Achilles Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 With your million dollar comment how do you know I'm not holding a billion dollars.You didn't answer my question. I don't know that you're not holding a billion dollars. The fact is that I'm going to be skeptical of the claim and probably require some sort of evidence before I accept that you are, in fact, holding a billion dollars in your hand. Same thing goes for any claim. The more fantastic the claim, the better the evidence has to be. The more important or relevant the claim is, the greater amount of scrutiny the evidence will need to be subjected to. If I were to blindly accept that you had a billion dollars just because you said so and I couldn't prove that you didn't have a billion dollars, then I would be making a serious error in reasoning and judgment and my peers would correctly think me to be a fool. Yet billions of people around the world accept that jesus christ was the son of god, came to earth and died for our sins, and that only through him can one gain eternal salvation...and there isn't single shred of evidence that even hints that any of it is true. But believing it anyway is considered to be the best thing one can possibly do within that culture. Right. Again my point is one side's faith is another side's lack of proof.Wrong. Burden of proof doesn't work like that. Christians aren't justified in believing whatever they want until someone comes along and proves those beliefs are false. And a lack of faith doesn't require any faith at all. So your argument falls apart in both directions. Again religon doesn't care about proof since they operate on the idea of faith.Right. See above. Science operates on the scientic principal of proof.Nope. Last I checked "proof" was a mathematical term. Science deals with models of understanding based on evidence and observation. Science wants religon to provide proof because they are judging them based on their thought process.Yeah, crazy. Only wanting to accept that which can be demonstrated to be real. What a bunch of wackos. Religon is doing the same to science.Wut? They think Science should have a little faith.Okay fine. Why is this a good thing? And have a little faith in what? Russell's teapot? The flying spaghetti monster? That a million angels can dance on the head of a pin? What precisely should science-minded people have a little bit of faith in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Yeah, crazy. Only wanting to accept that which can be demonstrated to be real. What a bunch of wackos. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Religon is doing the same to science. They think Science should have a little faith. I'm a believer, and I believe that this would be disastrous for science if allowed. You do understand that if science were to ever involve unprovable assumptions such as faith that it would cease to be credible and would become worthless, right? Its credibility depends upon its remaining completely independent of any unscientific influences. If science is ever going to prove anything religious, it will have to do so completely by accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 I'm not holding a billion dollars. Again my point is one side's faith is another side's lack of proof. Just another example to allow me to show here's both side's logic.Sorry your side of this argument is not logical and I’m going beyond skepticism here. Since the largest bill U.S. currency in circulation today is the $100. bill. Achilles could be holding a Million Dollars in $100. bills or about 23 lbs. You on the other hand would be holding a little over 22002. lbs by holding a Billion Dollars worth of $100. bills. If I’m wrong, then you may want to contact Hossein Rezazadeh of Iran, the most he could lift is 581 lbs. Look what teaching science in science class can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Wait a minute: if a million dollars in $100 bills weighs 23lb, wouldn't a billion dollars in $100 bills weigh 23,000lb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Wait a minute: if a million dollars in $100 bills weighs 23lb, wouldn't a billion dollars in $100 bills weigh 23,000lb? About, I messed up. Fixed thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Well, either way, I guess you really squashed that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 About the money amount I was speaking hypothetically. Of course holding a billion would be far fetched to hold. Ah focusing on minor meaningless details. Yawn. Skinwalker thanks for your post. I agree. One functions on the unsean, the other deals with the physical, and believes what they can see and touch. And whatever you wish to say calling religous people whatever you want is your opinnion. They can have theirs of yours. You think well religon shouldn't be allowed to do this, and they vise versa all opinions and reasoning from the two viewpoints. Religous community thinks one way and science thinks another. They criticise each other. In the end with this each side already had their conclusions from the start. Nothing has been acomplished aside from energy used through the mind, and keystrokes of the fingers. Energy and time has been used. And to a final end both sides will think as they wish. One side might feel they won for having the final post, or another might feel they made a better argument, all in all nothing really constructive has occured. And threads with this same topic might be happening across the internet elsewhere. I can hypothosize this. Will one assume so or will one not. In the end with them the same outcome. Everyone has their minds made up, both sides believe as they will. Religon will think as they do regardless of lack of evidence, or anything of the physical. Science willl reject religon's claims and say what they will about the religous community. And again ohters see themselves as victors in a thread based on their reasoning, how they see things, etc. Again time used and energy also used to come to the same conclustions both sides originally had at the start. Both sides are closed minded though they say they are not. Because really both sides are incompatable to each other. Like an American device being plugged into a European outlit. Again nothing truly accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Billions in bonds could be fairly light Of course nobody said it had to be US dollars either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Sorry, I figured you would understand the reason behind my nitpick. Obliviously you do not get it and I will quit wasting my and your time trying to explain it. I’m of the Religious community and I would appreciate you not continuing to include us all in an illogical argument. I’m illogical enough on my own and this is not a one side of an argument or the other. The tread asked if a man named Jesus existed and I have yet to see any contemporary physical proof of a man named Jesus existents. About the closest thing I’ve been able to find is a block of limestone with the name of Pilate (as in Pontius Pilate) inscribed on it. This however, does not prove a man name Jesus existed, but it proves to me a man name Pilate existed and he was governor of ludaea. Oh, I believe people have their minds made up given the current evidence. However, that does not mean people are so closed minded that they are not willing to rethink their position given new evidence. That is usually just us on the religious side that refuse to examine new evidence that goes against our beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 In general my friend in general I say on both sides. You are of course entitled to your own conclusions in that you do not wish to be lumped to a generality. And I shall say it again. Both sides will not change the other's minds if they both are closed minded. As for the Jesus stuff you sai some are open minded on both sides. Both will say either you are not practicing science and are choosing to be ignorant by choosing the other side, and the other will say you are choosing to loook at thing from the physical and not the spiritual. Word choices very. But in the end proof matters more to science. Things they can touch, see, hear, smell. Things of the five senses or at least one. Religon acts on faith and does not care of evidence. Yes it may strengthen their faith, or do nothing to it. It's their choice what they wish to do with the evidence or lack their of. People will make their conclusions. Pointless. Non closed minded will change sides and each side will place a lable on the other and judge them on their thinking. So yesh that can happen. You've said there has been no proof for Jesus's existence. I said what one said would say it doesn't matter for it is a matter of faith. Or it might strengthen their faith. Other's may say lack of evidence means they'll choose science and reject religion. Science is happy for that outcome. But in the end numbers change sides, but now that people have switched sides the entity of religion and the entity of science remain the same. Only the people in both changed.And conclusion of the two upon the other remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 *snipped for brevity* So your argument is that we shouldn't have any more discussions, because we can't change the world? Seriously? _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 SD Nihil, please do not post in this thread either, until you have points that are discuss-able and a position. Further posts that do not may be considered off-topic or trolling and subject to deletion. PM me if you have questions or concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Let me just say I would LOVE to jump into this debate, but it's late and I realize I don't have the time necessary to spend on it. So I'll just throw in some general remarks for a start... I have debated the historicity of Jesus with all sorts of conspiracy theorists off and on for the past three years or so, on IMDB.com (boards like "The God Who Wasn't There," "Religulous," and "The Da Vinci Code" amongst others). I've sometimes argued by myself, sometimes with other religious folks and sometimes had atheists on my side. One thing to keep in mind is that no matter how much you might disagree with Jesus' reputed teachings or the practices of Christians or their theological beliefs (including belief in scriptural inerrancy), this is irrelevant to whether the man actually lived. Note that I use the term "Myther" here not in a pejorative sense, but to refer to people who think Jesus was just a fictional character or hoax, rather than a real human being. Now this is one of those debates where people are quick to accuse me and say "well, as a Christian, you're biased." But if I were shown overwhelming evidence that Jesus never existed as a historical person, that would pretty much shatter my faith. And I wouldn't want to believe in a system I knew was nonsense. For me, the foundation of Christianity is that Jesus was an actual person. If he was merely some metaphor, or a plagiarism of some other gods or unrelated persons, that's it, as far as I'm concerned. Time to consider some other religion (Conservative Judaism strikes me as a pretty good one)! For me, it's not merely a matter of an appeal to authority (ie: that the majority of modern experts in the related fields, whether believers or non-believers accept that Yeshua bar Yosef, known to us as Jesus of Nazareth, called Christ, was a real historical person, upon which the religion known as Christianity, and the character of the New Testament, was based), though this helps (the burden of proof is on the minority challenging the experts, here). Rather, as a budding "expert" myself (though by no means at the top of the game yet, I assure you) the evidence I've seen thus far is convincing. There's multiple attestations of a figure who sounds an awful lot like Jesus, a Jewish cult leader with a brother named James, in the right place, and the right time... both in non-Christian and Christian sources (the latter, though biased, are useful, especially since several of them are independent of one another). Some are quick to point out that these scholars don't all agree exactly what Jesus was really like, or precisely the main focus of his teachings. However that is a bit like saying because mainstream scientists disagree over the precise mechanisms or systems of evolution, that evolution is "in crisis" or "just a theory" (and somehow alternative theories like creationism are just as valid). The point is they agree on certain minimum things, sufficient to say he existed. Then there's the absence of any critiques of Christianity charging that Jesus was a hoax (which one might expect if that's how it happened, or at least a forceful defense by a Christian apologist early on that he wasn't). Finally, the fact that the earliest attestations are from contemporaries, within a very short time frame (for antiquity), basically a few decades after his death, makes it less likely that he was simply invented. The notion that all the texts were tampered with later by Christian scribes needs to be demonstrated. The only reference we know is tampered with is the infamous "Testimonium Flavium." Even still, most scholars believe that it is still partially genuine. The references to James elsewhere in Josephus are not contested by modern scholars, and in context there is nothing that appears out of place for a Jewish commentator like Josephus (who is discussing the fall of a high priest connected to the death of James). The arguments that earlier gods were identical or very close to Jesus is probably the weakest Myther argument, and is at the bottom of the list of acceptable evidences for Mythicism, but I generally ask "Copycat Mythicists" to show from pre-Christian texts the evidence for these other gods having "Jesus-like" characteristics. Typically, all they can do is cite vague "lists" that have appeared in non-scholarly works since the 19th century. The idea that if one strips away the "supernatural elements" (the theological claims about Jesus which history alone cannot prove or disprove), one ends up with a "different Jesus" than the Jesus of the bible, and so therefore somehow indirectly proves Jesus was a Myth, is, I think a poor argument. That would be akin to arguing that Sathya Sai Baba is a Myth, because his followers believe him to be a Godman, possessing divine attributes, and able to do miracles, possessing wisdom beyond that of mere mortals, while the rest of the world tends to regard him as some kind of deluded street magician, if not an outright con. The "Mythic" argument is that Jesus never existed, not that some of his powers were exaggerated, or some of his teachings untrue. That would be shifting the goalposts. Agnostics like Bart Ehrman have no trouble doubting that Jesus was divine, or had any kind of supernatural abilities, yet nevertheless accept his historical existence based on the evidence which explains the origins of Christianity better than some kind of convoluted invention conspiracy. And finally, admitting that someone "just like Jesus" at the same time as Jesus, existed, is conceding the argument. Saying "well it was a common name back then" is a non-argument (but I hear that one often). I'll check back in awhile. If nothing ever comes of it, on the one hand I'll be disappointed I didn't get to have a hearty debate with you all like in the old days, but on the other I'll be pleased that another internet conspiracy theory has failed to gain a foothold in these hallowed forums... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Now this is one of those debates where people are quick to accuse me and say "well, as a Christian, you're biased." But if I were shown overwhelming evidence that Jesus never existed as a historical person, that would pretty much shatter my faith.As I have pointed out before, Kurgan, believing something first and then expecting others to disprove it isn't how it works. You can do it that way, but that isn't being intellectually honest and no one who is is going to take you seriously. And I wouldn't want to believe in a system I knew was nonsense. For me, the foundation of Christianity is that Jesus was an actual person.Right, hence why this conversation is going to go nowhere quick: you have a vested interest in a particular outcome that prevents you from participating objectively. I give you kudos for giving it a name, but the reality seems to be that you haven't closed the loop within your own thinking. If he was merely some metaphor, or a plagiarism of some other gods or unrelated persons, that's it, as far as I'm concerned. Time to consider some other religion (Conservative Judaism strikes me as a pretty good one)!And if some similar crisis were to befall that one too? Would you just keep hopping from faith-to-faith until there weren't anymore without checking the veracity of any of them beforehand? For me, it's not merely a matter of an appeal to authority (ie: that the majority of modern experts in the related fields, whether believers or non-believers accept that Yeshua bar Yosef, known to us as Jesus of Nazareth, called Christ, was a real historical person, upon which the religion known as Christianity, and the character of the New Testament, was based), though this helps (the burden of proof is on the minority challenging the experts, here).You seem to be invoking appeal to authority as basis for a valid argument. You are aware that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, correct? Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly, this isn't how burden of proof works. The party making the claim has the burden of proof to support that claim. In this case, those that claim that jesus was an actual historical person have the burden of proof for supporting that claim. "Minority" vs. "majority" viewpoint has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It's disappointing that you approach this thread as though you want to have a legitimate debate in good faith, yet you continue to attempt to rearrange the rules as you go along. Rather, as a budding "expert" myself (though by no means at the top of the game yet, I assure you) the evidence I've seen thus far is convincing.I've been waiting months to see it too. There's multiple attestations of a figure who sounds an awful lot like Jesus, a Jewish cult leader with a brother named James, in the right place, and the right time... both in non-Christian and Christian sources (the latter, though biased, are useful, especially since several of them are independent of one another). Some are quick to point out that these scholars don't all agree exactly what Jesus was really like, or precisely the main focus of his teachings. However that is a bit like saying because mainstream scientists disagree over the precise mechanisms or systems of evolution, that evolution is "in crisis" or "just a theory" (and somehow alternative theories like creationism are just as valid). The point is they agree on certain minimum things, sufficient to say he existed.Hardly convincing. Groups of people that already believe X write about X existing. Later "scholars" (who also believe X), see said documents and then argue that this is confirmation of X. Said "scholars" also decide that other "scholars" who believe X are legitimate and those that do not are not. Cozy. Of course what we don't have to have for this model to work is X itself. Then there's the absence of any critiques of Christianity charging that Jesus was a hoax (which one might expect if that's how it happened, or at least a forceful defense by a Christian apologist early on that he wasn't).Except that "christianity" wasn't established until decades after his alleged death. And what do we have to corroborate said death? Why the stories themselves, of course! The notion that all the texts were tampered with later by Christian scribes needs to be demonstrated.Says that man that has repeatedly claimed to be familiar with Bart Ehrman's writing. The only reference we know is tampered with is the infamous "Testimonium Flavium." Even still, most scholars believe that it is still partially genuine. The references to James elsewhere in Josephus are not contested by modern scholars, and in context there is nothing that appears out of place for a Jewish commentator like Josephus (who is discussing the fall of a high priest connected to the death of James).See earlier explanation of "scholars". The rest of your post is a series of strawmen. Glad to see you're back, Kurgan! I'll check back in awhile. If nothing ever comes of it, on the one hand I'll be disappointed I didn't get to have a hearty debate with you all like in the old days, but on the other I'll be pleased that another internet conspiracy theory has failed to gain a foothold in these hallowed forums... Says the guy that excused himself from our last debate TTFN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Eclipse Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Okay. I'll agree. A man named Jesus could have existed and he could have been a cult leader of the time. There is little doubt, however, that the character of Jesus the alleged Christ (the messiah of the Jewish people and the son of a god who performed sorcery and magic) could not have existed as portrayed in the New Testament. If a man named Jesus was a religious figure in antiquity, it isn't the same character of the bible. For that Jesus (clearly a different person), there is no evidence. Okay, for one, Jesus was not a "cult leader." Two, He did not perform sorcery or magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Eclipse Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Therefore, since the christian community can provide no means to verify their claims that a man named jesus existed, no rational person should not accept the claim that a man named jesus existed. kthxbai. The christian community can and does verify its claims that Jesus existed. Where have you been? There is tons of proof supporting Jesus' existence and that he was the messiah and that he performed miracles. SD Nihil, or whatever (I probably got your name wrong) you say that we christians have "what we consider proof," and before you say that science or whatever has proof. We don't consider it proof, it IS proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 The christian community can and does verify its claims that Jesus existed. Where have you been?Making other claims is not providing evidence for original set of claims. Unless you meant something else, in which case, please provide sources. There is tons of proof supporting Jesus' existence and that he was the messiah and that he performed miracles.I'd be very interested in seeing it. SD Nihil, or whatever (I probably got your name wrong) you say that we christians have "what we consider proof," and before you say that science or whatever has proof. We don't consider it proof, it IS proof.By what standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Okay, for one, Jesus was not a "cult leader." Two, He did not perform sorcery or magic. 1.) He is alleged by biblical mythology to have set and/or maintained standards of worship and ritual and that he had a following. By that alone it's apparent that he was a cult leader... I don't understand the objection... 2.) We're in agreement. I, too, don't think he performed sorcery and magic since such silliness doesn't appear to exist in reality. It is, however, alleged that he did in biblical mythology, which is one of the reasons I assert that the Jesus of biblical mythology (as told in biblical mythology) didn't actually exist, maintaining instead that a cult leader of the time may have existed and may have been named Jesus (or Yesua, or any other name) and the myth could be based on this cult leader. The christian community can and does verify its claims that Jesus existed. Where have you been? Where does it do this within the framework of reality? There is tons of proof supporting Jesus' existence and that he was the messiah and that he performed miracles. I'd be interested in seeing a few ounces of this "tons of proof." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 The christian community can and does verify its claims that Jesus existed. Where have you been? There is tons of proof supporting Jesus' existence and that he was the messiah and that he performed miracles. SD Nihil, or whatever (I probably got your name wrong) you say that we christians have "what we consider proof," and before you say that science or whatever has proof. We don't consider it proof, it IS proof. Please, Darth Eclipse, enlighten me. From one Christian to another, I do want to ask one question: If we can verify that he performed miracles, why don't we all know about it? Why isn't the papacy using that to convert the masses (even further)? I'm not sure why it's still such a secret. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Well Darth Eclipse and SkinWalker, I spoke to True_Avery elsewhere on this and I have to agree w㝨it her. Whether or not Jesus existed or not is truly subjective. So Skinwalker that is my position. Now I know it isn't the typical position for a topic like this such as arguing he existed, or that he didn't exist. But you can have a third position that it is subjective. Again that is my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Whether or not Jesus existed or not is truly subjective. Ridiculous. Either a man named jesus existed or he did not. It does not get more objective than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Whether or not Jesus existed or not is truly subjective. So Skinwalker that is my position. Now I know it isn't the typical position for a topic like this such as arguing he existed, or that he didn't exist. But you can have a third position that it is subjective. Again that is my position. Its okay to say, "I don't know." But it looks like that isn't what you're doing. It looks like you're saying that Jesus (as depicted in biblical mythology) can exist or not exist depending upon the individual. That simply isn't the case nor is it rational. It would be akin to stating that the existence of Peter Pan is subjective. The existence of this person doesn't change or fluxuate depending upon the individual. Either Pan existed or he didn't. To assert that he did implies certain qualities about Peter Pan that are either in reality or they aren't. If they aren't, and exist only in story and legend, then the Peter Pan of the story exists only in Disney Lore and not in reality. If, however, we can demonstrate that a person once lived and stopped aging in a place called Never, Never Land; could fly with pixie dust; and defeated a pirate -then we have qualities that fit the story of Peter Pan and its reasonable to apply them to the story, making the central character a reality. Likewise, with Jesus, there are qualities about this alleged messiah that make up the character. Its easy enough to show that the name Jesus in its original Hebrew was in use during the first century BCE. Its easy enough to show that religious superstitions and political agendas existed among the Hebrew people of the region at the same time. It is, then, easy to conclude that a person named Jesus created a cult following based on these superstitions. However, what cannot be shown, is that the person above -who may have inspired the myth that followed, actually performed the deeds mentioned in biblical mythology. Indeed, enough of these deeds, actions and accounts are contradictory, improbable and irrational so as to demonstrate that such a person almost certainly did not exist. Therefore, the existence or non-existence of Jesus, the alleged christ, is not a subjective position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Again that is my position. Unfortunately, it is an incorrect position. Just because you believe/don't believe doesn't change the facts. "Jesus Existed" - it's a normative claim. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 ...almost certainly did not exist. This appears to become where it's all subjective. Almost precludes taking any absolute position either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.