Alincolnism?

[T.J.]

Given that there are still people out there who thinks the earth is flat, it wouldn't surprise me if this was sincere. That being said it comes across as a couple of theists that got together to make fun of atheists by dragging Abraham Lincoln's name through the mud while grossly misinterpreting, well, everything.

Lulz not achieved.

[John V]

Verifiable means that one is capable of verifying the subject at hand, verified means truth has been established. So yes it is circular, but not comparable to Christian/theist biblical/religious text circular reasoning since this is entirely based upon true historical data and reality.

This begs the question, what constitutes "true" historical data.

Are you seriously asking what can and can't be verified? Not a disparaging question, I'm truly wondering as to whether you're serious or if you're playing the obstinate laughing boy.

Yes, I'm asking. "Verifiable" seems to be a weasel word that people started tossing around on the boards relatively recently. If no one offers criteria defining it, then it is indeed a weasel word. If we have criteria, we can see if people are using such consistently or pulling an ad hoc.

The comparison fails utterly.

Can't really say without knowing the criteria.

[Bob Kelso]

This begs the question, what constitutes "true" historical data.

While I currently don't have the time to break down into the nitty gritty, alas RL calls, historically accurate data (as I know it, if anyone has a better definition seeing as I am not in fact a historian or scholar in the matter) is based upon documentation or empirical evidence (observational evidence) backed up by further evidence (e.g. photographic or physical evidence, or separate agreeing documentation).

Yes, I'm asking. "Verifiable" seems to be a weasel word that people started tossing around on the boards relatively recently. If no one offers criteria defining it, then it is indeed a weasel word. If we have criteria, we can see if people are using such consistently or pulling an ad hoc.

While I agree that criteria is necessary I have to point out that any such phrase could be a 'weasel word', it depends upon context and the person in question. For criteria regarding historical data, look at the above post.

Edited for personal context.

[downbeatplumb]

You do know that in his early days he was a lawyer so there would be court records from your country that confirm his existence.
So we have court records, government records, coroners records, Newspaper accounts, photographs all of which can be VERIFIED i.e. demonstrated to be true.

It's circular to say it's verifiable because it's been verified. What are the criteria that determine if something is verified/verifiable?

Why does anyone even say verifiable, rather than verified?

Well there is a body in his tomb.

the body was moved to its final resting place, a cement vault 10 feet (3.0 m) below the surface of the burial room. In 1930–1931 the State reconstructed the interior of the memorial. Rededicated in the latter year by President Hoover, it has undergone little change since that time.[3]
The Lincoln Tomb was designated a National Historic Landmark on December 19, 1960, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Tomb

But on top of this Lincoln was only a man. There is nothing remarkable to prove. Its not like someone is pretending that he was some bullshit impossible magic man.

I'm comparing this to the Jesus myther position - that there wasn't a man behind it at all.

But there is no evidence for the existence of jesus and Lincoln made no stupid claims of being magic.
You are comparing things that are not alike.

[John V]

While I currently don't have the time to break down into the nitty gritty, alas RL calls, historically accurate data (as I know it, if anyone has a better definition seeing as I am not in fact a historian or scholar in the matter) is based upon documentation

OK, there are documents regarding Jesus.

or empirical evidence (observational evidence) backed up by further evidence (e.g. photographic or physical evidence, or separate agreeing documentation).

And we have separate agreeing documentation. The NT is a collection, not a single document.

[downbeatplumb]

While I currently don't have the time to break down into the nitty gritty, alas RL calls, historically accurate data (as I know it, if anyone has a better definition seeing as I am not in fact a historian or scholar in the matter) is based upon documentation

OK, there are documents regarding Jesus.

Not really.
But that subject has been done to death elsewhere on this forum.

or empirical evidence (observational evidence) backed up by further evidence (e.g. photographic or physical evidence, or separate agreeing documentation).

And we have separate agreeing documentation. The NT is a collection, not a single document.

There are lots of documents making up the religion of ancient egypt. Does this prove the existance of Horus?

Exotic claims require more proof than ordinary claims because of their nature.

Books alone are just words and words alone can be lies.

[Doubting Thomas]

And we have separate agreeing documentation. The NT is a collection, not a single document.

The bible is not documentation. It is the claim which needs to be backed up with actual documentation or other evidence.

[Owlix]

I wrote the bible in my past life, because I lost a bet.

Prove that I didn't.

[John V]

I wrote the bible in my past life, because I lost a bet.

Prove that I didn't.

I wrote the Gettysburg address in my past life, because I lost a bet.

Prove that I didn't.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I wrote the bible in my past life, because I lost a bet.

Prove that I didn't.

I wrote the Gettysburg address in my past life, because I lost a bet.

Prove that I didn't.