On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:39:09 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:f3bep35lqn0fhf08ka64l89faiu8augj8p@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:35:34 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:2m6dp3l7uthq8k4kua54hbbi47a7pl7am1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:39:37 -0600, Midwinter
>>>> <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Christopher A.Lee <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is a rationalisation in the sense that I am appealing for
>>>>>>>rationality. As I said, there is little reason to deny the
>>>>>>>possibility of his existence as a man - that a man might have
existed
>>>>>>>is, as I said, nothing out of the ordinary and does not in itself
>>>>>>>stretch the bounds of physical possibility or imply the existence
of
>>>>>>>God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More im****tantly, there is nothing that leads to the conclusion
that
>>>>>> there was one.
>>>>>
>>>>>No indeed. However, as I said, the possibility of Jesus having
existed
>>>>>as a man strains no-one's perception of the possible, and thus is a
>>>>>neither-here-nor-there issue. Where the question is something that's
in
>>>>>violation of our view of how the world works it's fair to argue that
if
>>>>>it can't be proved it probably doesn't exist. Where it's something
that
>>>>>is entirely in accordance with that understanding, then a lack of
>>>>>evidence doesn't give us reason to discount the possibility.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately that's not the methodology used for the rest of the
>>>> world.
>>>
>>>Yes .. it is acutally.
>>
>> Strange planet you live on.
>
>Yes .. it is acutally.
>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> No. Lack of evidence suggests there is no reason to believe in an
>>>> historical Jesus.
>>>Nor any reason to doubt it. it works both ways. Agumentum Ad
ignorantium
>> Bull****,
>
>I'm sorry .. don't you follow the rules of logical argument?
You obviously don't.
Please explain how not believing something because there is no reason
to, is "argument ad ignorantium".
Do you honestly not understand the difference between this and
believing the opposite?
>> Why do you imagine there's anything to doubt?
>
>Why do you imagine there is nothing to doubt?
Do I?
"Doubt" is a loaded word, as is "deny".
Your language presumes it is real and that I have doubts about this.
All it is, is somebody else's baseless claim that you seem to think I
should give more credence to than is justified.
>> You're equating believing something without evidence
>> with not believing it because there's no evidence,
>
>That's right .. argumentum ad ignorantium .. it works both ways.
What "argument from ignorance"? I suggest you learn to read for
comprehension.
But you sound like septic here.
What have I said that amounts to "argument from ignorance"?
>You cannot say something is true without evidence nor can you say it is
>false .. only that it is unproven.
Good thing you can say a lot of other things then, including what I
*actually* said.
>Now.. if there were no evidence where you could expect there should be,
then
>that lack is itself evidence. For example, the lack of any contem****ary
>re****ts of any of the 'miraclous' thing that are supposed to have
happened
>in biblical accounts.
You mean like Philo and Justus Tiberias both of whom would have been
very close to the alleged events?
>That is strong evidence that such things did not happen.
However we are talking about the total absence of evidence for
something, meaning there is no reason to believe it. Not having some
straw man opposite belief.
>However, a lack of writing about some obscure peasant wandering the
dessert
>with maybe a handful of followers, doing nothing of any great
significance
>at the time, is *not* evidence that such a person did not exists.
Again, you're attacking a straw man.
But if one were to think it im****tant enough, one might use the same
methodology used for almost everything else: Popperian falsifiability.
Treating it as though it isn't until demonstrated that it is.
For some reason too many people imagine that this is an equal but
opposite claim. It isn't. It's just how baseless claims are treated.
>I don't see why you are so strenuously opposed to the possibility that
there
>was someone called Jesus at the time of the biblical Jesus who did
nothing
>particularly extraordinary. What is it you are afraid of by admitting
that
>it is possible. There is certainly no reason to say it is impossible
>(unlike the 'miracles' that supposedly happened). Your prejudice is as
>great as those of the theists
I don't see why you amateur-psychologise your own falsehoods, liar.
Why not address what has been repeatedly explained instead of your own
straw men?
|
