[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Thats like reading and watching Lord of the Rings every day for 40 years- its meaningless.

False equivalence. The Lord of the Rings is claimed to be a fictional story even by its author.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I didn't say "evidence" (which even biblical tales mired in myth can be considered scant "evidence"); I specifically said PROVEN (as in proof). Whereas proof does indeed contain evidence; evidence OTOH does not necessarily contain proof.


OM

There are no proofs here. Proof does not contain evidence. It simply is.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Show me the scientific criteria to PROVE Jesus and/or a resurrection?

You're asking for something you can't even define yourself - the specific criteria required.

So, not only can't one scientifically prove Jesus and/or the resurrection, but YOU can't even provide the scientific criteria for the assessment!

A man's got to know his limitations.

Also,

If your standard for authenticity is empirical evidence and proof, please provide empirical evidence / proof for these individuals from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

You can't, can you?!

So, take your history books and throw them in the trash, because they don't meet your pie-in-the-sky standards!

Excellently argued.
:applaud

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The gospels aren't proof of the infallibility of the gospels, which is what they argue. That is circular. It winds up where it began.

I accept that the Jesus in the NT lived. The proof of the supernatural stuff is missing. The gospels are claims, no more.

...so you accept that Jesus Christ lived. You accept this because of the Bible. Yet, you discard the rest of the Bible. WTF???

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

No one makes a religion out of those people or asks us to get us to dedicate our lives to serving them. Apples and marshmallows.

Attila the Hun didn't ask people to dedicate their lives to serve him??? WTF???

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I think it's possible that some version of Jesus lived, but certainly not the Jesus in the NT because the Jesus in the NT is a magical man-god and we have no evidence of any of that. But without the magical man-god elements, is whatever real person the myth in the Bible is loosely based on actually Jesus? I don't think so.

How odd. You believe that Jesus Christ lived because of the Bible, yet you reject the Bible. WTF???

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

As solid as any theory of science. No theory of science has ever been proven either.

You're barking up the wrong tree; I haven't been discussing scientific theory. My point stands in relation to his use of the world "solid".


OM

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

There is no evidence for a god, gods, or spirits.

Life itself. The Earth itself.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

How odd. You believe that Jesus Christ lived because of the Bible, yet you reject the Bible. WTF???

It is an academic consensus, aside from the Bible, that Jesus - whoever he truly was (and/or was patterned after in the Bible) - existed.


OM

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

First off, you don't even know what the fallacy is called. That isn't it. Secondly, you clearly don't know what it is. It would be an argument from ignorance if he said "there is no evidence, therefore no gods exist". He didn't say that.

He did say that. It is an argument of ignorance fallacy.

He said "there is no evidence, therefore I don't believe in gods".

He has also said no god or gods exist. He is in paradox. He keeps arguing both sides of that paradox. He is being irrational.

And you wonder why people laugh at this nonsense?

I don't laugh so much at his paradoxes. I feel sorry for him, if anything. He really believes he can argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

How odd. You believe that Jesus Christ lived because of the Bible, yet you reject the Bible. WTF???

Please quote where I said I believe that Jesus Christ lived. Go ahead. I believe the Trojan War happened to, that doesn't mean I accept the machinations of gods and goddesses that Homer wrote about in the Iliad did.

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

He did say that. It is an argument of ignorance fallacy.

Argument FROM ignorance. Not of. From.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You're barking up the wrong tree; I haven't been discussing scientific theory. My point stands in relation to his use of the world "solid".


OM

It is as solid as any theory of science. No theory of science has been proven either.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Excellently argued.
:applaud

Except for the fact I never once argued that any of those people existed. That renders his reply as nothing more than a distraction.


OM

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

It is an academic consensus, aside from the Bible, that Jesus - whoever he truly was (and/or was patterned after in the Bible) - existed.


OM

Consensus is not a proof. Using it to justify assuming part of the Bible is true, but the rest is false, is a divisional error fallacy and an appeal to popularity fallacy.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

It is as solid as any theory of science. No theory of science has been proven either.

I never said anything about science. You introduced that. Not I. Your argument. Not mine.


OM

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Consensus is not a proof. Using it to justify assuming part of the Bible is true, but the rest is false is a divisional error fallacy and an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Another straw argument. Never said consensus was proof. My reply only served to demonstrate that belief in Jesus (whether academic or theological) as an historical person doesn't solely rely upon the biblical narrative.


OM

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Please quote where I said I believe that Jesus Christ lived. Go ahead.

See post #415. Normally I don't bother to look up old posts when people deny their own arguments.

I believe the Trojan War happened to, that doesn't mean I accept the machinations of gods and goddesses that Homer wrote about in the Iliad did.

The Iliad is claimed to be a work of fiction by the author (Homer). False equivalence fallacy.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

There are holes in some of the extensions of the arguments that each of these authors present, but their basic argument is sound. You are attempting to discard all arguments based on a few holes in some arguments. Compositional error fallacy. This variation is sometimes known as the Bad Apple fallacy.

Their basic argument is that the supernatural events of the gospels and the trinitarian God are reality. Their evidence is the gospels themselves, after you remove the other noise. It's hearsay. That's a massive hole.

Jesus lived. Was he the Son of God and all the rest that's claimed? Unknown, but the burden of proof is on the claimant, and it's a heavier burden when it comes to claims of God. It wouldn't matter to me if all that's attributed to Plato were from others. This is a lot different.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Argument FROM ignorance. Not of. From.

Quibbling.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Except for the fact I never once argued that any of those people existed. That renders his reply as nothing more than a distraction.


OM

You were arguing the equivalent. Quilbbling.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I never said anything about science. You introduced that. Not I. Your argument. Not mine.


OM

I did. It is as solid as any theory of science. It is my argument, answering yours. You are quibbling.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Another straw argument.

Fallacy fallacy.

Never said consensus was proof.

You attempted to use it as one. That is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

My reply only served to demonstrate that belief in Jesus (whether academic or theological) as an historical person doesn't solely rely upon the biblical narrative.

OM

You found another source testifying of Christ from elsewhere? Where?

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

See post #415. Normally I don't bother to look up old posts when people deny their own arguments.

I said it is POSSIBLE that some real-world Jesus existed, someone who was the kernel of the myth that wound up in the Bible. You need to learn how to read.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You were arguing the equivalent. Quilbbling.

Not in the least. I never even mentioned them, much less their "equivalent". He inserted it out of thin air.


OM