"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:u1iep3tmefhsf0eumvmgtbiangn6qgn0iu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Oh yes I do
> Please explain how not believing something because there is no reason
> to, is "argument ad ignorantium".
I didn't say it was
> Do you honestly not understand the difference between this and
> believing the opposite?
Yes .. do you? It seems not from your argument so far
>>> Why do you imagine there's anything to doubt?
>>Why do you imagine there is nothing to doubt?
> Do I?
It appears so
> "Doubt" is a loaded word, as is "deny".
> Your language presumes it is real
My language presumes nothing of the sort
> and that I have doubts about this.
So do I.
> All it is, is somebody else's baseless claim that you seem to think I
> should give more credence to than is justified.
Not at all. All that I (and Midwinter) is saying is that there is no
reason
to either accept nor reject that there was some person called Jesus
around.
>>> 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.
I suggest you study logic
> But you sound like septic here.
> What have I said that amounts to "argument from ignorance"?
You see to have said that we should say Jesus does not exist, due to lack
of
evidence. You have attacked those saying that it is not impossible, which
strongly indicates that you do not agree with that. That means you must
thing it impossible, and you have no logical basis for sucha claim.
If that is not the case, I suggest you make your position more clearly.
>>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.
What?
>>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?
Exactly.
>>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.
Nor any reason to belief it false. All we can say is we do not know .. it
is not proven.
That there is no evidence for something when we don't expect there should
be
evidence really doesn't give us any information from which to arrive at a
conclusion.
> Not having some straw man opposite belief.
Eh?
>>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.
I'm not attacking anything. I am stating logic.
> 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.
When there is no evidence found, and none expected , then we have no right
to make any claim at all about it.
>>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.
I am not lying. But you are clearly a very agressive and offensive
person.
> Why not address what has been repeatedly explained instead of your own
> straw men?
I have addressed what is presented. The strawmen are in your own
imagination.
|
