Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Stump the Christian?
June 11, 2015 at 11:33 am
(June 11, 2015 at 11:30 am)SteveII Wrote: I was writing in summary bullets. Is this better?
I believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that Jesus existed.
I believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that the first century Christians recorded what they believed to be true.
I believe that there is not sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that it was all a conspiracy.
Sure, though the way you've configured it now is no proof for your god at all. Which I think is the point; indirect, weak arguments are all that can be proposed for christianity, if one concerns themselves with factual accuracy when they make them.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Stump the Christian?
June 11, 2015 at 11:37 am
(June 11, 2015 at 11:30 am)SteveII Wrote: (June 11, 2015 at 11:10 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, another thing you don't know the meaning of: evidence versus claims. "Jesus existed and did miracles," is not evidence, it is a claim. Evidence is an observation or referent of the real world that supports a claim, and you've provided none.
I was writing in summary bullets. Is this better?
I believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that Jesus existed.
I believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that the first century Christians recorded what they believed to be true.
I believe that there is not sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that it was all a conspiracy.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteveryt...t-hold-up/
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodd...36810.html
3. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblia...zar_38.htm
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Stump the Christian?
June 11, 2015 at 11:44 am
(June 11, 2015 at 11:28 am)Cato Wrote: (June 11, 2015 at 11:23 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Oh boy...
Anima,
Are you suggesting that the performance of miracles is historical fact? Or did you mean to omit this along with divinity claims?
Apologies. This was not an intentional omission. In this regard I am not sure of the historical stance. From what I last read some of the "miracles" have sufficient evidence to be supported as an historical fact (though not necessarily considered a miracle as much as historical unexplained or unnatural phenomenon). Other miracles do not have sufficient evidence to be supported as a historical fact.
So I guess my answer on this would be there is sufficient evidence to support the inference of some miracles (where miracles would be unexplained or unnatural phenomena) in association with the historical person of Jesus. From this one may make a further inference of divinity or coincidence leading back to the arguments of improbability covered by Steve in bullet 2.
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Stump the Christian?
June 11, 2015 at 11:44 am
What miracles are considered historical fact?
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Stump the Christian?
June 11, 2015 at 11:56 am
(June 11, 2015 at 11:33 am)Esquilax Wrote: (June 11, 2015 at 11:30 am)SteveII Wrote: I was writing in summary bullets. Is this better?
I believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that Jesus existed.
I believe that there is sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that the first century Christians recorded what they believed to be true.
I believe that there is not sufficient historical evidence to support the claim that it was all a conspiracy.
Sure, though the way you've configured it now is no proof for your god at all. Which I think is the point; indirect, weak arguments are all that can be proposed for christianity, if one concerns themselves with factual accuracy when they make them.
Although I am not conceding that the arguments for Christianity are all weak, wouldn't a serious of even weak arguments, that are not scientifically refuted, serve as the basis for a reasonable belief system.
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Stump the Christian?
June 11, 2015 at 11:58 am
No. They can't be investigated let alone refuted. You don't get to concoct unfalsifiable premises and then treat that as 'reasonable'.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 13122
Threads: 130
Joined: October 18, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Stump the Christian?
June 11, 2015 at 12:01 pm
(This post was last modified: June 11, 2015 at 12:01 pm by abaris.)
(June 11, 2015 at 11:56 am)SteveII Wrote: Although I am not conceding that the arguments for Christianity are all weak, wouldn't a serious of even weak arguments, that are not scientifically refuted, serve as the basis for a reasonable belief system.
What's reasonable about believing hearsay and supernatural legends?
Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Allah or Vishnu haven't been refuted by science either. Fairies, unicorns and trolls under bridges also wait for the refuting business. Still, I guess, you don't believe in all of the above.
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Stump the Christian?
June 11, 2015 at 12:06 pm
(June 11, 2015 at 11:58 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: No. They can't be investigated let alone refuted. You don't get to concoct unfalsifiable premises and then treat that as 'reasonable'.
(June 11, 2015 at 12:01 pm)abaris Wrote: (June 11, 2015 at 11:56 am)SteveII Wrote: Although I am not conceding that the arguments for Christianity are all weak, wouldn't a serious of even weak arguments, that are not scientifically refuted, serve as the basis for a reasonable belief system.
What's reasonable about believing hearsay and supernatural legends?
Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Allah or Vishnu haven't been refuted by science either. Fairies, unicorns and trolls under bridges also wait for the refuting business. Still, I guess, you don't believe in all of the above.
About as much is reasonable in believing in the Evolution, the Big Bang theory, M-theory, Gravitational Theory, and Black Holes. The theory or hypothesis serves as an explanation of the phenomena. That does not mean the theory IS the explanation for the phenomena. What is will not change regardless of our theories of what is as existence is not defined by us (realism)
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Stump the Christian?
June 11, 2015 at 12:08 pm
A theory is a model that can be tested and falsified. Flat assertions about supernatural activity that cannot be investigated are not a theory, and it's not reasonable to believe in something whose mere possibility cannot even be determined.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Stump the Christian?
June 11, 2015 at 12:14 pm
Fucking bollocks to this. I'm gonna go evolve into an elephant or something.
|
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
