On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:22:50 -0600, Midwinter
<midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Okay. Sorry. I'd like to have discontinued, but Chris raises points I
>have to answer.
>
>Christopher A.Lee <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>
>>>> Feel free to provide as much evidence as there is for Elvis, Diana
>>>> etc.
>>
>> Which I notice you didn't do.
>
>No indeed. Nor did I claim that I could. Instead, I explained why it
>would be irrational to expect the same quantity of evidence, if any at
>all.
Which was a red herring.
>
>
>> Christians talk about "the evidence" but never provide any.
>>
>> Which wouldn't even matter if they hadn't insisted everybody had to
>> take it seriously.
>
>They can insist what they like - it makes no difference to me. They are
>free to believe what they wish, and to express their beliefs to me. I am
>free to disregard their beliefs as irrelevant to me.
Then they have to put up or shut up.
>
>> No. It is a rationalisation in the sense of an excuse not a reason.
>>
>> Do you take the same attitude to all the other hero figures of the
>> other religions?
>
>Generally speaking, yes - and with most other mythological figures as
>well, if those characters are fundamentally human in nature. I'm not so
>inclined to treat stories of krakens and hydras in quite the same way.
It is still fallacious.
>The stories of Robin Hood may well have been based on a real man -
>possibly a number of real men. The same goes for King Arthur. Perseus
>could easily have been a real man. Adam and Eve, though certainly not
>the first two people on Earth, might well have had their roots in real
>people.
>
>Or none of the above may be true. We just don't know.
What is there to "just not know"?
That gives the baseless more credence than it deserves.
>Now, if you said to me that everything in Le Morte d'Arthur was absolute,
>literal truth, then I'd ask for more evidence. If you told me that, say,
>Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was historically precise in every detail,
>then I'd want independent sup****t for that claim - something that Kevin
>Costner had nothing to do with.
Yet you don't for Jesus.
>Perseus rode around on a winged horse? No, I don't think so. Unless
>there's something you can offer to show that such beasts existed?
And was born of a virgin with a god for a father.
>And were Adam and Eve the parents of all humanity? Seems to contradict
>what we know about human evolution - so any chance of some backup for
>that claim?
Why even consider it?
>The figures we read about in stories, myths and legends do some
>remarkable - often impossible - things. But that's because they're
>heroes. Myths and legends can and do grow up around real people - which
>isn't to say that they're all based on real people, but that they CAN be.
>Because there's nothing impossible - or even challenging - about the idea
>that A Person might have existed.
Which you assume with no justification.
>So like I said, if the question is "did a historical person upon whom the
>Gospel stories are based actually exist", the answer can perfectly well
>be "maybe; maybe not". And this answer, despite the fears of the anti-
>religious lobby, does *not* constitute an endorsement of Christianity.
>If the question is "did this person perform miracles", the answer,
>logically, would have to be "there's no evidence to say so, and the idea
>of miracles goes against our current understanding of the universe,
>therefore probably not".
>
>
>> Nobody is denying anything.
>
>Some certainly are - the idea that "we don't know whether a historical
>Jesus existed" can be extended to "a historical Jesus did not exist".
>Some people have the idea that Christianity can only be challenged
>through absolute denial that there could be any spark of truth anywhere
>within it; and that's simply not necessary.
That is a mis-statement of the default pending evidence that there
was.
But it's also your straw man because "deny" presumes there is
something to deny.
As is the rest of that paragraph.
Because if they had the sense to keep it to themselves there would be
no demands that they put up or shut up.
Something you keep ignoring.
>> There is simply no reason for non-Christians to believe what
>> Christians say.
>
>I agree, obviously. If I didn't agree with that, I'd be Christian. The
>difference is that I don't take their saying it as an attack on my
>freedom not to believe it. They're welcome to say it, if it makes them
>happy.
Yet you fall for it sufficiently to say there was very likely an
historical Jesus in spite of the fact here there is no evidence for it
and much against it.
>> If they kept it to themselves there would be no problem.
>
>The same could presumably be said of any given opinion, particularly
>those that might irritate us as I know Christianity irritates you. But
No, liar, it is rudeness and dishonesty that irritates me. But then
you knew that and were being deliberately nasty.
The behaviour of far too many Christians irritates me. Are you even
capable of grasping the difference?
>how far does freedom of expression go, and how far *should* it go? Once
>you prohibit Christians from speaking about their beliefs, what group
>gets gagged next?
Another falsehood.
What part of PUT UP OR SHUT UP after they have rudely and stupidly
presumed it talking with people outside their religion whom they know
don't share their beliefs, are you pretending you don't understand?
It's called "begging the question".
And that is the crux of the problem.
They make no attempt whatsoever to use common ground but insist that
any discussion has to implicitly grant their presumptions.
The common ground is that they believe something. Not that what they
believe is real.
>> But instead they insist on telling us all about it.
>>
>> So we ask for reasons to believe them.
>>
>> And there aren't any.
>
>So we don't believe. That's one thing, and I have no problem with it.
>My problems start when people in opposing a religion make claims that
>amount to matters of faith in themselves - as I would consider the claim
>(and wear the cap only if it fits) that there was no real man who served
>as the historical basis for the mythological figure of Jesus Christ.
You're amateur-psychologising your own straw man yet again.
Do you honestly not understand the concept of "put up or shut up"?
>> The problem with this is that early Christianity (as described by
>> Paul) didn't have a human Jesus, just a divine Christ.
>
>But it had the figure - and if we discount the possibility that he might
No. It didn't. That came later when the religion was altered to make
it attractive for Gentiles who expected virgin births, miracles,
coming back to life etc.
>have been the divine Christ that Christianity describes, then the
>question is whether that figure was made up from whole cloth, borrowed
>from another religion (many pagan religions had death-and-resurrection
>gods, as we know), or whether Paul simply took existing oral accounts of
>the activities of a man and totally misunderstood or misrepresented them.
You and they have got a lot more work to do before even saying that.
But why not address what people actually say?
>> Why don't you treat all the other baseless claims the same way?
>
>Because not all baseless claims are the same. Take the question of
>whether there is life on other planets.
Argument by bad analogy coming.
>Some people would claim that life definitely exists elsewhere. They
Who does that?
Is that another of your gross-oversimplifications to the point of
falsehood?
>would say that it's foolish to think we might be the only oasis of life
>in the universe.
Which is nothing like what you just said.
Those who say things like that certainly don't say your first version.
They also give their reasons.
Not excuses for an unjustified certainty that you invented for them.
> This is a flawed claim, because they're still only
>stating a belief. It's not something that they can know.
Good thing you have even turned your analogy into a straw man.
>Others might say that there's no other life out there, because we've not
>seen evidence of it. No EM emissions, no physical sightings or contact,
>nothing. That's also a flawed claim, because it presumes to draw an
>absolute conclusion from a simple lack of information: no evidence means
>no other life.
Another straw man.
Please address people's actual positions instead of insisting on a
false dichotomy between two straw men.
>The only correct conclusion at this point is that we just don't know.
Which grants an unjustified equivalence between a baseless claim and
its straw man opposite.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between believing
something in the absence of evidence, and not believing it because of
the absence of evidence?
Or that the latter isn't denying anything?
We're talking about the real world here, not the alternate "reality"
of somebody else's religion.
>Saying as much doesn't endorse one viewpoint or the other - it's merely
>being honest. I would treat this question as a 'maybe-maybe not' matter.
It's not even that until as much evidence is forthcoming for it as the
evidence against it.
We do of course have evidence of one planet that sup****ts life.
However there is no evidence for an historical Jesus.
Therefore no reason to consider one until the silly religionists who
haven't the sense to keep it within their religion, come up with some.
But all they (and you) do is provide excuses for the beliefs they
claim as fact, not evidence.
>I don't know that there is, but I don't know that there isn't - and since
>there's life here, it's therefore not unreasonable to imagine that it
>*might* exist somewhere else. It can't be confirmed; it can't be ruled
>out.
>
>I'd treat the question of a 'historical' Jesus - a man, and possibly a
>bit of a rabble-rouser, but NOT a god - as the same sort of question.
>Maybe; maybe not. Not unreasonable to suppose either way - but we can't
>really know.
Your wording yet again implies an unjustified equivalence.
[another analogy deleted]
>And the question of whether any historical Jesus might have been God is
>similar: if it's true, then it requires science - and much of the rest of
>the world - to completely re*****s the current understanding of how
>things work. If it's true, then all bets are off. At that point, we
>can't claim to know *anything*.
>
>So you see: not all baseless claims are the same; therefore, I don't
>treat them all the same.
Translation: you treat unjustified Jesus claims differently and think
excuses are a reason.
|
