The Deceptive Mechanisms

[FallentoReason]

Yes, there's evidence to show they wrote those documents themselves.

[The Grand Nudger]

That all depends on your definition of "unfalsifiable" or "confirmable". We can't use the scientific method, so what can we use? This is a black-and-white issue. It doesn't matter what I "expect", what matters is whether the event can be confirmed by something other than human logic. So can it?

When your first task is creating novel definitions for inconvenient words then you're probably already screwed. Why can't we use the scientific method on a claim of rain falling? Again, absurd. Of course the event can be confirmed by something other than human logic (you know, like barometers, cups full of water, radar, clocks etc)- but that won't mean much to you or I, will it? Your question amounts to "can you consider something without considering it?"

It's nothing at all to do with evidence- untestable, unfalsifiable or otherwise, as a criticism of evidence. Whether or not there -is- evidence of something is entirely independent of the whims of the interpreter. For example, whether or not I give it any thought (or have access to the data) - those barometers will have done something.

[Undeceived]

That all depends on your definition of "unfalsifiable" or "confirmable". We can't use the scientific method, so what can we use? This is a black-and-white issue. It doesn't matter what I "expect", what matters is whether the event can be confirmed by something other than human logic. So can it?

When your first task is creating novel definitions for inconvenient words then you're probably already screwed. Why can't we use the scientific method on a claim of rain falling? Again, absurd. Of course the event can be confirmed by something other than human logic (you know, like barometers, cups full of water, radar, clocks etc)- but that won't mean much to you or I, will it? Your question amounts to "can you consider something without considering it?"

It's nothing at all to do with evidence- untestable, unfalsifiable or otherwise, as a criticism of evidence. Whether or not there -is- evidence of something is entirely independent of the whims of the interpreter. For example, whether or not I give it any thought (or have access to the data) - those barometers will have done something.

Again, how do you judge the evidence? One way is the scientific method. Another is the human mind. Is there a third?

---

Yes, there's evidence to show they wrote those documents themselves.

Then the believer has evidence in addition to faith. Suppose you read a couple small articles about Jews in Nazi territory, written by reputable sources. You then browse through The diary of Anne Frank (which has questions regarding its authenticity). Are you not more likely to believe the diary when you have supporting articles? Are you not even more likely to believe given articles by unsympathetic Nazi authors--that mention Anne Frank by name? How is it unreasonable, then, to trust the Gospels of Jesus Christ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, how do you judge the evidence? One way is the scientific method. Another is the human mind. Is there a third?

You're free to judge it however you like, so long as you're willing to deal with the potential fallout that comes from communicating those judgements to others.

Some ways of judging things -thusfar- seem to work, others are unreliable. But as I said, however you like, have at it (but don't be surprised if others "have it at" with how you've done so).

Still trying to carve that initial niche to place the "evidence" you've already realized is trash, I see. Golly gee, it's taking us a peculiar amount of time to perform step 0-A. I loathe to see whats involved with step 1 (assuming there aren't any other 0-level concessions you'll require before we even make the attempt).

[Undeceived]

Again, how do you judge the evidence? One way is the scientific method. Another is the human mind. Is there a third?

You're free to judge it however you like, so long as you're willing to deal with the potential fallout that comes from communicating those judgements to others.

By your lack of response I'll assume you have no third method of judging. The scientific method is objective and scientific. The human mind is subjective and rational--meaning it lies under the realm of philosophy. You're advocating the latter for judging past events, am I correct? Your stance is no longer scientific when you cease using the scientific method. Evidence testing may contain scientific tests, but there is no one right way of looking at the evidence. Do you say a believer’s interpretation is wrong? You yourself stated “Whether or not there -is- evidence of something is entirely independent of the whims of the interpreter.” It seems you argue for neutrality. So do I!

Some ways of judging things -thusfar- seem to work, others are unreliable.

See, if you opt for subjective judgment (non-scientific method), all you are saying is "they are unreliable to me personally." Is there an objective worldview that makes you think that? If so, I'd like to hear it.

[The Grand Nudger]

My lack of response? What are you quoting again? Oh, that's right, you're full of shit.

I suppose the method I'd use would depend on the claim, personally. Others are still free to be as imaginative as they like in dreaming up ways to weigh any given claim. Maybe they have a lucky rabbits foot they rub - how would I know?

[FallentoReason]

Then the believer has evidence in addition to faith. Suppose you read a couple small articles about Jews in Nazi territory, written by reputable sources. You then browse through The diary of Anne Frank (which has questions regarding its authenticity). Are you not more likely to believe the diary when you have supporting articles? Are you not even more likely to believe given articles by unsympathetic Nazi authors--that mention Anne Frank by name? How is it unreasonable, then, to trust the Gospels of Jesus Christ?

Let me know if I'm wrong, but are you saying that Tacitus, Pliny etc are equivalent to the Nazi articles, and the Gospels are equivalent to Anne's diary? It's a good comparison to make to get your point across, but I don't think in reality it works. What happens when you find multiple copies of Anne's work and you realised there's events that have been added that earlier copies don't have? Does the reliability of the diary rise, drop or stay the same?

[Undeceived]

What happens when you find multiple copies of Anne's work and you realised there's events that have been added that earlier copies don't have? Does the reliability of the diary rise, drop or stay the same?

You would look at the first copy and see if the additions at all conflict with its content. The reliability of the first copy doesn't change. I don't see what this has to do with the Gospels. There are what, three chapters in their entirety that were added a few years later? All the critical components are written within thirty years of Jesus' life--and supported by outside sources. An "addition" ten years after that point is hardly any more likely to be fictional.

So one question: Say “Mark” was discovered to have been written in A.D.33. Would that make you consider it less likely to be fictional?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sigh, the gospels are a reliable source for myth and legend, and that's it. There's nothing to discuss, there's no conversation to be had. Find some other way to make your magic the "real" kind of magic. What-the-fuck....we wen;t from talking about evidence to talking about Aesops goddamned fables.........

[Creed of Heresy]

What happens when you find multiple copies of Anne's work and you realised there's events that have been added that earlier copies don't have? Does the reliability of the diary rise, drop or stay the same?

You would look at the first copy and see if the additions at all conflict with its content. The reliability of the first copy doesn't change. I don't see what this has to do with the Gospels. There are what, three chapters in their entirety that were added a few years later? All the critical components are written within thirty years of Jesus' life--and supported by outside sources. An "addition" ten years after that point is hardly any more likely to be fictional.

So one question: Say “Mark” was discovered to have been written in A.D.33. Would that make you consider it less likely to be fictional?

What "outside sources" are you referring to? The three historians who never mentioned Jesus but did mention his followers? Or the one guy who did mention Jesus by name but the flow of his prose abruptly changes from his previous entries when he does? What about the other 40 recorders of history at the time within the geological proximity to these events who didn't have a single thing to say on the topic?

Besides that, are you aware of the Council of Nicea, where basically a bunch of people got together 300 years after the fact and inserted or removed into/from canon a bunch of shit in the bible, which led to the bible as we know it today? In other words, the bible has been cherry-picked after the fact. By men who stood to gain the most from it; power, sway, and influence. Because, funny thing, they did; it was called the beginning of the catholic church, now one of the most powerful institutions in the world and the face of Christianity for over a millenia.

And yet despite the cherry-picking there's STILL a bunch of contradictions in the bible! The gospel writers, the "canon" ones, couldn't even figure out what the hell the sign over Jesus' head said, or how many people were there to witness him being on the cross, or how many people went into the cave where he was buried, or what the hell his life was like before he started wandering the desert! THE MOST IMPORTANT MAN TO THE LARGEST RELIGION IN THE WORLD and we don't even know his fucking life story?? We know the intricate details of motherfucking King Tut, but NOT of Jesus Christ until he started spouting his shit that is just so coincidentally well-suited to ensuring that people on high can stay on high and those on the bottom can be satisfied with their shitty lots in life. THEN suddenly we know ALL about it. How convenient!

And you don't feel ANY suspicion about this? None at ALL? Seriously, drop the pretense of being afraid of eternal damnation for a moment [especially since you've never witnessed anything to suggest it actually exists], and just THINK about how all this is stacking up. If this were a relationship [and according to you Christians it is supposed to be that, actually], at this point, if you were a complete gullible idiot you'd be questioning your significant other about her behavior; why is she going out at 11pm wearing a red low-cut dress that's cut just under her ass while wearing thigh-high leather boots with 6 inch heels and coming back with her hair messy and her face flushed and sighing contently, when she said all she was doing was going out to get some groceries [despite the fact you've never seen any grocery store in the area open past 10 pm]? And why does she never come BACK with the groceries? And why does she leave the room when certain calls are received? And why does the number calling her always match the one that calls her just before she leaves at night?

If you refuse to acknowledge all this shit piling up against your "faith," then you're essentially as gullible and stupid as the guy who, witnessing all this, just shrugs and goes "Eh. Maybe she's just really, really trying to find groceries and it gets her really flustered when she can't find them...and maybe she's being called by someone who really loves groceries too and she just doesn't want to bore me with the ambience of their conversation about it because she knows they bore me. She's totally faithful to me, she's telling the truth, I KNOW she is because I have FAITH."

That's you. You're that guy. ALL Christians are THAT GUY.