(May 19, 2015 at 4:31 pm)Stimbo Wrote: You didn't actually read the thread but just assumed nobody bothered to address the OP? What was that about juvenile comments again?

Tu quoque fallacy? I only said that it seems like these threads turn into diatribes that simply don't have to address the post. From what I gather, the OP isn't looking to debate the trueness of the NT just the historical reliability of it. I didn't even make the claim that no one addressed the question, obviously it has been addressed. 

Quote:the OP isn't looking to debate the trueness of the NT just the historical reliability of it.

He assumes the "trueness" of it.  But the rest is implausible.  Reliable to what?  We have no idea what the originals said.  What is the standard to determine reliability?

(May 19, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: This is a moron who believes a dead jew came back to life and flew up to heaven because he read it in an old book.

He talks about Homer but Homer speaks of Apollo coming down from Mt Olympus shooting arrows at the Greeks.  Does our catholick pal think that happened, too?  If not, why not?  It's written in an old book.

And I am supposed to believe that my great great grandpa was a monkey? Why don't I see half men half monkey walking around? OK, so not a real feeling have but I think its on par with what you said. The difference is that maybe you're a little more intellectually foolish sounding. 

Don't argue with a fool, he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience - Mark Twain

I get it that atheist are not evangelist but if you want to sound reasonable then avoid the ad hominem attacks. Thats my new favorite fallacy 

---

(May 20, 2015 at 1:26 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:the OP isn't looking to debate the trueness of the NT just the historical reliability of it.

He assumes the "trueness" of it.  But the rest is implausible.  Reliable to what?  We have no idea what the originals said.  What is the standard to determine reliability?

So whats the big deal if before his argument to debate the trueness of it, he sets a foundation. I heard the hosts on Atheist Experience get upset with a caller that was trying to use infinite regress as a logical reason for a creative being of the universe because the caller wasn't owning up to the fact that he believed in the christian god. But what is so wrong with setting a simple foundation?

Quote:And I am supposed to believe that my great great grandpa was a monkey?

Looks like it skipped a generation and went right to you.  Idiot.

Quote:But what is so wrong with setting a simple foundation?

Only simpletons would be impressed with it.  Historically reliable to what?

I've made it pretty clear what I think. I'll concede all the arguments, right up until the point someone suggests it's reasonable to believe supernatural claims. That is the ultimate goal here.

If this was only intended as textual analysis, that would be different. But this is by admission just the first stage in a larger argument. I'm giving Randy as much as he could ever gain through these arguments, allowing every point, but then saying there is this one obstacle which appears to be insurmountable. I'm doing the equivalent of removing thousands of henchmen for him, giving him all the power ups they were holding, and moving him straight to the boss fight. How much more generous can I be?

So I'm not dismissing the arguments, I'm conceding them to show that they are irrelevant as a basis for proving Christianity is "true" because even if they are all sound, they don't reach the desired conclusion.

If yourself or Randy really wants to just discuss historical realiability for its own sake, then that is fine. I've debated the existence of Jesus on the forum endlessly, my position being that saying he is based on a real person is not saying much at all. The very best I've seen is people linking together someone called Jesus who was crucified and had a brother called James. Even that part is not completely convincing, and anything after that is incredibly shaky. So to say "Jesus existed", in terms of what can actually be pinned down to him, is saying next to nothing. There were probably hundreds of people back then who would fit an extremely vague notion of "Jesus", depending on what aspect you're looking at. I think Jesus is most likely a compilation of many people around at the time, as a foundation, then built on with an almost entirely mythical life story.

On the atheist experience, they are trying to do the same thing, cut to the chase. They know what is coming at the end, and that it's the part where the non sequitur is going to happen from experience.

(May 20, 2015 at 1:30 am)nicanica123 Wrote:

(May 19, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: This is a moron who believes a dead jew came back to life and flew up to heaven because he read it in an old book.

He talks about Homer but Homer speaks of Apollo coming down from Mt Olympus shooting arrows at the Greeks.  Does our catholick pal think that happened, too?  If not, why not?  It's written in an old book.

And I am supposed to believe that my great great grandpa was a monkey? Why don't I see half men half monkey walking around? OK, so not a real feeling have but I think its on par with what you said. The difference is that maybe you're a little more intellectually foolish sounding.

Don't argue with a fool, he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience - Mark Twain

I get it that atheist are not evangelist but if you want to sound reasonable then avoid the ad hominem attacks. Thats my new favorite fallacy 

{bold mine}

Wow.  There's some irony right there.  Wow.

Dude, maybe before you argue against evolution, you should learn something about it.  Evolutionary Biologists would tear you to shreds.  Hell, people with barely a high school education could tear you to shreds.

BTW, an ad hominem is an actual fallacy.  Simply calling someone names is not an ad hom.  Here's a little clue: an ad hom means the only argument is against a person's character.  Calling you a moron or idiot (or whatever fun descriptor there might be), as long as it's followed with a reasoned argument, is not an ad hom.

I assumed that was a joke. Are you actually challenging evolution here nic?

(May 20, 2015 at 2:27 am)robvalue Wrote: I assumed that was a joke. Are you actually challenging evolution here nic?

LOL, yeah it was a joke

---

(May 20, 2015 at 1:35 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:And I am supposed to believe that my great great grandpa was a monkey?

Looks like it skipped a generation and went right to you.  Idiot.

I expect more from a guy whose religious views are "fuck it"

---

(May 20, 2015 at 1:59 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(May 20, 2015 at 1:30 am)nicanica123 Wrote: And I am supposed to believe that my great great grandpa was a monkey? Why don't I see half men half monkey walking around? OK, so not a real feeling have but I think its on par with what you said. The difference is that maybe you're a little more intellectually foolish sounding.

Don't argue with a fool, he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience - Mark Twain

I get it that atheist are not evangelist but if you want to sound reasonable then avoid the ad hominem attacks. Thats my new favorite fallacy 

{bold mine}

Wow.  There's some irony right there.  Wow.

Dude, maybe before you argue against evolution, you should learn something about it.  Evolutionary Biologists would tear you to shreds.  Hell, people with barely a high school education could tear you to shreds.

BTW, an ad hominem is an actual fallacy.  Simply calling someone names is not an ad hom.  Here's a little clue: an ad hom means the only argument is against a person's character.  Calling you a moron or idiot (or whatever fun descriptor there might be), as long as it's followed with a reasoned argument, is not an ad hom.

Hey wait, I didn't put those letters in bold. What the fuck are you doing misstating what I said asshole?!

Did you miss the {bold mine} part?

Care to address my points?

(May 20, 2015 at 1:30 am)nicanica123 Wrote: Why don't I see half men half monkey walking around?

Well, wasn't shrub enough of an evidence?

There's a major difference between believing in evolution and believing in someone coming back from the dead, waking the dead, turning water into wine and all the other tricks he had up his sleeves. Humans share 99 point something of their DNA with certain great apes. We have remnants of earlier stages of development in our bodies. Totally useless for our current existence, but still there nonetheless.

So one claim has solid evidence, the other has not.