2015, 08:33 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 08:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 12:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  You really don't understand that no one has to choose any story at all when none are compelling.
There is no story that has convincing evidence. That is the argument I am making

Your argument is almost exclusively a grammatical one, an argument of over the appropriate use of the word evidence, the appropriate use of the word conclusion, or explanation, as opposed to an opinion.

If we were to map out your though5 process here, it’s would look like this:

Step 1: Decide whether the sources use to drawn conclusions and inferences from, fall under the a particular definition of “evidence” or “not evidence”.

Step 2: If the fall into the category of “not evidence”, any inferences or conclusions drawn from them are to deemed as “opinions”. But there can be reasonable and unreasonable opinions. But historians are grammatically incorrect in referring to those sources and materials as evidence, or the explanations as historical conclusion.

That seems to be the gist of your argument, as far I can decipher it given our past experiences, in which you continuously reserve yourself to semantic distinctions, rather than substantive criticisms.

My thought process a bit different here, and if my children or friends subscribed to your way of thinking, I’d be inclined to slap the shit of them, lol.

It’s a modified version of the basic thought process advocated to children when doing a science project, which is not based on drawing grammatical distinction between what falls under the description of evidence, but rather in terms of thinking of questions, drawing a conclusion, and gauging whether those conclusions fall in line with expected predictions.

The modification, has to do with the fact that we’re dealing with historical claims, as a opposed to future predictions of the experimental sciences.

Here we think in terms of a tentative conclusion, such as if there was a historical Yeshua living in the first century, believed to have been the Jewish messiah, and was crucified by the Romans, that gave rise to the Christian movement, what we would expect to find in the historical records of the time? Do our discoveries, the various sources, materials, fall in line with those expectations? Sort how we’d expect the fossil record to look a certain way, if theory of evolution is true, and low and behold it does, and we have yet find those bunnies in the precambrian.

A mythicist on the other hand is one offering alternative conclusions, but where it falls apart is in considerations of whether the material and sources we have, fall in line with those predictive expectations. Would we expect to find people writing of meeting a non-existing persons brother, and disciples, historians writing of their brother death, accusations of his mother being raped by a roman soldier, etc… What we find is an endless stream on inconveniences to that particular conclusions, an endless stream of bunnies in the precambrian that need to be explained away.

Your thought process seems to be dictated by some grammatical distinction, mines involves thinking through a variety of questions, considering expectations, whether or not any particular conclusions offers a better predictive model of those expectations, whether the sources and materials we discovered all fall within that frame or not, what are possible variables, etc..

You seems to have problems with this thought process, and don’t particularly feel inclined to subscribe to it yourself. But that’s not my problem, that yours.

You synonymize the word "evidence" with "opinion" and then shift the burden of proof and still have the audacity to post the drivel above? 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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
04-11-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 11:38 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 11:33 PM)Banjo Wrote:  "These fifteen 'crash' Ten. Ten commandments!" Smile

It's "These fifteen... *crash* Oy. TEN! Ten Commandments."

The "oy" makes the scene one of the greatest in comedy. Great stuff.

I think the part where he's mumbling "I'd have to be deaf not to hear you", and god says "What ?" is even funnier.

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
04-11-2015, 09:04 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 08:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 12:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  You really don't understand that no one has to choose any story at all when none are compelling.
There is no story that has convincing evidence. That is the argument I am making

Your argument is almost exclusively a grammatical one, an argument of over the appropriate use of the word evidence, the appropriate use of the word conclusion, or explanation, as opposed to an opinion.

If we were to map out your thought process here, it would look like this:

Step 1: Decide whether the sources use to drawn conclusions and inferences from, fall under the a particular definition of “evidence” or “not evidence”.

Step 2: If the fall into the category of “not evidence”, any inferences or conclusions drawn from them are to deemed as “opinions”. But there can be reasonable and unreasonable opinions. But historians are grammatically incorrect in referring to those sources and materials as evidence, or the explanations as historical conclusion.

That seems to be the gist of your argument, as far I can decipher it given our past experiences, in which you continuously reserve yourself to semantic distinctions, rather than substantive criticisms.

My thought process is a bit different here, and if my children or friends subscribed to your way of thinking, I’d be inclined to slap the shit of them, lol.

It’s a modified version of the basic thought process advocated to children when doing a science project, which is not based on drawing grammatical distinction between what falls under the description of evidence, but rather in terms of thinking of questions, drawing a conclusion, and gauging whether those conclusions fall in line with expected predictions.

The modification, has to do with the fact that we’re dealing with historical claims, as a opposed to future predictions of the experimental sciences.

Here we think in terms of a tentative conclusion, such as if there was a historical Yeshua living in the first century, believed to have been the Jewish messiah, and was crucified by the Romans, that gave rise to the Christian movement, what we would expect to find in the historical records of the time? Do our discoveries, the various sources, materials, fall in line with those expectations? Sort how we’d expect the fossil record to look a certain way, if the theory of evolution is true, and low and behold it does, and we have yet find those bunnies in the precambrian.

A mythicist on the other hand is one offering alternative conclusions, but where it falls apart is in considerations of whether the material and sources we have, fall in line with those predictive expectations. Would we expect to find people writing of meeting a non-existing persons brother, and disciples, historians writing of their brother death, accusations of his mother being raped by a roman soldier, etc… What we find is an endless stream on inconveniences to that particular conclusions, an endless stream of bunnies in the precambrian that need to be explained away.

Your thought process seems to be dictated by some grammatical distinction, mines involves thinking through a variety of questions, considering expectations, whether or not any particular conclusions offers a better predictive model of those expectations, whether the sources and materials we discovered all fall within that frame or not, what are possible variables, etc..

You seems to have problems with this thought process, and don’t particularly feel inclined to subscribe to it yourself. But that’s not my problem, that yours.

That's the most hilarious thing I've read in a LONG time. Tommy Boy telling Chas he has a problem with the "thought process". It's like a middle-schooler telling Einstein he's a dummy. LMAO.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-11-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 08:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  My thought process is a bit different here, and if my children or friends subscribed to your way of thinking, I’d be inclined to slap the shit of them, lol.

Do we have a favorite quotes to show someone is a douchebag thread yet?

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
04-11-2015, 09:11 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 09:08 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 08:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  My thought process is a bit different here, and if my children or friends subscribed to your way of thinking, I’d be inclined to slap the shit of them, lol.

Do we have a favorite quotes to show someone is a douchebag thread yet?

It would be littered with Tomasia's quotes. In fact, we could just title it "Tomaisan quotes: a case study in the mind of the typical douchbag theist"

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
04-11-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 09:08 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Do we have a favorite quotes to show someone is a douchebag thread yet?

Sorry, I like to bust a few balls from time to time, it keeps me light and less bored.

But I like Chas, he's a good guy, even though I like to give him a hard time.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: