Mavis Beacon, Do You Believe In God?
Mitchell Holman
Since "Mavis" dodges this question in every other
notestream by declaring it to be "off-topic" or at least
"irrelevant" a new notestream is called for.
So Mavis -
Do you believe God exists?
__yes
__no
Jenny6833A
> � � Since "Mavis" dodges this question in every other
I don't believe nothing.
BTW, I ain't Mavis.
I'm ....
Jenny
Mavisbeacon
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD8DE7117A6B...@216.196.97.130...
I will give you a straight answer to this question.
My answer is that my belief or none belief in God is none of your business!
Clearly you want to makle my belief an issue. You are free to speculate all
you want.
I have pointed out why I came to the above groups.
I came in reference to communistic and other forms of state atheism being
responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.
Fasanagh who IIR is an agnostic posts a lot of stats to do with that.
If you have a problem with a non believer posting stats critical of atheism
take it up with him.
I dont see how his belief or lack of belief makes the FACTS change.
In fact persoanl belief or lack of it it has nothing to do with the actual
stats!
Just as it has nothing to do with claims like "God either doesnt care or
can't act" or "Ther is abundant comtemporaneous written evidence for
alexanderthe Great and Socrates but none for Jesus"
Mitchell Holman
news:d29a3$4b1cd296$bc8d1d47$10...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CD8DE7117A6B...@216.196.97.130...
>>
>>
>>
>> Since "Mavis" dodges this question in every other
>> notestream by declaring it to be "off-topic" or at least
>> "irrelevant" a new notestream is called for.
>>
>>
>> So Mavis -
>>
>> Do you believe God exists?
>>
>> __yes
>>
>> __no
>
>
> I will give you a straight answer to this question.
>
> My answer is that my belief or none belief in God is none of your
> business!
>
> Clearly you want to makle my belief an issue. You are free to
> speculate all you want.
So, you come here to demand that others post
their beliefs, then attack them if their proof
does not meet your standards, while keeping your
own secret.
No wonder so few people bother responding to you....
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:d29a3$4b1cd296$bc8d1d47$10...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CD8DE7117A6B...@216.196.97.130...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since "Mavis" dodges this question in every other
>>> notestream by declaring it to be "off-topic" or at least
>>> "irrelevant" a new notestream is called for.
>>>
>>>
>>> So Mavis -
>>>
>>> Do you believe God exists?
>>>
>>> __yes
>>>
>>> __no
>>
>>
>> I will give you a straight answer to this question.
>>
>> My answer is that my belief or none belief in God is none of your
>> business!
>>
>> Clearly you want to makle my belief an issue. You are free to
>> speculate all you want.
>
>
> So, you come here to demand that others post
> their beliefs,
Nope! Apparently atheists do NOT believe in God. so how could they post
their belief in God?
And I don't demand ANYTHING about proving any belief.
I demand that if ANYONE believer or non believer MAKES A CLAIM of something
as FACT then they either
1. Support their CLAIM with some evidence
2. Withdraw their claim and admit it is just unsupported OPINION
>then attack them if their proof
> does not meet your standards,
No if it does not meet GENERALLY ACCEPTED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
My personal standards do not come into the issue!
If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU have to
show the evidence or show the logic involved.
>while keeping your
> own secret.
If I make a claim about something based onm what I believe than I have to
produce evidence for that or admit it is just my opinion.
~Fpr example the creation of microbes - I believe that it is possible for
someone to create new forms of life for example to cross strands of DNA
form differnet organisms. I think the "flavour saver" tomato did this with
genes from fish. But I cant be bothered to go and find the published
research on it so I openly admit I don't have support for that claim . It is
just my opinion. I accept that I have not shown that humans can create any
life.
>
> No wonder so few people bother responding to you....
The people responding to me include you and dougal who both FAILED to
support your own claims.
If there were no replies to me at all that STILL would not prove your empty
claims about God either not caring or not being ablve to act or about ther
being abundant contemporaneous written evidence for alexander or Socrates.
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>I came in reference to communistic and other forms of state atheism being
>responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.
Aren't you the one who thinks communism sponsored atheism is
responsible for "hundreds of millions(?)" of deaths? Or maybe that
should be atheist sponsored Communism?
You are constantly defending theism, your belief in god is absolute.
You don't have to say one way of the other - defend theism and you
defend religion and faith and a belief in god.
How's that for using the black/white rigid reasoning you favor?
You will, no doubt, try to interject some illogical philosophical
reasoning fallacy as a rebuttal.
The question is, or should be, do you believe in psychotherapy?
--
default
GAOS translated: Whatever my own subjective prejudicial view point
is.
>
>My personal standards do not come into the issue!
>
Who do you think you are kidding?
>If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU have to
>show the evidence or show the logic involved.
That makes sense. No evidence for god doesn't mean there is no god.
No evidence for god doesn't mean there is a god.
>
>>while keeping your
>> own secret.
>
>If I make a claim about something based onm what I believe than I have to
>produce evidence for that or admit it is just my opinion.
>
Well I dunno. If someone avoids making an absolute statement - you
imply dishonesty or illogic. Now you want a pass on the issue of god
when posting to religiously oriented newsgroups?
Why are you afraid to state your own bias in so many words? Are you
ashamed of being a theist?
I can understand that. Defending an indefensible position while
trying to distance yourself from the stigma that it might involve.
>~Fpr example the creation of microbes - I believe that it is possible for
>someone to create new forms of life for example to cross strands of DNA
>form differnet organisms. I think the "flavour saver" tomato did this with
>genes from fish. But I cant be bothered to go and find the published
>research on it so I openly admit I don't have support for that claim . It is
>just my opinion. I accept that I have not shown that humans can create any
>life.
I believe that it is possible etc. - it's being done today, so you'd
be foolish to deny it - no faith involved, just fact. The GMA tomato
is some very old news, you don't need to find proof. Ditto corn,
wheat, alfalfa, barley . . .
Is all this news to you?
>>
>> No wonder so few people bother responding to you....
>
>
>The people responding to me include you and dougal who both FAILED to
>support your own claims.
>
Ah yes. Failed to conform to your regimented system of "logical"
(not) proofs perhaps.
>If there were no replies to me at all that STILL would not prove your empty
>claims about God either not caring or not being ablve to act or about ther
>being abundant contemporaneous written evidence for alexander or Socrates.
Empty claims seems to be what religion (god) is all about. Prove he
(she, it) exists and there would be no atheists, now would there?
There might be a few - after all look at how many people cling to god
without evidence, while denying fact when it conflicts with what they
want to believe.
I tend to think that atheists are more intelligent and able than
theists, so I like to believe they are more flexible and logical.
--
Mavisbeacon
"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
news:4k8qh594u8lgfd6ah...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:57:53 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>I came in reference to communistic and other forms of state atheism being
>>responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.
>
> Aren't you the one who thinks communism sponsored atheism is
> responsible for "hundreds of millions(?)" of deaths? Or maybe that
> should be atheist sponsored Communism?
What I think does not matter. The evidence is there. Atheistic regimes
killed hundreds of millions and theistic ones killed tens of thousands.
Although oiver centuries i will accept millions for theistic regimes but
tsingle ones dont usually last that long.
>
> You are constantly defending theism, your belief in god is absolute.
In THE ABOVE GROUPS since I arrived I have put forward the point of view of
mainstream Christianity.
That does not mean that I always and only represent their point of view.
AS I have stated I have debated against Islaminc and Biblical
fundamentalists in other groups and against creationists, nazis, astrologers
Chlaratans, kooks
and all sorts of religious believers.
> You don't have to say one way of the other - defend theism and you
> defend religion and faith and a belief in god.
In the arguments in the above groups in the last month or so i believe I
have defended REASON and LOGIC . I believe I have shown the position of
mainstream christianiity to be grounded in Greek rationality i.e. the very
SAME foundation as that of science.
There may be those who posit an Islamic science or chinese science or
African science. I don't.
>
> How's that for using the black/white rigid reasoning you favor?
Not bad but it is also not conclusive!
>
> You will, no doubt, try to interject some illogical philosophical
> reasoning fallacy as a rebuttal.
If my reasoning is correct you can not conclude that it is because I am
defending theism.
Matter of fact The church has had the best of philosophers over the last two
millennia and there are few topics religious people hasvent considered in
depth (and I m,ean to a level on par with the greatest minds in the world).
I mean the Vatican even have their own Observatory and do research in
particle physics and cosmology! To assert religious are all stupid
uneducated or unreasonable is patently silly! They are on the cutting edge
of scientific and philosophicsal endeavour
and that deserves respect. Just as non believers who work on finding new
knowledge deserve respect.
>
> The question is, or should be, do you believe in psychotherapy?
>
I think there is a broad "church" who would not accept it as a science.
Therapist THE RAPIST - they spell them the same way dont they?
Mavisbeacon
No GAOS Translated as "what is accepted consensus in peer review literature"
You know things like Jesus being as reasonable to assume as others in
history?
Or the pausity of extant sources for socrates or alexander compared to the
claim of "abundant written contemporaneous sources".
>>
>>My personal standards do not come into the issue!
>>
[snip]
>
>>If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU have to
>>show the evidence or show the logic involved.
>
> That makes sense.
> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is no god.
> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is a god.
Lack of evidence means you can NOT claim something to be a fact!
But we were not arguing about God's existance. The argument assumes god
exists as a premise.
But even if you assume smomething true you can deduce logically what is
inferred from that premise.
The premise of an omnipotent god and the observation of non intervention to
stop natural disasters can NOT logically imply that God does not care!
>>
>>>while keeping your
>>> own secret.
>>
>>If I make a claim about something based onm what I believe than I have to
>>produce evidence for that or admit it is just my opinion.
>>
> Well I dunno. If someone avoids making an absolute statement - you
> imply dishonesty or illogic.
I didnt NOT imply it! I logically PROVED IT!
Affirming a consequent and bifurcation were involved "excluded middle" "
shifting the burden" "ad hiominem" "proving a negative" look them up!
> Now you want a pass on the issue of god
> when posting to religiously oriented newsgroups?
In another seperate thread i was asked about my presonal belief and I deal
with it there. My belief or lack of it has NOTHING to do with YOUR CLAIMS!
>
> Why are you afraid to state your own bias in so many words? Are you
> ashamed of being a theist?
whay are yo afraid of providing the identity of your children or family or
credit card infromation?
Do you just happen to think they have nothing to do with htis discussion?
Well you would probably be correct in that!
>
> I can understand that. Defending an indefensible position while
> trying to distance yourself from the stigma that it might involve.
I also can understand that you might not want to discuss your credit card
number because it has nothing to do with this discussion.
>
>>~Fpr example the creation of microbes - I believe that it is possible for
>>someone to create new forms of life for example to cross strands of DNA
>>form differnet organisms. I think the "flavour saver" tomato did this with
>>genes from fish. But I cant be bothered to go and find the published
>>research on it so I openly admit I don't have support for that claim . It
>>is
>>just my opinion. I accept that I have not shown that humans can create any
>>life.
>
> I believe that it is possible etc. - it's being done today, so you'd
> be foolish to deny it - no faith involved, just fact.
REally? You have the evidence to support that do you?
>The GMA tomato
> is some very old news, you don't need to find proof.
REally you have a reference prooving humans created a new life form. Great
when you provide it i will retract my retraction and slap Holman with this
one!
>Ditto corn,
> wheat, alfalfa, barley . . .
>
> Is all this news to you?
I still havent seen any evidence of people creating any new unheard of
before lifeforms.
>>>
>>> No wonder so few people bother responding to you....
>>
>>
>>The people responding to me include you and dougal who both FAILED to
>>support your own claims.
>>
> Ah yes. Failed to conform to your regimented system of "logical"
> (not) proofs perhaps.
LOGIC is around for millennia! It is not MINE! I didn't invent it!
>
>>If there were no replies to me at all that STILL would not prove your
>>empty
>>claims about God either not caring or not being ablve to act or about ther
>>being abundant contemporaneous written evidence for alexander or Socrates.
>
> Empty claims seems to be what religion (god) is all about. Prove he
> (she, it) exists and there would be no atheists, now would there?
Some people apparently see and still don't believe.
The "Christian" academics who were asked to look through Galileos telescope
didnt bother because they already "knew what they would see"
>
> There might be a few - after all look at how many people cling to god
> without evidence, while denying fact when it conflicts with what they
> want to believe.
Yes and look how many cling to "Dark matter" and "dark energy"?
They ant to believe in Higges Boizons and parallell universes and wormholes
I guess.
>
> I tend to think that atheists are more intelligent and able than
> theists, so I like to believe they are more flexible and logical.
I tend to think the history of the human race would prove that wrong. The
vast majority of great thinkers were Theists or believed in some
supernatural phenomena.
Galileo. Michelangelo, Newton, Einstein, rioght back to ancient Greece and
zoroastrans. Few were atheist.
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
snip
>>>>>
>>>>> My answer is that my belief or none belief in God is none of your
>>>>> business!
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly you want to makle my belief an issue. You are free to
>>>>> speculate all you want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you come here to demand that others post
>>>> their beliefs,
>>>
>>>Nope! Apparently atheists do NOT believe in God. so how could they post
>>>their belief in God?
>>>
>>>And I don't demand ANYTHING about proving any belief.
>>>I demand that if ANYONE believer or non believer MAKES A CLAIM of
>>>something
>>>as FACT then they either
>>>
>>>1. Support their CLAIM with some evidence
>>>2. Withdraw their claim and admit it is just unsupported OPINION
>>>
>>>
>>>>then attack them if their proof
>>>> does not meet your standards,
>>>
>>>No if it does not meet GENERALLY ACCEPTED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
>>
>> GAOS translated: Whatever my own subjective prejudicial view point
>> is.
>
>No GAOS Translated as "what is accepted consensus in peer review literature"
Peer review literature says what exactly - who is part of a peer group
that is comprised on thousands of different religious philosophies?
If there was such a thing as a "consensus," among religions there
wouldn't be many religions around. If there was such a thing as
consensus among philosophers, they probably wouldn't be calling it
philosophy.
>
>You know things like Jesus being as reasonable to assume as others in
>history?
I don't get the sentence. Could you rephrase it? Jesus is historical
or the "history" of Jesus is accurate?
Reasonable? "Miracles" are not reasonable. Can they be historical?
The legend of Jesus might be a more accurate way of stating it, than
historical. The legend of King Arthur might be more truthful and
historically accurate - all the romance tales of glory included.
>
>Or the pausity of extant sources for socrates or alexander compared to the
>claim of "abundant written contemporaneous sources".
Not sure what point you are going for. Abundant sources wouldn't mean
accuracy or truth - ESPECIALLY when dealing with religion. Quantity
versus quality.
The retelling of any folklore or legend tends to augment the great
qualities and derring-do of the champion in question. The number of
sources doesn't imply veracity of the sources.
We see that a lot in the Internet - some plausible claim will appear
and garner millions of hits on search engines, but when you try to pin
it to a single source you often find that the source has little or no
veracity or a monumental agenda that makes anything they allege
suspect.
The history was written long after Jesus was dead, by people who heard
it second or third hand from others who had their own agendas. Enter
Constantine who was going to repackage the history of Jesus into some
politically useful contiguous doctrine or religion. And it has been
refined and reworked for centuries to support the RCC.
I wouldn't trust any statement with a pedigree like that.
>
>>>
>>>My personal standards do not come into the issue!
>>>
>[snip]
>>
>>>If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU have to
>>>show the evidence or show the logic involved.
>>
>> That makes sense.
>
>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is no god.
>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is a god.
>
>Lack of evidence means you can NOT claim something to be a fact!
>
Nor can you claim it is fact - yet that's what religionists do.
As an atheist I require some proof or a preponderance of evidence
before I'd believe in god. I don't deny that god exists - but think
that it is far more likely that man invented god than god invented
man. Atheist just says "no belief in god," not that it is totally
impossible, just that it is totally unlikely.
Men have had gods since man was around from the evidence that exists.
Even the "one god" Israelites who invented THE "God of Abraham" had
multiple gods before they refined it to one god when they wrote their
bible.
>But we were not arguing about God's existance. The argument assumes god
>exists as a premise.
God does exist - as a premise.
>
>But even if you assume smomething true you can deduce logically what is
>inferred from that premise.
>The premise of an omnipotent god and the observation of non intervention to
>stop natural disasters can NOT logically imply that God does not care!
>
Agreed. An all knowing omnipotent omniscient god may or may not care.
This being could just be treating his creation like some form of
entertainment.
Simply saying that god exists does nothing to establish his character
or likes and dislikes (although there seem to be enough men around
that claim special abilities in those areas).
It would take a being with the abilities of a god to discern the
character and likes and dislikes . . .
>>>
>>>>while keeping your
>>>> own secret.
>>>
>>>If I make a claim about something based onm what I believe than I have to
>>>produce evidence for that or admit it is just my opinion.
>>>
>> Well I dunno. If someone avoids making an absolute statement - you
>> imply dishonesty or illogic.
>
>I didnt NOT imply it! I logically PROVED IT!
>Affirming a consequent and bifurcation were involved "excluded middle" "
>shifting the burden" "ad hiominem" "proving a negative" look them up!
Now just come up with some empirical proof and no one will argue with
you. An exercise in reason is just an exercise in reason - you can't
prove god exists with out producing a god or two, or some irrefutable
evidence.
1X1=10
>
>> Now you want a pass on the issue of god
>> when posting to religiously oriented newsgroups?
>
>In another seperate thread i was asked about my presonal belief and I deal
>with it there. My belief or lack of it has NOTHING to do with YOUR CLAIMS!
>
Agreed. Your belief is irrelevant, but inquiring minds want to know.
I believe that you assume there is a god, from the way you defend your
position that we atheists can't disprove a god.
I certainly won't make the statement that god doesn't exist - but I
will make the statement that there is no reason to believe in a god,
and plenty of reason to believe that man invented god(s) including the
God of Abraham.
>>
>> Why are you afraid to state your own bias in so many words? Are you
>> ashamed of being a theist?
>
>whay are yo afraid of providing the identity of your children or family or
>credit card infromation?
>Do you just happen to think they have nothing to do with htis discussion?
>Well you would probably be correct in that!
>\
I wouldn't post my financial info since it could be used to my
detriment. Are you saying that your admitting a belief in god could
be used to your detriment?
I would like to see you admit to having a bias.
>>
>> I can understand that. Defending an indefensible position while
>> trying to distance yourself from the stigma that it might involve.
>
>I also can understand that you might not want to discuss your credit card
>number because it has nothing to do with this discussion.
>
I'm not discussing my taste in beer because it has nothing to do with
this discussion - but I'm passionate about beer and could happily
discourse for hours on that subject. Financial information on the
Internet is not in the same league with irrelevant tastes with regards
to this discussion, since that financial information could be used to
harm me. Your analogy is poor.
I fail to see how admitting to a belief in god could harm a person -
so perhaps you could enlighten me?
>>
>>>~Fpr example the creation of microbes - I believe that it is possible for
>>>someone to create new forms of life for example to cross strands of DNA
>>>form differnet organisms. I think the "flavour saver" tomato did this with
>>>genes from fish. But I cant be bothered to go and find the published
>>>research on it so I openly admit I don't have support for that claim . It
>>>is
>>>just my opinion. I accept that I have not shown that humans can create any
>>>life.
>>
>> I believe that it is possible etc. - it's being done today, so you'd
>> be foolish to deny it - no faith involved, just fact.
>
>REally? You have the evidence to support that do you?
I have faith I could dig it up easily enough since it has been a topic
for discussion for some years. Never having sequenced genes I
couldn't say from personal experience, but trust the scientists who
claim to have done it.
We had a TV program some years ago that showed some machines that were
supposed to be sequencing the genes - combining chemicals in a
specific order to change the traits of an organism. They showed a
instance where they took a simple organism and had it glow with blue
light simply by re sequencing genes. It COULD be an elaborate hoax I
suppose. But since millions of people saw it I would assume that some
of them would be technically savvy enough to claim it was a fraud.
But you aren't denying that there are GMA tomatoes that have fish
genes in them are you? Your the one who wrote it I am just agreeing
with you and saying that it is very old news.
>
>>The GMA tomato
>> is some very old news, you don't need to find proof.
>
>REally you have a reference prooving humans created a new life form. Great
>when you provide it i will retract my retraction and slap Holman with this
>one!
A GMA tomato is not exactly an entirely new life form. The scientists
who were making bioluminescent bacteria said that the same machines,
could in theory, be used to modify humans with the same technology and
were likely to be able to in a decade or two.
That isn't a new life form. My own feeling is that we will be
creating new life forms in the future. We don't do so today.
>
>>Ditto corn,
>> wheat, alfalfa, barley . . .
>>
>> Is all this news to you?
>
>I still havent seen any evidence of people creating any new unheard of
>before lifeforms.
>
True there hasn't been a totally new life form out of a lab. Unless
you consider the likelihood of a tomato mating with a flounder
naturally. It still looks like a tomato and we still call it a
tomato.
If it grew in a marsh and swam away, would it be a new life form? At
what point would it stop being a tomato and be a new life form? That
is an honest question - where does one draw the line?
Nature might never have gotten around to mating tomatoes with
flounders - so it could, by that definition, be a "new" life form.
One doesn't have to create new instruments to create original music.
>>>>
>>>> No wonder so few people bother responding to you....
>>>
>>>
>>>The people responding to me include you and dougal who both FAILED to
>>>support your own claims.
>>>
>> Ah yes. Failed to conform to your regimented system of "logical"
>> (not) proofs perhaps.
>
>LOGIC is around for millennia! It is not MINE! I didn't invent it!
>
Didn't imply you did. Just that you do seem to like to make "logical"
proofs for intangible things and then imply that such a proof is
absolute, exclusive and immutable.
>>
>>>If there were no replies to me at all that STILL would not prove your
>>>empty
>>>claims about God either not caring or not being ablve to act or about ther
>>>being abundant contemporaneous written evidence for alexander or Socrates.
>>
>> Empty claims seems to be what religion (god) is all about. Prove he
>> (she, it) exists and there would be no atheists, now would there?
>
>Some people apparently see and still don't believe.
>
Some people look and don't see. . . some people look and see what
isn't apparent.
>The "Christian" academics who were asked to look through Galileos telescope
>didnt bother because they already "knew what they would see"
I can believe that. One doesn't want to be too original when it could
mean one's own execution as a heretic.
>>
>> There might be a few - after all look at how many people cling to god
>> without evidence, while denying fact when it conflicts with what they
>> want to believe.
>
>Yes and look how many cling to "Dark matter" and "dark energy"?
>They ant to believe in Higges Boizons and parallell universes and wormholes
>I guess.
>
I see those theories as just "place keepers." You can measure what
appears to be an anomaly that you can't explain. Until you can
explain it you have to call it something, so dark matter it is.
Worm holes, parallel universes, and the like are more like science
fiction - fun ideas to ponder, but nothing too serious. Are people
making religions out of them yet?
We did have a cult that claimed they would be swept up into a comet
and committed suicide - I guess you had to be indoctrinated to see
how that was supposed to work out - that is kind of borderline sci fi
religion feel to it.
>>
>> I tend to think that atheists are more intelligent and able than
>> theists, so I like to believe they are more flexible and logical.
>
>I tend to think the history of the human race would prove that wrong. The
>vast majority of great thinkers were Theists or believed in some
>supernatural phenomena.
>Galileo. Michelangelo, Newton, Einstein, rioght back to ancient Greece and
>zoroastrans. Few were atheist.
>
I think we could say Einstein was an atheist, but you are basically
correct. Some, otherwise seemingly normal, people do profess a belief
in gods. The delusion of masses is not unknown.
Theists probably outnumber atheists.
Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)
Heaven's Gate was an American UFO cult based in San Diego, California,
founded and led by Marshall Applewhite (1931�1997) and Bonnie Nettles
(1928-1985). [1] On March 26, 1997, police discovered the bodies of 39
members of the Heaven's Gate cult, all of whom had died by apparent
suicide. [2]
Heaven's Gate members believed that the planet Earth was about to be
recycled (wiped clean, renewed, refurbished and rejuvenated), and that
the only chance to survive was to leave it immediately. While the
group was formally against suicide, they defined "suicide" in their
own context to mean "to turn against the Next Level when it is being
offered",[4] and believed that their "human" bodies were only vessels
meant to help them on their journey.
--
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>news:4k8qh594u8lgfd6ah...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:57:53 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>I came in reference to communistic and other forms of state atheism being
>>>responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.
>>
>> Aren't you the one who thinks communism sponsored atheism is
>> responsible for "hundreds of millions(?)" of deaths? Or maybe that
>> should be atheist sponsored Communism?
>
>What I think does not matter. The evidence is there. Atheistic regimes
>killed hundreds of millions and theistic ones killed tens of thousands.
>Although oiver centuries i will accept millions for theistic regimes but
>tsingle ones dont usually last that long.
>
Until you can say that atheists killed because they were atheists, the
whole concept is just so much name calling and totally irrelevant.
>>
>> You are constantly defending theism, your belief in god is absolute.
>
>In THE ABOVE GROUPS since I arrived I have put forward the point of view of
>mainstream Christianity.
>
Yes you have
>That does not mean that I always and only represent their point of view.
>AS I have stated I have debated against Islaminc and Biblical
>fundamentalists in other groups and against creationists, nazis, astrologers
>Chlaratans, kooks
>and all sorts of religious believers.
>
Well here's your big chance - throw us a bone. Defend atheism against
the godless Christians.
>> You don't have to say one way of the other - defend theism and you
>> defend religion and faith and a belief in god.
>
>In the arguments in the above groups in the last month or so i believe I
>have defended REASON and LOGIC . I believe I have shown the position of
>mainstream christianiity to be grounded in Greek rationality i.e. the very
>SAME foundation as that of science.
No. You have used systems of logic to defend religion. Religion
doesn't become rational just because you can find a neat way to
justify it.
>
>There may be those who posit an Islamic science or chinese science or
>African science. I don't.
>
Why not? The old Greeks didn't defend Christianity with their logic.
>>
>> How's that for using the black/white rigid reasoning you favor?
>
>Not bad but it is also not conclusive!
>
>>
>> You will, no doubt, try to interject some illogical philosophical
>> reasoning fallacy as a rebuttal.
>
>If my reasoning is correct you can not conclude that it is because I am
>defending theism.
Huh? of course not. But I do question the validity of trying to use
logic to prove or disprove a thing without empirical evidence or one
with so much emotional indoctrinational baggage.
Bias.
>
>Matter of fact The church has had the best of philosophers over the last two
>millennia and there are few topics religious people hasvent considered in
>depth (and I m,ean to a level on par with the greatest minds in the world).
>I mean the Vatican even have their own Observatory and do research in
>particle physics and cosmology! To assert religious are all stupid
>uneducated or unreasonable is patently silly! They are on the cutting edge
>of scientific and philosophicsal endeavour
>and that deserves respect. Just as non believers who work on finding new
>knowledge deserve respect.
>
Well cut the world a little slack here. The church was in the
business of eradicating the philosophers that disagreed with them -
then they had the benefit of having a policy of indoctrinating
children before the children learned to reason. When there's only one
game in town you either play that game or don't play at all.
The church had the best philosophers. The church had the only
philosophers. They called other philosophers heretics, and used them
for fuel.
I don't and wouldn't say they are uneducated or stupid just because
they are religious. I would say they have an agenda and mixing
science and any bias is not likely to result in good science.
We see enough of that with drug companies whose scientists seem able
to find lots of supporting claims for a particular drug - that they
happen to get paid to research. Religion is different? Would the
reverend Al Sharpton be your first choice for an unbiased leader?
>>
>> The question is, or should be, do you believe in psychotherapy?
>>
>
>I think there is a broad "church" who would not accept it as a science.
>
>Therapist THE RAPIST - they spell them the same way dont they?
>
You won't find me defending psychologists. A good barber in the 50's
or bartender would be of more value. Most people have the ability to
solve their own problems when there isn't some dietary or medical
condition involved.
>
--
default
Earle Jones
Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
*
Mitchell: How about you? Do you believe in God?
Another question:
Why?
earle
*
PS: If you answer, "I believe in God based on my faith", I will have a
new-found respect for you.
If you answer, "I believe in God based on scientific evidence", I will
lower you a few notches from where I have you pegged.
ej
*
Mitchell Holman
news:b8cf7$4b1d34ba$bc8d1d47$98...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> news:4k8qh594u8lgfd6ah...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:57:53 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>I came in reference to communistic and other forms of state atheism
>>>being responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.
>>
>> Aren't you the one who thinks communism sponsored atheism is
>> responsible for "hundreds of millions(?)" of deaths? Or maybe that
>> should be atheist sponsored Communism?
>
> What I think does not matter. The evidence is there. Atheistic regimes
> killed hundreds of millions and theistic ones killed tens of
> thousands. Although oiver centuries i will accept millions for
> theistic regimes but tsingle ones dont usually last that long.
>
>>
>> You are constantly defending theism, your belief in god is absolute.
>
> In THE ABOVE GROUPS since I arrived I have put forward the point of
> view of mainstream Christianity.
>
> That does not mean that I always and only represent their point of
> view. AS I have stated I have debated against Islaminc and Biblical
> fundamentalists in other groups and against creationists, nazis,
> astrologers Chlaratans, kooks
> and all sorts of religious believers.
>
By "debated" do you mean demanding proof from others
while posting none yourself? That is, you know, all you
have done in this group.
Generally "debate" means showing your argument is
more logical and factual than the other side. What is
your argument? Where are your facts?
>> You don't have to say one way of the other - defend theism and you
>> defend religion and faith and a belief in god.
>
> In the arguments in the above groups in the last month or so i believe
> I have defended REASON and LOGIC . I believe I have shown the position
> of mainstream christianiity to be grounded in Greek rationality i.e.
> the very SAME foundation as that of science.
Perhaps you could repost for us your defense of
"mainstream christianity".
>
> There may be those who posit an Islamic science or chinese science or
> African science. I don't.
>
>>
>> How's that for using the black/white rigid reasoning you favor?
>
> Not bad but it is also not conclusive!
>
>>
>> You will, no doubt, try to interject some illogical philosophical
>> reasoning fallacy as a rebuttal.
>
> If my reasoning is correct you can not conclude that it is because I
> am defending theism.
>
> Matter of fact The church has had the best of philosophers over the
> last two millennia and there are few topics religious people hasvent
> considered in depth (and I m,ean to a level on par with the greatest
> minds in the world). I mean the Vatican even have their own
> Observatory and do research in particle physics and cosmology!
Really? Post for us some papers the Vatican has
published on particle physics.
Mavisbeacon
...what the foremost people in a field regard as worth saying?
>- who is part of a peer group
> that is comprised on thousands of different religious philosophies?
Initially the referee panel for a particular journal and eventually all the
readership of it.
>
> If there was such a thing as a "consensus," among religions there
> wouldn't be many religions around.
You are mixing up what religious believers believe with academic standards
for publication in journals of theology or philosophy for example.
>If there was such a thing as
> consensus among philosophers, they probably wouldn't be calling it
> philosophy.
There IS such a thing as academic journals dealing with philosophy. Plenty
of them in fact.
>>
>>You know things like Jesus being as reasonable to assume as others in
>>history?
>
> I don't get the sentence. Could you rephrase it?
Yes but I won't!
[snip]
>
> Reasonable? "Miracles" are not reasonable. Can they be historical?
They can be explained with reason. History is just that - a story. It is
not the past. History is a map.
>
> The legend of Jesus might be a more accurate way of stating it, than
> historical. The legend of King Arthur might be more truthful and
> historically accurate - all the romance tales of glory included.
All legends are historical.
>>
>>Or the pausity of extant sources for socrates or alexander compared to the
>>claim of "abundant written contemporaneous sources".
>
> Not sure what point you are going for. Abundant sources wouldn't mean
> accuracy or truth - ESPECIALLY when dealing with religion. Quantity
> versus quality.
Where did I claim "history" was truth? If you look I referred to a
"historical Jesus" or "Jesus in history" and said it was about as plausable
as anyone else from that historical period. At no time did I say alexander
Socrates Jesus etc. certainly existed in the past although we have as much
evidence for Jesus as for anyone else.
>
> The retelling of any folklore or legend tends to augment the great
> qualities and derring-do of the champion in question. The number of
> sources doesn't imply veracity of the sources.
Twas no I who suggested that "abundant contemporaneous written sources "
exist! It was my intorlocutor.
But now you are arguing about the relative quality of the evidence which is
different to "abundant contemporaneous written sources ".
I am quite happy to argue about the evidence for Jesus and compare it with
that for Alexander or Socrates or others in history.
>
> We see that a lot in the Internet - some plausible claim will appear
> and garner millions of hits on search engines, but when you try to pin
> it to a single source you often find that the source has little or no
> veracity or a monumental agenda that makes anything they allege
> suspect.
So what? I am quite happy to argue about the evidence for Jesus and compare
it with that for Alexander or Socrates or others in history.
You produce the " abundant contemporaneous written sources " or whatever
else you have for Socrates and Alexander and we can compare them.
>
> The history was written long after Jesus was dead, by people who heard
> it second or third hand from others who had their own agendas.
WRONG! WE have been over this before in this thread.
Before I go any further, them main evidence for Alexander Socrates etc.
comes from writings made at the very oldest over three hundred years later.
Even outside the New Testament The writings of the New testament can be
recovered almost in entirety from Early church fathers.
Those people lived and wrote for example in 90 AD (Clement of rome) or 110
AD (polycarp of Smyrna (c 69- ca. 155))
Ignatius of Antioch ( 35- 110 AD) ,
Someone who was alive in the time of Jesus could dictate or tell the story
to these people. And the originals of the Gospels and Pauls writings date
from about this time - late first century.
I have also supplied the references to other non christian sources (such as
official historians and Roman graffitti) and heretical sources.
> Enter
> Constantine who was going to repackage the history of Jesus into some
> politically useful contiguous doctrine or religion. And it has been
> refined and reworked for centuries to support the RCC.
No. in fact this "conspiracy theory" does not fit with the widespread
independent sources on Jesus from that time.
Constantine is FOURTH century! Abut the same gao between him and Jesus as
ther is between Socrates and Alexander and the earliest surviving writings
about them.
Not alone that but pagan anti Christian Roman, Jewish and heretical works
rejected by the RCC ALSO mention Jesus and Christianity!
>
> I wouldn't trust any statement with a pedigree like that.
As opposed to WHAT about Socrates and Alexander?
Doccuments from 350 years later? Images of Zeus Athena or Heracles?
No actual writings by Socrates - ever!
>>
>>>>
>>>>My personal standards do not come into the issue!
>>>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU have to
>>>>show the evidence or show the logic involved.
>>>
>>> That makes sense.
>>
>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is no god.
>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is a god.
>>
>>Lack of evidence means you can NOT claim something to be a fact!
>>
> Nor can you claim it is fact - yet that's what religionists do.
I didnt claim it was a fact! I claimed it was as likely as others in history
and as such not an extraordinary claim.
Simple really you could say all the others from ancient times have little,
weak or no evidence in comparison to Jesus or you could say Jesus is as
reasonable to assume as they are.
>
> As an atheist I require some proof or a preponderance of evidence
> before I'd believe in god.
So what? I was arguing about a historical Jesus and not about whether he was
Christ or God.
Historicity of Jesus and christology are DIFFERENT issues!
>I don't deny that god exists - but think
> that it is far more likely that man invented god than god invented
> man.
do you deny the Higges bozon exists? Ther is no evidence?
How about wormholes or parallel univrses?
>Atheist just says "no belief in god," not that it is totally
> impossible, just that it is totally unlikely.
So what? I was arguing about a historical Jesus and not about whether he was
Christ or God.
Historicity of Jesus and christology are DIFFERENT issues!
[snip]
>>
> Agreed. An all knowing omnipotent omniscient god may or may not care.
> This being could just be treating his creation like some form of
> entertainment.
Yes. That is true. Or that god could also actually care. But Holman believes
he logically deduced that God must either not care or be unable to act.
> Simply saying that god exists does nothing to establish his character
> or likes and dislikes (although there seem to be enough men around
> that claim special abilities in those areas).
>
> It would take a being with the abilities of a god to discern the
> character and likes and dislikes . . .
Indeed but Holman claims that because God does not intervene this proves God
does not care or hasn't the power to intervene.
I pointed out it is bifurcation and affirming a consequent - Logical
fallacy to propose that or conclude it.
>
>>>>
>>>>>while keeping your
>>>>> own secret.
>>>>
>>>>If I make a claim about something based onm what I believe than I have
>>>>to
>>>>produce evidence for that or admit it is just my opinion.
>>>>
>>> Well I dunno. If someone avoids making an absolute statement - you
>>> imply dishonesty or illogic.
>>
>>I didnt NOT imply it! I logically PROVED IT!
>>Affirming a consequent and bifurcation were involved "excluded middle" "
>>shifting the burden" "ad hiominem" "proving a negative" look them up!
>
> Now just come up with some empirical proof and no one will argue with
> you.
Empirical proof is not necessary to prove illogical reasoning with respect
to an example based on an assumed premise.
if you say "All pink elephants have beards"
and you then say "mavis has a beard" yu can not logically conclude "Mavis is
a pink elephant"
This in NOT because you cant empirically measure pink elephants but necause
the logic involved is wrong!
> An exercise in reason is just an exercise in reason - you can't
> prove god exists with out producing a god or two, or some irrefutable
> evidence.
so what? I didn't claim anything about god existing!
>>
>>> Now you want a pass on the issue of god
>>> when posting to religiously oriented newsgroups?
>>
>>In another seperate thread i was asked about my presonal belief and I deal
>>with it there. My belief or lack of it has NOTHING to do with YOUR CLAIMS!
>>
>
> I believe that you assume there is a god, from the way you defend your
> position that we atheists can't disprove a god.
I didnt make any claims about proving or disproving god. THAT was something
brought up by the other side of the debate.
There were two things I argued against.
1. the "no evidence for Jesus" claim
2. That if God existed he must be uncaring or not omnipotent.
> I certainly won't make the statement that god doesn't exist - but I
> will make the statement that there is no reason to believe in a god,
> and plenty of reason to believe that man invented god(s) including the
> God of Abraham.
Fair enough. And I wont argue against that here (although I could) since her
I am dealing with 1 and 2 above and dont want to get sidetracked .
>>>
>>> Why are you afraid to state your own bias in so many words? Are you
>>> ashamed of being a theist?
>>
>>whay are yo afraid of providing the identity of your children or family or
>>credit card infromation?
>>Do you just happen to think they have nothing to do with htis discussion?
>>Well you would probably be correct in that!
>>\
> I wouldn't post my financial info since it could be used to my
> detriment. Are you saying that your admitting a belief in god could
> be used to your detriment?
Yes. Or possibly my non belief in God. I dont see what my personal belief
has to do with the issues.
You see I have a similar problem with funamentalists and creationists and
neo conservatives and Nazis and astrologers and kooks. I have argued against
them all and they have this smug belief that those not in their "in group"
are all idiots. Even in this discussion you have the "atheists are more
intelligent than other people"
comments being made!
But also is the fact that my personal belief or lack of is a red herring.
it has nothing to do with historicty of Jesus.
> I would like to see you admit to having a bias.
since Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" It is braodly accepted
from a postmodern view that everyone has a bias.
But while we may all have out preception of something coloured by personal
experience that is not to say the something isnt really there!
>>>
>>> I can understand that. Defending an indefensible position while
>>> trying to distance yourself from the stigma that it might involve.
>>
>>I also can understand that you might not want to discuss your credit card
>>number because it has nothing to do with this discussion.
>>
> I'm not discussing my taste in beer because it has nothing to do with
> this discussion - but I'm passionate about beer and could happily
> discourse for hours on that subject.
Good for you it is off topic though! So we will leave it behind.
Now If I was to state " I believe in God" or "I do not believe in God"
do you really think for one minute it would be left behind?
I do not believe it would since I believe the people ranged against me in
this debate have been soundly trounced in their original smug assumptions
and have noe resorted to "ad oiminem" - personal attack - when they have
lost the argument they attack the person making the counter argument.
>Financial information on the
> Internet is not in the same league with irrelevant tastes with regards
> to this discussion, since that financial information could be used to
> harm me. Your analogy is poor.
Ill tell you one of my personal beliefs.
If you think they want to know my personal beliefs for anything other then
to use it in a personal attack on me then you are wrong.
The only reason I can see is that they want to CHANGE the subject from the
exposure of theor fallacies and lack of empirical evidence supporting THEIR
claims to a personal off topic attack on me!
>
> I fail to see how admitting to a belief in god could harm a person -
> so perhaps you could enlighten me?
I just have.
>>>
>>>>~Fpr example the creation of microbes - I believe that it is possible
>>>>for
>>>>someone to create new forms of life for example to cross strands of DNA
>>>>form differnet organisms. I think the "flavour saver" tomato did this
>>>>with
>>>>genes from fish. But I cant be bothered to go and find the published
>>>>research on it so I openly admit I don't have support for that claim .
>>>>It
>>>>is
>>>>just my opinion. I accept that I have not shown that humans can create
>>>>any
>>>>life.
>>>
>>> I believe that it is possible etc. - it's being done today, so you'd
>>> be foolish to deny it - no faith involved, just fact.
>>
>>REally? You have the evidence to support that do you?
>
> I have faith I could dig it up easily enough since it has been a topic
> for discussion for some years.
Off you go then. I cant be bothered.
>Never having sequenced genes I
> couldn't say from personal experience, but trust the scientists who
> claim to have done it.
Actually I have studied genetics among other things althought my formal
study had more to do with evolution of extinct species from pre DNA times.
Bi as I have already stated I do not argue from authority.
theat "germ" point aroisew out of the spread of AIDS being more to do with
people than God (which arose from God doiesnt care about disease) and being
asked "Who created the AIDS virus?"
>
> We had a TV program some years ago that showed some machines that were
> supposed to be sequencing the genes - combining chemicals in a
> specific order to change the traits of an organism. They showed a
> instance where they took a simple organism and had it glow with blue
> light simply by re sequencing genes. It COULD be an elaborate hoax I
> suppose. But since millions of people saw it I would assume that some
> of them would be technically savvy enough to claim it was a fraud.
I would consider it plausable but ethically questionable.
>
> But you aren't denying that there are GMA tomatoes that have fish
> genes in them are you? Your the one who wrote it I am just agreeing
> with you and saying that it is very old news.
Just to inform you.
It arose from being asked "what microbes or life did humans create" in
relation to God causing disease because God doesnt care.
The disaster of AIDS is man made and not plague sent by God.
The point being made was people spread AIDS not God.
Now I am told asked " God not stop it theefore god does not care" but as i
pointed out according tothe story God didnt stop the crusifiction. Based on
that One can not conclude God did not care. quite the opposite in fact!
>>
>>>The GMA tomato
>>> is some very old news, you don't need to find proof.
>>
>>REally you have a reference prooving humans created a new life form. Great
>>when you provide it i will retract my retraction and slap Holman with this
>>one!
>
> A GMA tomato is not exactly an entirely new life form. The scientists
> who were making bioluminescent bacteria said that the same machines,
> could in theory, be used to modify humans with the same technology and
> were likely to be able to in a decade or two.
>
> That isn't a new life form. My own feeling is that we will be
> creating new life forms in the future. We don't do so today.
That would be my opinion too! But i don't intend to produce the evidence to
support the palusability of it so it is just my opinion.
Holman demanded I produce proof it is true so i retracted but Im glad at
least some other atheists can believe it is true.
>>
>>>Ditto corn,
>>> wheat, alfalfa, barley . . .
>>>
>>> Is all this news to you?
>>
>>I still havent seen any evidence of people creating any new unheard of
>>before lifeforms.
>>
> True there hasn't been a totally new life form out of a lab. Unless
> you consider the likelihood of a tomato mating with a flounder
> naturally. It still looks like a tomato and we still call it a
> tomato.
>
> If it grew in a marsh and swam away, would it be a new life form? At
> what point would it stop being a tomato and be a new life form? That
> is an honest question - where does one draw the line?
Normally one draws the "species" line when it cant mate/ fertilise. some
organisms produce sterile offspring when forced to cross the species
barrier - mules - but take dogs for example they look totally differnet but
you can still cross one with another in spite of the phenotype. But you
could not fertilise a dog cat ape or horse egg with human sperm.
We could however totally change the DNSA of a human dog cat or horse.
Geneticists draw the line long before that but we still do change DNA.
>
> Nature might never have gotten around to mating tomatoes with
> flounders - so it could, by that definition, be a "new" life form.
Ni of it can still be bread with other tomatioes. The catch with most DNA
expirements like this though is that they remove the ability to breed making
them sterile. This is usually because the corporate concern can protect
their patent by preventing others in breeding more crops and looking for
mutation through traditional methods.
> One doesn't have to create new instruments to create original music.
You are playing with words here. DNA alays used the same four (well five if
you inclued Uracil in RNA but thymine will do) notes. The music can be 99.99
per cent the same but the ability for that music to contain information in
the song which is capable of adding other music to it or changing the notes
itself while it combines wth other songs does determine the originality of
newer creations.
>>>>>
>>>>> No wonder so few people bother responding to you....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The people responding to me include you and dougal who both FAILED to
>>>>support your own claims.
>>>>
>>> Ah yes. Failed to conform to your regimented system of "logical"
>>> (not) proofs perhaps.
>>
>>LOGIC is around for millennia! It is not MINE! I didn't invent it!
>>
> Didn't imply you did. Just that you do seem to like to make "logical"
> proofs for intangible things and then imply that such a proof is
> absolute, exclusive and immutable.
Logic is!
>>>
>>>>If there were no replies to me at all that STILL would not prove your
>>>>empty
>>>>claims about God either not caring or not being ablve to act or about
>>>>ther
>>>>being abundant contemporaneous written evidence for alexander or
>>>>Socrates.
>>>
>>> Empty claims seems to be what religion (god) is all about. Prove he
>>> (she, it) exists and there would be no atheists, now would there?
>>
>>Some people apparently see and still don't believe.
>>
> Some people look and don't see. . . some people look and see what
> isn't apparent.
Scientists call those "false negatives" and "false positives" or "type I"
and "Type II" errors if you happen to live in america.
People here though claim "no evidence for Jesus" and "abundant
contemporaneous written evidnce " for Alexander or Socrates.
They fail to produce th latter and then insist the former should be dealt
with as a special case on its own.
>
>>The "Christian" academics who were asked to look through Galileos
>>telescope
>>didnt bother because they already "knew what they would see"
>
> I can believe that. One doesn't want to be too original when it could
> mean one's own execution as a heretic.
Galileo did not name the philosophers concerned, but Galileo scholars have
identified two of them as Cesare Cremonini and Giulio Libri (Drake, 1978,
pp.162, 165; Sharratt, 1994, p.87).Galileo At Work. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-16226-5 from wikipedia
>>>
>>> There might be a few - after all look at how many people cling to god
>>> without evidence, while denying fact when it conflicts with what they
>>> want to believe.
>>
>>Yes and look how many cling to "Dark matter" and "dark energy"?
>>They ant to believe in Higges Boizons and parallell universes and
>>wormholes
>>I guess.
>>
> I see those theories as just "place keepers." You can measure what
> appears to be an anomaly that you can't explain. Until you can
> explain it you have to call it something, so dark matter it is.
Dark matter isnt the anomaly it is the explaination for it!
ther should be more matter there based on what we can see so we assume that
ther is matter ther and we just cant see it!
We assume something we can't measure or see! Not unlike God.
Is God not an ultimate place keeper in your philosophy?
>
> Worm holes, parallel universes, and the like are more like science
> fiction - fun ideas to ponder, but nothing too serious. Are people
> making religions out of them yet?
Well more is spent on CERN than on the Vatican. Ask kaku or better yes
Burbridge.
He is fairly sure about the Church of consensus physics.
http://casswww.ucsd.edu/personal/gburbidge.html
> We did have a cult
yes yes what was their name. I remember writing abouthtenm at that time. Aum
shira - nope- HEAVENS GATE!
>that claimed they would be swept up into a comet
Hale Bopp
> and committed suicide
"ascended" I think they called it. or "vacated their containiers"
Funny you mention it they BOUGHT a Celectron 12 inch a week before and
brought it back and insisted that it didnt work.
The guy gave then their money back minus about 10 or 20 per cent.
This thing is like Aum Shira they were highly technically qualified but
nowhere in the theology or philosophy stakes.
>- I guess you had to be indoctrinated to see
> how that was supposed to work out - that is kind of borderline sci fi
> religion feel to it.
Not necessarily it is not so simple as "brainwashing" in my opinion. Part of
what is at work is the authoritarianism culture. This is why I hae problems
with atheist "groups" just as I do with religious ones. You should look up a
guy called Leon Festinger on "dissonence" Better still here is a great free
book by Bob
Altemeyer (2006). The Authoritarians, http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
>>>
>>> I tend to think that atheists are more intelligent and able than
>>> theists, so I like to believe they are more flexible and logical.
>>
>>I tend to think the history of the human race would prove that wrong. The
>>vast majority of great thinkers were Theists or believed in some
>>supernatural phenomena.
>
>>Galileo. Michelangelo, Newton, Einstein, rioght back to ancient Greece and
>>zoroastrans. Few were atheist.
>>
> I think we could say Einstein was an atheist, but you are basically
> correct. Some, otherwise seemingly normal, people do profess a belief
> in gods. The delusion of masses is not unknown.
Whether it was a delusion is unknown.
>
> Theists probably outnumber atheists.
almost certainly. atheists are a small miniroty.
>
> Here it is:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)
Yeah thanks I remembered. they exhibited the ability to surmount
"dissonance" as many cults do.
Mavisbeacon
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:59:39 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>
>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>news:4k8qh594u8lgfd6ah...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:57:53 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I came in reference to communistic and other forms of state atheism
>>>>being
>>>>responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.
>>>
>>> Aren't you the one who thinks communism sponsored atheism is
>>> responsible for "hundreds of millions(?)" of deaths? Or maybe that
>>> should be atheist sponsored Communism?
>>
>>What I think does not matter. The evidence is there. Atheistic regimes
>>killed hundreds of millions and theistic ones killed tens of thousands.
>>Although oiver centuries i will accept millions for theistic regimes but
>>tsingle ones dont usually last that long.
>>
> Until you can say that atheists killed because they were atheists, the
> whole concept is just so much name calling and totally irrelevant.
I wont bother
posting the yards of text of quotes linking atheism to communism. Try
Fasanagh. I was just explaining when and why I came.
All I can say is that those who were not atheists killed thousands because
of their beliefs whereas thiose who were atheists didnt have any belief and
killed tens of millions.
>>>
>>> You are constantly defending theism, your belief in god is absolute.
>>
>>In THE ABOVE GROUPS since I arrived I have put forward the point of view
>>of
>>mainstream Christianity.
>>
> Yes you have
>>That does not mean that I always and only represent their point of view.
>>AS I have stated I have debated against Islaminc and Biblical
>>fundamentalists in other groups and against creationists, nazis,
>>astrologers
>>Chlaratans, kooks
>>and all sorts of religious believers.
>>
> Well here's your big chance - throw us a bone. Defend atheism against
> the godless Christians.
I may at some future time. Not in this poarticular thread. But I won't
reject reason in doing so.
Nor wil I state that the Roman Church holds an illogical or unreasonable
theological or philosophical position.
But defending an authoritarian structure and allowing injustice in doing so
is not moral either but that is for another thread.
>>> You don't have to say one way of the other - defend theism and you
>>> defend religion and faith and a belief in god.
>>
>>In the arguments in the above groups in the last month or so i believe I
>>have defended REASON and LOGIC . I believe I have shown the position of
>>mainstream christianiity to be grounded in Greek rationality i.e. the very
>>SAME foundation as that of science.
>
> No. You have used systems of logic to defend religion.
No. I didnt make the claims! The claims were made by others and theior claim
were illogical or not supported by evidence.
> Religion
> doesn't become rational just because you can find a neat way to
> justify it.
Wher id i claim it did? this was not retroactive! I clearly pointed out the
Orthodox church and the Greek influence on Roman thinking.
>>
>>There may be those who posit an Islamic science or chinese science or
>>African science. I don't.
>>
> Why not? The old Greeks didn't defend Christianity with their logic.
Red herring! But actually Paul of Tarsus was Greek and did defend
Christianity and there are a holt of "Old greeks" who did.
I referred to some of them. Ignatious of Antioch for example.
>>>
>>> How's that for using the black/white rigid reasoning you favor?
>>
>>Not bad but it is also not conclusive!
>>
>>>
>>> You will, no doubt, try to interject some illogical philosophical
>>> reasoning fallacy as a rebuttal.
>>
>>If my reasoning is correct you can not conclude that it is because I am
>>defending theism.
>
> Huh? of course not. But I do question the validity of trying to use
> logic to prove or disprove a thing without empirical evidence or one
> with so much emotional indoctrinational baggage.
What I was disproving was the asseertion that God is either powerless to act
or does not care.
>
> Bias.
>>
>>Matter of fact The church has had the best of philosophers over the last
>>two
>>millennia and there are few topics religious people hasvent considered in
>>depth (and I m,ean to a level on par with the greatest minds in the
>>world).
>>I mean the Vatican even have their own Observatory and do research in
>>particle physics and cosmology! To assert religious are all stupid
>>uneducated or unreasonable is patently silly! They are on the cutting edge
>>of scientific and philosophicsal endeavour
>>and that deserves respect. Just as non believers who work on finding new
>>knowledge deserve respect.
>>
> Well cut the world a little slack here. The church was in the
> business of eradicating the philosophers that disagreed with them -
Not really! Some were executed but relatively few. Most took the
"instrumentalist position" that Galileo or rager bacon took.
Later on others who were excommunicated like Descartes for example were not
executed.
And Burbridge points to much the same mindset in modern physics - it isnt
essentially therfore because of religious belief in God .
> then they had the benefit of having a policy of indoctrinating
> children before the children learned to reason. When there's only one
> game in town you either play that game or don't play at all.
Actually quite the opposite. Charlamagne was an illiterate who learned from
Monks. monastaries preserved the classical knowledge. And teaching orders
taught Euclid Latin Greek and reasoning. the Church was not an intolerant
dictatorship like atheistic stalinism for example.
>
> The church had the best philosophers. The church had the only
> philosophers. They called other philosophers heretics, and used them
> for fuel.
Very few were burned at the stake. About seven people or so a year on
average. Most were probably Jews who had lied about converting to
Christianity in Spain and not academics.And the Islamic world was much more
sophisticated and intellectually developed then the Western one at that
time.
>
> I don't and wouldn't say they are uneducated or stupid just because
> they are religious. I would say they have an agenda and mixing
> science and any bias is not likely to result in good science.
Hmmm! One can argue all science is baised. Now I warn you in advance this IS
my field so i CAN priduce paper after paper on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Criticism_and_influences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._V._O._Quine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi#Philosophy_of_science
In particular look up the thorny subject of "constructivism" in the
philosophy of science.
> We see enough of that with drug companies whose scientists seem able
> to find lots of supporting claims for a particular drug - that they
> happen to get paid to research. Religion is different? Would the
> reverend Al Sharpton be your first choice for an unbiased leader?
>>>
>>> The question is, or should be, do you believe in psychotherapy?
>>>
>>
>>I think there is a broad "church" who would not accept it as a science.
>>
>>Therapist THE RAPIST - they spell them the same way dont they?
>>
> You won't find me defending psychologists.
Different issue! Psychotherapy is part of phychoanalysis and psychaitary
which s more to do with Arts than medicine. Psychology is a science.
Psychologists are accpetable scientists.
Mitchell Holman
2D2D16.171...@news.giganews.com:
> In article <Xns9CD8DE7117A6B...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Since "Mavis" dodges this question in every other
>> notestream by declaring it to be "off-topic" or at least
>> "irrelevant" a new notestream is called for.
>>
>>
>> So Mavis -
>>
>> Do you believe God exists?
>>
>> __yes
>>
>> __no
>
> *
> Mitchell: How about you? Do you believe in God?
>
Nope.
> Another question:
>
> Why?
>
See above.
default
Is there a peer reviewed journal for religious beliefs? I sort of
doubt that one exists.
>
>>
>> If there was such a thing as a "consensus," among religions there
>> wouldn't be many religions around.
>
>You are mixing up what religious believers believe with academic standards
>for publication in journals of theology or philosophy for example.
>
I'm just trying to see where "peer review" fits into religion is all.
I understand peer review in science but not religion. I don't buy
into the idea that theology is a science so the only peer review might
be in a study of comparative religious beliefs, and that might fall
under the purview of psychology (another non-science in my opinion).
Likewise you might publish a journal of philosophical ideas but to
peer review them? Seems to me, philosophy is so much opinion.
>>If there was such a thing as
>> consensus among philosophers, they probably wouldn't be calling it
>> philosophy.
>
>There IS such a thing as academic journals dealing with philosophy. Plenty
>of them in fact.
Lots of journals for philosophers? Amazing.
>>>
>>>You know things like Jesus being as reasonable to assume as others in
>>>history?
>>
>> I don't get the sentence. Could you rephrase it?
>
>Yes but I won't!
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> Reasonable? "Miracles" are not reasonable. Can they be historical?
>
>They can be explained with reason. History is just that - a story. It is
>not the past. History is a map.
History, to me, implies a factual account of what happened in the
past. I've no doubt that in with all the drivel in the bible are a
few historical facts. That doesn't make the bible a historical
account. Genesis alone should/would put that idea to death.
>>
>> The legend of Jesus might be a more accurate way of stating it, than
>> historical. The legend of King Arthur might be more truthful and
>> historically accurate - all the romance tales of glory included.
>
>All legends are historical.
Sure. I don't think I'd ever say ALL legends are historical, I'm
sure there are some entirely fictional legends, like "The Legend of
Sleepy Hollow"
Some parts of legends might be historical, but to state that all or
any legend is historical is wrong. Legends are usually a mixture of
fact and fiction.
>
>>>
>>>Or the pausity of extant sources for socrates or alexander compared to the
>>>claim of "abundant written contemporaneous sources".
>>
>> Not sure what point you are going for. Abundant sources wouldn't mean
>> accuracy or truth - ESPECIALLY when dealing with religion. Quantity
>> versus quality.
>
>Where did I claim "history" was truth? If you look I referred to a
>"historical Jesus" or "Jesus in history" and said it was about as plausable
>as anyone else from that historical period. At no time did I say alexander
>Socrates Jesus etc. certainly existed in the past although we have as much
>evidence for Jesus as for anyone else.
I would claim that if it isn't true it isn't history. You apparently
don't regard history as true, or it doesn't need to be true to satisfy
your definition of history.
No, I suspect Socrates is in better standing than Jesus for historical
accuracy but neither is a paragon of historical veracity.
Historical records of Jesus don't seem to exist outside of religious
legend. Which doesn't mean he didn't exist, but that isn't a
historical proof either.
>>
>> The retelling of any folklore or legend tends to augment the great
>> qualities and derring-do of the champion in question. The number of
>> sources doesn't imply veracity of the sources.
>
>Twas no I who suggested that "abundant contemporaneous written sources "
>exist! It was my intorlocutor.
>But now you are arguing about the relative quality of the evidence which is
>different to "abundant contemporaneous written sources ".
Well yes I am. Just because a billion people believe something
doesn't make it true. If it isn't true it isn't worth spit in my
opinion. So quality is the only thing that counts to me personally.
I care about substance over style, function over appearance, etc..
If a zillion people like a legend, so what? Numbers mean very little.
Is the implication you are going for "where there's smoke there is
fire?"
>
>I am quite happy to argue about the evidence for Jesus and compare it with
>that for Alexander or Socrates or others in history.
>
I still consider the source - people in the grip of religious delusion
are already delusional, they don't want facts that may confuse or
contradict their pet beliefs. They want faith - they want the
security it provides.
>>
>> We see that a lot in the Internet - some plausible claim will appear
>> and garner millions of hits on search engines, but when you try to pin
>> it to a single source you often find that the source has little or no
>> veracity or a monumental agenda that makes anything they allege
>> suspect.
>
>So what? I am quite happy to argue about the evidence for Jesus and compare
>it with that for Alexander or Socrates or others in history.
>You produce the " abundant contemporaneous written sources " or whatever
>else you have for Socrates and Alexander and we can compare them.
>
Why. I don't find either Socrates or Alexander all that interesting.
>>
>> The history was written long after Jesus was dead, by people who heard
>> it second or third hand from others who had their own agendas.
>
>WRONG! WE have been over this before in this thread.
The council of Nicea ring a bell? Constantine's idea to bring
together some hundreds of believers and hammer out a "consensus." He
didn't please everyone and not everyone agreed with him but he was an
emperor and a politician and forced what he presented to his empire as
a consensus. He officially made Christ the "Son of God."
>
>Before I go any further, them main evidence for Alexander Socrates etc.
>comes from writings made at the very oldest over three hundred years later.
I was under the impression that it was Plato, Socrates student and
contemporary that wrote about Socrates. Is this wrong?
>
>Even outside the New Testament The writings of the New testament can be
>recovered almost in entirety from Early church fathers.
>Those people lived and wrote for example in 90 AD (Clement of rome) or 110
>AD (polycarp of Smyrna (c 69- ca. 155))
>Ignatius of Antioch ( 35- 110 AD) ,
>Someone who was alive in the time of Jesus could dictate or tell the story
>to these people. And the originals of the Gospels and Pauls writings date
>from about this time - late first century.
>I have also supplied the references to other non christian sources (such as
>official historians and Roman graffitti) and heretical sources.
>
Anything "historical" to do with religious legend is suspect. Just
point me to the post and let me see what you are referring to.
>> Enter
>> Constantine who was going to repackage the history of Jesus into some
>> politically useful contiguous doctrine or religion. And it has been
>> refined and reworked for centuries to support the RCC.
>
>No. in fact this "conspiracy theory" does not fit with the widespread
>independent sources on Jesus from that time.
>Constantine is FOURTH century! Abut the same gao between him and Jesus as
>ther is between Socrates and Alexander and the earliest surviving writings
>about them.
>Not alone that but pagan anti Christian Roman, Jewish and heretical works
>rejected by the RCC ALSO mention Jesus and Christianity!
Cite something already!
>
>>
>> I wouldn't trust any statement with a pedigree like that.
>
>As opposed to WHAT about Socrates and Alexander?
I don't care to think about Socrates or Alexander - that's your baby.
My concern is with religious delusion and how that affects the
behavior of large numbers of otherwise seemingly sane people.
>
>Doccuments from 350 years later? Images of Zeus Athena or Heracles?
>No actual writings by Socrates - ever!
True.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My personal standards do not come into the issue!
>>>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU have to
>>>>>show the evidence or show the logic involved.
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense.
>>>
>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is no god.
>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is a god.
>>>
>>>Lack of evidence means you can NOT claim something to be a fact!
>>>
>> Nor can you claim it is fact - yet that's what religionists do.
>
>I didnt claim it was a fact! I claimed it was as likely as others in history
>and as such not an extraordinary claim.
>Simple really you could say all the others from ancient times have little,
>weak or no evidence in comparison to Jesus or you could say Jesus is as
>reasonable to assume as they are.
>
No. I come from the position that any religious believer is more than
a little irrational. I believe that belief without proof is
irrational. I believe that Jesus was just as delusional as his
followers.
I do not believe that there is a god or that he had a son or that
there is a spirit in there somewhere. I don't believe in mysteries or
things that go bump in the night. I think there are rational
explanations (of real things in the physical world) for the things
people don't understand.
I believe people invent gods. I believe that one's parents have more
to do with choosing one's religious belief than most individuals do.
It isn't a rational process, and man has a long history of greed and
corruption where ever power over people is involved, so it is suspect.
>
>> As an atheist I require some proof or a preponderance of evidence
>> before I'd believe in god.
>
>So what? I was arguing about a historical Jesus and not about whether he was
>Christ or God.
>Historicity of Jesus and christology are DIFFERENT issues!
>
They may be different issues, but I care more about the gestalt than
the individual questions. The group are atheism and recovery
Catholicism, not history.
History is tangential to the issue. Important to be sure, but not the
paramount concern. The thread starts Mavis Beacon do you believe in
god?
>>I don't deny that god exists - but think
>> that it is far more likely that man invented god than god invented
>> man.
>
>do you deny the Higges bozon exists? Ther is no evidence?
>How about wormholes or parallel univrses?
No. I lack the knowledge to make those statements. We've been
over this time and again yet you ask again?
>
>>Atheist just says "no belief in god," not that it is totally
>> impossible, just that it is totally unlikely.
>
>So what? I was arguing about a historical Jesus and not about whether he was
>Christ or God.
>Historicity of Jesus and christology are DIFFERENT issues!
>
Do you believe in god historical or otherwise?
>[snip]
>>>
>> Agreed. An all knowing omnipotent omniscient god may or may not care.
>> This being could just be treating his creation like some form of
>> entertainment.
>
>Yes. That is true. Or that god could also actually care. But Holman believes
>he logically deduced that God must either not care or be unable to act.
>
Oh, I don't know. Holman can certainly speak for Holman, I can't
If I were to just listen to Catholics and their justifications for how
the lord works in mysterious ways and all the other propaganda I'd
come back with "God must not care" too.
I long since arrived at the conclusion that there's no evidence for
god or his character, so trying to imply divine consternation is moot
at best.
>> Simply saying that god exists does nothing to establish his character
>> or likes and dislikes (although there seem to be enough men around
>> that claim special abilities in those areas).
>>
>> It would take a being with the abilities of a god to discern the
>> character and likes and dislikes . . .
>
>Indeed but Holman claims that because God does not intervene this proves God
>does not care or hasn't the power to intervene.
That is your take on Holman. I was heavily indoctrinated as a child -
I didn't wake up one day and decide there was no god. I went through
stages. Goes something like "this is what they tell me god wants and
is" versus "this is what they do and what happens."
I'd have to ask my wife. She's a few years younger and has some
younger friends who are going through the stages themselves. It is
the deprogramming of cult beliefs - very like the techniques used by
professionals but due to our own awareness of the inconsistencies
between religion and religion and real life.
>
>I pointed out it is bifurcation and affirming a consequent - Logical
>fallacy to propose that or conclude it.
Yeah but that's people for you. Send them to school, force them to
study, tell them what is right, and in spite of it all they learn.
What is a person to do?
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>while keeping your
>>>>>> own secret.
>>>>>
>>>>>If I make a claim about something based onm what I believe than I have
>>>>>to
>>>>>produce evidence for that or admit it is just my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>> Well I dunno. If someone avoids making an absolute statement - you
>>>> imply dishonesty or illogic.
>>>
>>>I didnt NOT imply it! I logically PROVED IT!
>>>Affirming a consequent and bifurcation were involved "excluded middle" "
>>>shifting the burden" "ad hiominem" "proving a negative" look them up!
>>
>> Now just come up with some empirical proof and no one will argue with
>> you.
>
>Empirical proof is not necessary to prove illogical reasoning with respect
>to an example based on an assumed premise.
>if you say "All pink elephants have beards"
>and you then say "mavis has a beard" yu can not logically conclude "Mavis is
>a pink elephant"
You can prove the logic of reason till your blue in the face, but that
doesn't prove that there is a god. And I do understand that is not
what you are writing - but it is what is at issue and important -
logic be damned.
>
>This in NOT because you cant empirically measure pink elephants but necause
>the logic involved is wrong!
Is there a god?
>
>> An exercise in reason is just an exercise in reason - you can't
>> prove god exists with out producing a god or two, or some irrefutable
>> evidence.
>
>so what? I didn't claim anything about god existing!
>
The thread is do you believe in god? Can you prove a god?
That's the thread and it is on topic for the groups you are posting to
- you want to find a group about logic that's fine - maybe they care
more than I do.
>>>
>>>> Now you want a pass on the issue of god
>>>> when posting to religiously oriented newsgroups?
>>>
>>>In another seperate thread i was asked about my presonal belief and I deal
>>>with it there. My belief or lack of it has NOTHING to do with YOUR CLAIMS!
>>>
>
>>
>> I believe that you assume there is a god, from the way you defend your
>> position that we atheists can't disprove a god.
>
>I didnt make any claims about proving or disproving god. THAT was something
>brought up by the other side of the debate.
That is the title of the thread - I know you haven't admitted you
believe in god.
>
>There were two things I argued against.
>
>1. the "no evidence for Jesus" claim
>2. That if God existed he must be uncaring or not omnipotent.
>
Ok if you say so.
I believe there's evidence for philosophy attributed to someone named
Jesus and he likely did exist, but I don't necessarily accept him as
anything more than a person with a philosophy.
If god does exist he may be caring or uncaring or the whole concept
may be irrelevant if god should turn out to be a cloud of electrons in
interstellar space for instance.
Mr. Holman may take exception to my ideas.
>
>> I certainly won't make the statement that god doesn't exist - but I
>> will make the statement that there is no reason to believe in a god,
>> and plenty of reason to believe that man invented god(s) including the
>> God of Abraham.
>
>Fair enough. And I wont argue against that here (although I could) since her
>I am dealing with 1 and 2 above and dont want to get sidetracked .
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Why are you afraid to state your own bias in so many words? Are you
>>>> ashamed of being a theist?
>>>
>>>whay are yo afraid of providing the identity of your children or family or
>>>credit card infromation?
>>>Do you just happen to think they have nothing to do with htis discussion?
>>>Well you would probably be correct in that!
>>>\
>> I wouldn't post my financial info since it could be used to my
>> detriment. Are you saying that your admitting a belief in god could
>> be used to your detriment?
>
>Yes. Or possibly my non belief in God. I dont see what my personal belief
>has to do with the issues.
You fear the believers in god - the merciful compassionate christlike
followers of god. Now that is very interesting.
>
>You see I have a similar problem with funamentalists and creationists and
>neo conservatives and Nazis and astrologers and kooks. I have argued against
>them all and they have this smug belief that those not in their "in group"
>are all idiots. Even in this discussion you have the "atheists are more
>intelligent than other people"
>comments being made!
I see them all as kooks - the only thing at issue is the level of
kookism.
I fear that any of them can take their belief in god, and once they
infer that those things make them superior or special they can be
dangerous. All the wonderful philosophy is less important than the
feeling of righteous power some people get from religion.
>
>But also is the fact that my personal belief or lack of is a red herring.
>it has nothing to do with historicty of Jesus.
>
True.
>
>> I would like to see you admit to having a bias.
>
>since Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" It is braodly accepted
>from a postmodern view that everyone has a bias.
>But while we may all have out preception of something coloured by personal
>experience that is not to say the something isnt really there!
>
Agreed again. I have a lot of biases - but I think most of them are
honestly derived from my experiences.
>>>>
>>>> I can understand that. Defending an indefensible position while
>>>> trying to distance yourself from the stigma that it might involve.
>>>
>>>I also can understand that you might not want to discuss your credit card
>>>number because it has nothing to do with this discussion.
>>>
>> I'm not discussing my taste in beer because it has nothing to do with
>> this discussion - but I'm passionate about beer and could happily
>> discourse for hours on that subject.
>
>Good for you it is off topic though! So we will leave it behind.
>
>
>Now If I was to state " I believe in God" or "I do not believe in God"
>do you really think for one minute it would be left behind?
>I do not believe it would since I believe the people ranged against me in
>this debate have been soundly trounced in their original smug assumptions
>and have noe resorted to "ad oiminem" - personal attack - when they have
>lost the argument they attack the person making the counter argument.
It is you who may be in the wrong group if you expected to be
congratulated for believing in god . . . after all, just look at the
group names. A personal attack? That seems a bit too personal.
There are only two people in the whole world who's opinion of me
matters to me. I'm not running for public office. I went to the
"Attila the Hun School of Charm and Poise." If you hadn't already
guessed it.
>
>>Financial information on the
>> Internet is not in the same league with irrelevant tastes with regards
>> to this discussion, since that financial information could be used to
>> harm me. Your analogy is poor.
>
>Ill tell you one of my personal beliefs.
>If you think they want to know my personal beliefs for anything other then
>to use it in a personal attack on me then you are wrong.
This is Usenet. What do you care what total strangers think of you?
A spouse or parent, a close friend, you should care, but strangers?
Be yourself. You can never please everyone so just try for those whom
you care about.
I don't get that personally involved. I'm doing this because I get
something out of it. I assume you do also.
>
>The only reason I can see is that they want to CHANGE the subject from the
>exposure of theor fallacies and lack of empirical evidence supporting THEIR
>claims to a personal off topic attack on me!
>
Oh come on. You are just a pseudonym to them. Don't take it so
personally. You want personal? There are social sites where you can
put every little detail about your life and secrets and let it all
hang out. Most people are lots less interesting than they think they
are.
>>
>> I fail to see how admitting to a belief in god could harm a person -
>> so perhaps you could enlighten me?
>
>I just have.
So someone you know and who's opinion you do value, knows your
pseudonym or could guess it easily? My wife knows mine.
>
>>>>
>>>>>~Fpr example the creation of microbes - I believe that it is possible
>>>>>for
>>>>>someone to create new forms of life for example to cross strands of DNA
>>>>>form differnet organisms. I think the "flavour saver" tomato did this
>>>>>with
>>>>>genes from fish. But I cant be bothered to go and find the published
>>>>>research on it so I openly admit I don't have support for that claim .
>>>>>It
>>>>>is
>>>>>just my opinion. I accept that I have not shown that humans can create
>>>>>any
>>>>>life.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that it is possible etc. - it's being done today, so you'd
>>>> be foolish to deny it - no faith involved, just fact.
>>>
>>>REally? You have the evidence to support that do you?
>>
>> I have faith I could dig it up easily enough since it has been a topic
>> for discussion for some years.
>
>Off you go then. I cant be bothered.
>
>>Never having sequenced genes I
>> couldn't say from personal experience, but trust the scientists who
>> claim to have done it.
>
>Actually I have studied genetics among other things althought my formal
>study had more to do with evolution of extinct species from pre DNA times.
>Bi as I have already stated I do not argue from authority.
What is pre DNA that left evidence of existence? I wasn't aware of
any such species.
>
>theat "germ" point aroisew out of the spread of AIDS being more to do with
>people than God (which arose from God doiesnt care about disease) and being
>asked "Who created the AIDS virus?"
>
I would assume the virus evolved - but someone who believes god
creates everything would (?) believe god also created pathogens. (and
then they'd tell me that god is doing it to punish the unrighteous,
and I'd tune them out and walk away)
>>
>> We had a TV program some years ago that showed some machines that were
>> supposed to be sequencing the genes - combining chemicals in a
>> specific order to change the traits of an organism. They showed a
>> instance where they took a simple organism and had it glow with blue
>> light simply by re sequencing genes. It COULD be an elaborate hoax I
>> suppose. But since millions of people saw it I would assume that some
>> of them would be technically savvy enough to claim it was a fraud.
>
>I would consider it plausable but ethically questionable.
>
>>
>> But you aren't denying that there are GMA tomatoes that have fish
>> genes in them are you? Your the one who wrote it I am just agreeing
>> with you and saying that it is very old news.
>
>Just to inform you.
>It arose from being asked "what microbes or life did humans create" in
>relation to God causing disease because God doesnt care.
>The disaster of AIDS is man made and not plague sent by God.
>The point being made was people spread AIDS not God.
>
>Now I am told asked " God not stop it theefore god does not care" but as i
>pointed out according tothe story God didnt stop the crusifiction. Based on
>that One can not conclude God did not care. quite the opposite in fact!
>
I think you just admitted you believe in god by that statement " quite
Tomatoes and flounders can't and don't mate so by that definition we
have a new species, unless you mean the GMA tomato can no longer mate
with other tomatoes? I guess the dog/cat analogy answers that
question. Horses and donkeys can mate and produce sterile offspring.
I think a line is drawn there.
>We could however totally change the DNSA of a human dog cat or horse.
>Geneticists draw the line long before that but we still do change DNA.
>
>>
>> Nature might never have gotten around to mating tomatoes with
>> flounders - so it could, by that definition, be a "new" life form.
>
>Ni of it can still be bread with other tomatioes. The catch with most DNA
>expirements like this though is that they remove the ability to breed making
>them sterile. This is usually because the corporate concern can protect
>their patent by preventing others in breeding more crops and looking for
>mutation through traditional methods.
We had an incidence of a company suing a farmer for stealing their
patented strain of corn - it turned out that the patented strain was
dominant and it occurred due to proximity between the lab's fields and
the farmer's fields. Or that may just be an urban legend, I heard it
before there were personal computers (that you didn't buy as a kit).
>
>> One doesn't have to create new instruments to create original music.
>
>You are playing with words here. DNA alays used the same four (well five if
>you inclued Uracil in RNA but thymine will do) notes. The music can be 99.99
>per cent the same but the ability for that music to contain information in
>the song which is capable of adding other music to it or changing the notes
>itself while it combines wth other songs does determine the originality of
>newer creations.
>
reproduction is a messy business
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No wonder so few people bother responding to you....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The people responding to me include you and dougal who both FAILED to
>>>>>support your own claims.
>>>>>
>>>> Ah yes. Failed to conform to your regimented system of "logical"
>>>> (not) proofs perhaps.
>>>
>>>LOGIC is around for millennia! It is not MINE! I didn't invent it!
>>>
>> Didn't imply you did. Just that you do seem to like to make "logical"
>> proofs for intangible things and then imply that such a proof is
>> absolute, exclusive and immutable.
>
>Logic is!
Yeah, but I still need empirical results.
>
>>>>
>>>>>If there were no replies to me at all that STILL would not prove your
>>>>>empty
>>>>>claims about God either not caring or not being ablve to act or about
>>>>>ther
>>>>>being abundant contemporaneous written evidence for alexander or
>>>>>Socrates.
>>>>
>>>> Empty claims seems to be what religion (god) is all about. Prove he
>>>> (she, it) exists and there would be no atheists, now would there?
>>>
>>>Some people apparently see and still don't believe.
>>>
>> Some people look and don't see. . . some people look and see what
>> isn't apparent.
>
>Scientists call those "false negatives" and "false positives" or "type I"
>and "Type II" errors if you happen to live in america.
>
>People here though claim "no evidence for Jesus" and "abundant
>contemporaneous written evidnce " for Alexander or Socrates.
>They fail to produce th latter and then insist the former should be dealt
>with as a special case on its own.
>
Socrates had Plato, Alexander could be more myth than fact though.
>>
>>>The "Christian" academics who were asked to look through Galileos
>>>telescope
>>>didnt bother because they already "knew what they would see"
>>
>> I can believe that. One doesn't want to be too original when it could
>> mean one's own execution as a heretic.
>
>Galileo did not name the philosophers concerned, but Galileo scholars have
>identified two of them as Cesare Cremonini and Giulio Libri (Drake, 1978,
>pp.162, 165; Sharratt, 1994, p.87).Galileo At Work. Chicago: University of
>Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-16226-5 from wikipedia
>
>>>>
>>>> There might be a few - after all look at how many people cling to god
>>>> without evidence, while denying fact when it conflicts with what they
>>>> want to believe.
>>>
>>>Yes and look how many cling to "Dark matter" and "dark energy"?
>>>They ant to believe in Higges Boizons and parallell universes and
>>>wormholes
>>>I guess.
>>>
>> I see those theories as just "place keepers." You can measure what
>> appears to be an anomaly that you can't explain. Until you can
>> explain it you have to call it something, so dark matter it is.
>
>Dark matter isnt the anomaly it is the explaination for it!
>
No. It only "explains" the anomaly and is not really an
"explanation," in any strict sense of the word. It is a convenience,
unless the field has advanced dramatically since I read about it.
>ther should be more matter there based on what we can see so we assume that
>ther is matter ther and we just cant see it!
Exactly.
>
>We assume something we can't measure or see! Not unlike God.
>
>Is God not an ultimate place keeper in your philosophy?
>
There is no anomaly that needs a god to explain it.
Atheist groups?
>>>>
>>>> I tend to think that atheists are more intelligent and able than
>>>> theists, so I like to believe they are more flexible and logical.
>>>
>>>I tend to think the history of the human race would prove that wrong. The
>>>vast majority of great thinkers were Theists or believed in some
>>>supernatural phenomena.
>>
>>>Galileo. Michelangelo, Newton, Einstein, rioght back to ancient Greece and
>>>zoroastrans. Few were atheist.
>>>
>> I think we could say Einstein was an atheist, but you are basically
>> correct. Some, otherwise seemingly normal, people do profess a belief
>> in gods. The delusion of masses is not unknown.
>
>Whether it was a delusion is unknown.
>
Technically it is not a delusion. That's my bias. It doesn't meet
the definition without proof that god doesn't exist. Hallucination
any better?
>>
>> Theists probably outnumber atheists.
>
>almost certainly. atheists are a small miniroty.
Yeah, but that's like calling a person who attends church once a year
on Christmas a Catholic too. There are different degrees. I ask some
of my cousins and they tell me "they do it for the kids, or their
wife, etc.." They personally won't claim or admit to belief (or avoid
getting into religious discussions) but still go through the motions.
A Catholic denying their faith would be a sin if I remember correctly,
but so is a lot of stuff that they do manage to justify.
>
>>
>> Here it is:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)
>
>Yeah thanks I remembered. they exhibited the ability to surmount
>"dissonance" as many cults do.
>
>
--
Mavisbeacon
That is called "shifting the burden"! Look it up! Here let me help you:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#shifting
...the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#bifurcation
...occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives,
where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nonseq
in particular
http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A
If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in
Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in
Edmonton, Alberta.)
If an omnipotent God exists who does not care then God would not prevent
disasters even though God could.
disasters happen and god does not prevent them
Therefore ... If God exists God does not care.
http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument
itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character,
nationality or religion may be attacked.
I didnt assert
1. God is either powerless or does not care.
or
2. there is no evidence for Jesus abiyt lots of evidence including written
conntemporaneous evidence for Alexander the Great and Socrates.
I don't have to provide proof for 1 or 2!
>That is, you know, all you
> have done in this group.
...ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a
person does not practise what he
preaches.
No! That is NOT all I have done. I have posted a number of counter claims
and supported them and pointed out the logical fallacies invovled in 1 and
2.
I hae also posted additionally on the history and philosophy of science and
of religion and the statistics of atheistic regimes and religious ones and
how many people they slaughtered in history and that is still not an
exhaustive list of the other thinkgs i posted.
>
> Generally "debate" means showing your argument is
> more logical and factual than the other side. What is
> your argument? Where are your facts?
My argument is that 1 and 2 above are unsupported by evidence or fallacious.
"a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-python.html
My proposition: 1 and 2 above are unsupported or fallacious.
>
>>> You don't have to say one way of the other - defend theism and you
>>> defend religion and faith and a belief in god.
>>
>> In the arguments in the above groups in the last month or so i believe
>> I have defended REASON and LOGIC . I believe I have shown the position
>> of mainstream christianiity to be grounded in Greek rationality i.e.
>> the very SAME foundation as that of science.
>
>
> Perhaps you could repost for us your defense of
> "mainstream christianity".
Correct.
Perhaps I could. "Mainstream" by the way I defined as Roman Orthodox and you
can probably add in Anglicans too of you want.That makes up about 95 percent
plus of Christians. Maybe 98 or 99 per cent. Anyway My reference to the
Faith and Reason was the doccument of that name delivered by Ratzinger to at
Regensburg University. You know the one people made all the fuss about Islam
and demanded an apology?
>>
>> There may be those who posit an Islamic science or chinese science or
>> African science. I don't.
>>
>>>
>>> How's that for using the black/white rigid reasoning you favor?
>>
>> Not bad but it is also not conclusive!
>>
>>>
>>> You will, no doubt, try to interject some illogical philosophical
>>> reasoning fallacy as a rebuttal.
>>
>> If my reasoning is correct you can not conclude that it is because I
>> am defending theism.
>>
>> Matter of fact The church has had the best of philosophers over the
>> last two millennia and there are few topics religious people hasvent
>> considered in depth (and I m,ean to a level on par with the greatest
>> minds in the world). I mean the Vatican even have their own
>> Observatory and do research in particle physics and cosmology!
>
>
> Really? Post for us some papers the Vatican has
> published on particle physics.
Russell, Robert J., William R. Stoeger, S.J., and George V. Coyne, S.J.,
eds. Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding.
2nd ed. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1995.
The Pope addresses some of the principal concerns which theologians should
explore with respect to recent research in such fields as quantum physics,
cosmology, particle physics, etc., and he asks that theologians,
philosophers, and scientists alike should deepen their awareness of one
another's perspectives on issues of common concern.
http://www.marquette.edu/physics/documents/Coyne_Lecture_2006.pdf
...quarks protons and how they came to be
Prof. Michael Tkacz of Gonzaga University entitled "A Designer Universe:
Chance, Design, and Cosmic Order."
http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/coyne01.php
...our knowledge of elementary particle physics, a totally independent field
of research, supports what we have said about the thermonuclear processes in
stars. So, our models for star formation appear to be consistent with what
we observe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Coyne
Coyne has been a vocal opponent of intelligent design since at least August
2005. Coyne has been forthright in criticizing the Church's lukewarm
admission of responsibility for its persecution of Galileo in the early
seventeenth century
Mitchell Holman
news:c9c16$4b1e1de1$bc8d1d47$20...@news.upc.ie:
Wrong.
Repeatedly shouting "Proooooove it" is not a debate.
Debate is offering up and proving your OWN claims as
well as debunking the other side.
What are your claims?
>
> http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument
> itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character,
> nationality or religion may be attacked.
>
>
>
>
>
> I didnt assert
> 1. God is either powerless or does not care.
> or
> 2. there is no evidence for Jesus abiyt lots of evidence including
> written conntemporaneous evidence for Alexander the Great and
> Socrates.
>
> I don't have to provide proof for 1 or 2!
What do you have to prove?
>
>>That is, you know, all you
>> have done in this group.
> ...ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes
> that a person does not practise what he
> preaches.
>
> No! That is NOT all I have done. I have posted a number of counter
> claims and supported them and pointed out the logical fallacies
> invovled in 1 and 2.
Repost any proof you have posted for anything.
>> Generally "debate" means showing your argument is
>> more logical and factual than the other side. What is
>> your argument? Where are your facts?
>
> My argument is that 1 and 2 above are unsupported by evidence or
> fallacious. "a connected series of statements to establish a definite
> proposition."
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-python.html
Asserting a negative is not proof.
>
> My proposition: 1 and 2 above are unsupported or fallacious.
Just my point.
Attacking propositions is not debate unless you
post contrasting propositions.
>>
>>>> You don't have to say one way of the other - defend theism and you
>>>> defend religion and faith and a belief in god.
>>>
>>> In the arguments in the above groups in the last month or so i
>>> believe I have defended REASON and LOGIC . I believe I have shown
>>> the position of mainstream christianiity to be grounded in Greek
>>> rationality i.e. the very SAME foundation as that of science.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you could repost for us your defense of
>> "mainstream christianity".
>
> Correct.
> Perhaps I could. "Mainstream" by the way I defined as Roman Orthodox
> and you can probably add in Anglicans too of you want.That makes up
> about 95 percent plus of Christians. Maybe 98 or 99 per cent. Anyway
> My reference to the Faith and Reason was the doccument of that name
> delivered by Ratzinger to at Regensburg University. You know the one
> people made all the fuss about Islam and demanded an apology?
OK, now we are getting somewhere. Post for us the
Popes' claim and your defense of it.
That is not research into particle physics.
> Prof. Michael Tkacz of Gonzaga University entitled "A Designer
> Universe: Chance, Design, and Cosmic Order."
>
> http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/coyne01.php
> ...our knowledge of elementary particle physics, a totally independent
> field of research, supports what we have said about the thermonuclear
> processes in stars. So, our models for star formation appear to be
> consistent with what we observe.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Coyne
> Coyne has been a vocal opponent of intelligent design since at least
> August 2005. Coyne has been forthright in criticizing the Church's
> lukewarm admission of responsibility for its persecution of Galileo in
> the early seventeenth century
>
That is commentary, not research.
Mitchell Holman
news:a2e77$4b1dc291$bc8d1d47$22...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> news:qtgqh5tlp9ujbv0u6...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:19:56 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU
>>>>>have to show the evidence or show the logic involved.
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense.
>>>
>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is no god.
>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is a god.
>>>
>>>Lack of evidence means you can NOT claim something to be a fact!
>>>
>> Nor can you claim it is fact - yet that's what religionists do.
>
> I didnt claim it was a fact!
"YEs We all know that. YOUR SIDE claimed it."
MavisBeacon, Dec 7 2009
>
>> An exercise in reason is just an exercise in reason - you can't
>> prove god exists with out producing a god or two, or some irrefutable
>> evidence.
>
> so what? I didn't claim anything about god existing!
"YEs We all know that. YOUR SIDE claimed it."
MavisBeacon, Dec 7 2009
>>
>> But you aren't denying that there are GMA tomatoes that have fish
>> genes in them are you? Your the one who wrote it I am just agreeing
>> with you and saying that it is very old news.
>
> Just to inform you.
> It arose from being asked "what microbes or life did humans create" in
> relation to God causing disease because God doesnt care.
Only because you claimed "people create and
spread diseases" and "scientists created microbes"
Do you need to reposts of those?
> The disaster of AIDS is man made and not plague sent by God.
AIDS is just one of many diseases NOT man made.
> The point being made was people spread AIDS not God.
>
> Now I am told asked " God not stop it theefore god does not care" but
> as i pointed out according tothe story God didnt stop the
> crusifiction. Based on that One can not conclude God did not care.
> quite the opposite in fact!
>
What does the crucifiction say about God?
Mavisbeacon
I think you would find plenty of related journals.
Position Papers
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
Personal religious orientation and prejudice.
By Allport, Gordon W.; Ross, J. Michael
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 5(4), Apr 1967, 432-443.
Scientific views and religious beliefs of college students: The case of
biological evolution
Volume 34 Issue 5, Pages 429 - 445
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/31817/home
>>
>>>
>>> If there was such a thing as a "consensus," among religions there
>>> wouldn't be many religions around.
>>
>>You are mixing up what religious believers believe with academic standards
>>for publication in journals of theology or philosophy for example.
>>
> I'm just trying to see where "peer review" fits into religion is all.
> I understand peer review in science but not religion.
You are limiting all knowledge to scientific knowledge.
Most journals are not science journals.
>I don't buy
> into the idea that theology is a science
I didnt claim it was but it can be scientifically studied and the
historicity of Jesus ios a valid academic persuit.
>so the only peer review might
> be in a study of comparative religious beliefs, and that might fall
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. It might be there are more
things in heaven and earth,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> under the purview of psychology (another non-science in my opinion).
And in the opinion of many but statistical aspects of psychology and brain
chemestry and neuropsychology are scientific none the less.
>
> Likewise you might publish a journal of philosophical ideas but to
> peer review them? Seems to me, philosophy is so much opinion.
That would be your philosophical opinion. Try getting it published.
By the way most cutting edge Physics is philosophy. Physicists are awarded
doctorates in Philosophy.
>
>>>If there was such a thing as
>>> consensus among philosophers, they probably wouldn't be calling it
>>> philosophy.
>>
>>There IS such a thing as academic journals dealing with philosophy.
>>Plenty
>>of them in fact.
>
> Lots of journals for philosophers? Amazing.
Philosophy of education, philosophy of sciuence , philosophy of science
teaching. If you see epistemology or ontology oin the title they really mat
be getting self indulgent Synthese -An International Journal for
Epistemology,
Principia is a philosophical journal that publishes papers on contemporary
epistemology
>>>>
>>>>You know things like Jesus being as reasonable to assume as others in
>>>>history?
>>>
>>> I don't get the sentence. Could you rephrase it?
>>
>>Yes but I won't!
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>> Reasonable? "Miracles" are not reasonable. Can they be historical?
>>
>>They can be explained with reason. History is just that - a story. It is
>>not the past. History is a map.
>
> History, to me, implies a factual account of what happened in the
> past.
No you could have a false history. It isd pnly the map. the past is the
territory. One can posit ther never is a 100 per cent accurate map. Even
then two conflicting hiostories can be describing the same event. FOr
example the American and Japenese histories of Pearl Harbour. but the raid
did happen none the less.
>I've no doubt that in with all the drivel in the bible are a
> few historical facts.
Or in any other books from the time the Bible was written.
>That doesn't make the bible a historical
> account.
Actually it does if the bible is describing what happened. It may however
not be a scientific description just as other writings from that time are
not. It is still remarkably more coherent and well written than other
accounts one might even say "inspired". But like pearl harbour is it
reasonable to assumne a migration of Hebrew people and the Babylonian exile
as events that did happen etc. but Im not arguing about the Bible
Im addressing the Historicity of Jesus anbd The Bible is a source but Ieven
leaving it aside there are other sources.
>Genesis alone should/would put that idea to death.
I really can't see how ANY book written say 3000 years ago shoul begin form
the point of view of present day science. Ironically The bible begins with a
creation event as does modern Physics. But again Im not argung about The
Bible.
>>>
>>> The legend of Jesus might be a more accurate way of stating it, than
>>> historical. The legend of King Arthur might be more truthful and
>>> historically accurate - all the romance tales of glory included.
>>
>>All legends are historical.
>
> Sure. I don't think I'd ever say ALL legends are historical, I'm
> sure there are some entirely fictional legends, like "The Legend of
> Sleepy Hollow"
But all history is myth. the US version of Pearl Harbour is a myth but that
does not mean the raid did not happen.
>
> Some parts of legends might be historical,
Let us be clear by "historical" you probably mean "factual"
All legends are historical.
History is just a story about an interpretation of the past. It is not the
past itself.
>but to state that all or
> any legend is historical is wrong. Legends are usually a mixture of
> fact and fiction.
History is not the FACT of the past it is not the territory it is a map. the
PAST is the territory.
It may be a very accurate map but it is still NOT the territory.
History also may contain fact and fiction. Just because you have a
historical picture does not mean this is a factual picture.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Or the pausity of extant sources for socrates or alexander compared to
>>>>the
>>>>claim of "abundant written contemporaneous sources".
>>>
>>> Not sure what point you are going for. Abundant sources wouldn't mean
>>> accuracy or truth - ESPECIALLY when dealing with religion. Quantity
>>> versus quality.
>>
>>Where did I claim "history" was truth? If you look I referred to a
>>"historical Jesus" or "Jesus in history" and said it was about as
>>plausable
>>as anyone else from that historical period. At no time did I say alexander
>>Socrates Jesus etc. certainly existed in the past although we have as much
>>evidence for Jesus as for anyone else.
>
> I would claim that if it isn't true it isn't history.
But you can have CONFLICTING histories. Neither or just one may be true.
Like the US and Japanese version of Pearl harbour.
[something I wrote last year]
Yes. Artefacts from the past. But the history is the INTERPRETATION of this.
Take some recent examples
For example let us say you learn WWII history in the USA
The history might be that the evil Japs sneakily attacked Pearl Harbour
BEFORE the agreed time for a ceasefire of any histolities had elapsed and
the brave US troops caught unawares by a sneak attack, and low on supplies
equipment and planes and with many personell on leave, managed to defend
Hawaii, shoot down Japanese planes and, save their Air craft Carriers. You
can still see the remains of Japenese planes on view today.
Now if you went school in Japan you might learn that:
The US had problems with going to War against Germany since Hitler was
admired by Americans and most didn't want a war against him. But Japan also
admired Germany and was in a defensive Pact with Germany. The US government
who had designs on Asia and wanted to colonise the Pacific, then in 1940
sneakily embargoed Steel and other trade items from Japan
hopeing to goad them into war and pull in Germany by default. So while the
US
was crippling Japan economically Japan decided to teach them a lesson! The
were given an ultamutum from the US which expired at 8 AM on a particular
day. Japan moved its entire main fleet across several thousand miles
of water EITIRELY UNDECTED by the US arriving in time to strike just as the
deadline expired. In fact they even told the Americans hours in advance.
They then staged an attack against an Island, Hawaii which
was colonially occupied by the US and was not a US State. It was thousands
of miles from the US but part of the US colonial plan. The US knew of a
pending attack in a message delivered to the Washington high command before
9 a.m. Washington time, more than 4 hours before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The brave Japanese pilots came into view on the hoirizon maybe ten minutes
before the deadline expired and the Americans could not even conceive that
these might be Japanese planes. They arrived over the US naval base just as
the deadline was expiring. They managed to cripple the entire US fleet and
sank several capital ships and block the harbour with and sunken crippled
shipwrecks . Only by pure chance the Americans had their Aircraft carriers
at sea so the Japanese didnt have a chance to sink them as well. The attack
which started on the deadline lasted for two hours and 20 minutes. More
than 2,400 Americans lay dead and nearly 1,200 wounded. Eighteen ships were
sunk or damaged. More than 300 aircraft were damaged or destroyed. The
losses to Japan - 29 aircraft and five midget submarines, with 65 servicemen
killed or wounded. If you go there today there is no evidence of any
shipwrecks in the harbour.
WE can argree that a single event happened in the past but clearly these are
two DIFFERENT histories. History is only the map we draw and usually the
winner in a war gets to make the maps.
[end quote]
> You apparently
> don't regard history as true, or it doesn't need to be true to satisfy
> your definition of history.
See above.
>
> No, I suspect Socrates is in better standing than Jesus for historical
> accuracy but neither is a paragon of historical veracity.
And your evidence for Alexander the Great or Socrates is?
>
> Historical records of Jesus don't seem to exist outside of religious
> legend.
Well you would be wrong there. I posted a number of pagan and Jewish sources
who would be oppsed to Christianity.
And I posted graffitti. And i posted heretical Christian writings not
accepted by the Church are true.
> Which doesn't mean he didn't exist, but that isn't a
> historical proof either.
History is only an interpretation. all I am saying is he is a likely as
others in ancient history.
>>>
>>> The retelling of any folklore or legend tends to augment the great
>>> qualities and derring-do of the champion in question. The number of
>>> sources doesn't imply veracity of the sources.
>>
>>Twas no I who suggested that "abundant contemporaneous written sources "
>>exist! It was my intorlocutor.
>>But now you are arguing about the relative quality of the evidence which
>>is
>>different to "abundant contemporaneous written sources ".
>
> Well yes I am.
So then let us compare the evidence for Socrates and Alexander ( Hannibal
Cato Hammumburi Scipio Cato Brutus Marc Antony) with that for Jesus.
If you go back over what I posted I think ther is a reasonable maount of
historical sources.
>Just because a billion people believe something
> doesn't make it true.
Yes Im sure very much less than a billion have heard of socrates or
alexander the Great
What convinces you that they existed?
why is everyine out to disprove only Jesus?
As I have already posted it is akin to the holocaust deniers who claim the
Holocaust didn't happen but cant apply the same standards to anything else
in hiostory.
> If it isn't true it isn't worth spit in my
> opinion. So quality is the only thing that counts to me personally.
Diogenes now is it?
>
> I care about substance over style, function over appearance, etc..
Poetry and art and sport are fairly much pointless to you then?
>
> If a zillion people like a legend, so what? Numbers mean very little.
I agree. wher is the evidecne for alexcander or socrates?
>
> Is the implication you are going for "where there's smoke there is
> fire?"
>>
>>I am quite happy to argue about the evidence for Jesus and compare it with
>>that for Alexander or Socrates or others in history.
>>
> I still consider the source - people in the grip of religious delusion
> are already delusional, they don't want facts that may confuse or
> contradict their pet beliefs. They want faith - they want the
> security it provides.
Whatever bias you approach the subject with
I am quite happy to discuss evidence for Jesus and compare it with
that for Alexander or Socrates or others in history.
where is your evidence for alexander or socrates?
>>>
>>> We see that a lot in the Internet - some plausible claim will appear
>>> and garner millions of hits on search engines, but when you try to pin
>>> it to a single source you often find that the source has little or no
>>> veracity or a monumental agenda that makes anything they allege
>>> suspect.
>>
>>So what? I am quite happy to argue about the evidence for Jesus and
>>compare
>>it with that for Alexander or Socrates or others in history.
>>You produce the " abundant contemporaneous written sources " or whatever
>>else you have for Socrates and Alexander and we can compare them.
>>
> Why. I don't find either Socrates or Alexander all that interesting.
We are not arguing about whether you find it interesting or not!
We are about YOUR contention of not accepting things without evidence and
objective standards.
If the point I made is that Jesus is AS LIKELY AS others and I produce my
evidence then you produce the evidence for Socrates or Alexander
and we can compare them. if you think that Jesus is a s likely as alexander
ot Socrates already then we dont have any argument do we?
>>>
>>> The history was written long after Jesus was dead, by people who heard
>>> it second or third hand from others who had their own agendas.
>>
>>WRONG! WE have been over this before in this thread.
>
> The council of Nicea ring a bell?
Indeed it does! As I stated we have been over all this in the thread!
Polycarp ring a bell. Josephus? Pliny? Ignatius?
> Constantine's idea to bring
> together some hundreds of believers and hammer out a "consensus."
Not about the gospel that was a LATER meeting.
So what? the actual history was already written by then.
Im not arguing about the Nicean Creed or that Jesus was Christ or the
Tirnity or the holy ghost or whatever.
We are arguing about the historicity of Jesus . And the sources preceed
Nicea by centuries!
>He
> didn't please everyone and not everyone agreed with him but he was an
> emperor and a politician and forced what he presented to his empire as
> a consensus. He officially made Christ the "Son of God."
so what? We are not arguing about what Nicea ratefied hundreds of years
later but whether a history for Man Jesus existed in the first century.
>>
>>Before I go any further, them main evidence for Alexander Socrates etc.
>>comes from writings made at the very oldest over three hundred years
>>later.
>
> I was under the impression that it was Plato, Socrates student and
> contemporary that wrote about Socrates. Is this wrong?
Nope. But Im just insistinf you apply the same standards
1. We dont have any writings from Plato which come from that time and are
still in existance
We accept later copies just as we accept later copies of New Testament
writings and believe the original was probably written in 40-70 AD.
We do have copies of parts of the New Testament written by others like
Ignatious or Polycarp from times which were withing 50-60 Years of Jesus
death. In other words we have writings from 100 AD which refer to Jesus and
Christians and which were written in a time that the people writing them had
actually spoken to people who personally knew Jesus Paul or the original
apostles.
We have NOTHING of that kind for Socrates Plato Aristotle or Alexander
AFAIK.
2. Plato apparently did live and spoke to Socrates but published nothing
about Socrates when socrates was alive.
This is similar to the issue of people not writing about Jesus when Jesus
was alive.
Aristotle also wrote about socrates (and incidentally apparently taught
alexander) but Socrates was dead before Aristotle was born.
3. Socrates himself apparently wrote nothing down. Maybe he was illiterate.
:)
>>
>>Even outside the New Testament The writings of the New testament can be
>>recovered almost in entirety from Early church fathers.
>>Those people lived and wrote for example in 90 AD (Clement of rome) or 110
>>AD (polycarp of Smyrna (c 69- ca. 155))
>>Ignatius of Antioch ( 35- 110 AD) ,
>>Someone who was alive in the time of Jesus could dictate or tell the
>>story
>>to these people. And the originals of the Gospels and Pauls writings date
>>from about this time - late first century.
>>I have also supplied the references to other non christian sources (such
>>as
>>official historians and Roman graffitti) and heretical sources.
>>
> Anything "historical" to do with religious legend is suspect.
anything historical is suspect.
> Just
> point me to the post and let me see what you are referring to.
Fair enough Just point me to the evidence on alexander and Socrates:
her is some of the stuff i posted
:
Johephus the ROMAN HISTORIAN does record that census.
If you read the references I gave you might note that Dominic Crossan has a
stated positionon this.
Some scholars believe the Gospel writers may have based their accounts on an
earlier Christian tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
Message-ID: <45132$4afd3b79$bc8d1d47$19...@news.upc.ie>
no movement in history claimed Homes is a historic real world figure! But I
didnt claim the Bible or only the bible naywhy did I? In fact if you read
some of the above you might note COHEN is not Christian and refers to Jewish
tradition and Interprets Jesus in that environment on page 78 of the book
above. As I pointed out elsewhere :
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae... 10
By decree of the senate my name was included in the Salian hymn,42 and it
was enacted by law that my person should be sacred in perpetuity So because
Augustus was decreed a god in res Gestae you claim that Res Gestae can not
be used as a historical source?
http://www.livius.org/caa-can/callisthenes/callisthenes.html Callisthenes'
book on the Deeds of Alexander is now lost, but it was used by secondary
authors like Cleitarchus and Ptolemy, who are at the beginning of the
'vulgate' and the 'good' tradition. Therefore, they share the same
chronology and mention the same officials. Their works are now lost too, but
can be reconstructed from tertiary sources: Diodorus of Sicily, World
History, book 17) and Curtius Rufus, Arrian of Nicomedia and Plutarch of
Chaeronea. Where is your contemporary written evidence of Alexander? >
However, if it came to a push, the Sherlock Holmes novels, are far more >
consistent and > convincing than anything in the bible, OT, or NT. But we
are discussing ANCIENT history. Im not comparing Jesus to holmes but to for
example Alexander the Great or Socrates. wher is your consistent convince
evidence for them? wher are the writings about them from their time? ...>
There is an abundance of contemporaneous third party writings, about both >
characters, to > be convincing. REally? A ABUNDANCE? CONTEMPORANEOUS?
Abundance - an extremely plentiful or oversufficient quantity or supply Now
there are then of thousands of New testament fragments and ther are a host
of non Biblical writings form the first to third century including jewish
roman and other historians relating to Jesus but let us see what you have to
back up you abundance shall we? Could you perhaps list TEN sources. Oh and
do the same for socrates will you? - contemporaneous - living or occurring
during the same period of time; contemporary Ill bet you cant find ONE
contemporaneous source for Alexander! I am not aware of any comtemporanous
written sourceS for Alexander and believe me I have looked into it. > There
is none, about your Jesus. Just because you say they doesnt make it true!
There are no sources about your Alexander! Here are the ones for Jesus: The
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the
first century CE: Book 18 of Antiquities About this time there lived Jesus,
a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who
wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth
gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah.
When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst
us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come
to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he
appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied
these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the
Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. In
his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians "derived
their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had
suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals
15.44) In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE,
states: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of
Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius
5.25.4) In a lost work referred to by Julius Africanus in the third century,
the pagan writer Thallus reportedly claimed that Jesus's death was
accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. Pliny the Younger, writing near
100 CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings,
Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of
Christians in Asia Minor a.. 2 Earliest known sources a.. 2.1 Christian
writings a.. 2.1.1 Gospels b.. 2.1.2 Pauline Epistles c.. 2.1.3
The Acts of the Apostles d.. 2.1.4 Ancient Creeds e.. 2.1.5 New
Testament apocrypha a.. 2.1.5.1 Gnostic texts b.. 2.2 Early Church
fathers c.. 2.3 Greco-Roman sources a.. 2.3.1 Josephus b.. 2.3.2
Pliny the Younger c.. 2.3.3 Tacitus d.. 2.3.4 Suetonius e..
2.3.5 Mara bar Sarapion f.. 2.3.6 Others d.. 2.4 Jewish records
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Message-ID: <41c19$4afe4284$bc8d1d47$27...@news.upc.ie>
And none of the wrioters about alexander are contemporaries of alexander the
Great either! so what?
there is evidence for the Q doccument which is older then the Gospels.
Why do you apply different stabndards to Jesus and not apply them to
alexander or socrates?
http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/the-historicity-of-the-new-test...
See table 1
Approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts, containing all or part of the New
Testament, exist. There are 8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin
translation of the Bible done by Jerome from 382-405) and more than 350
copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic) versions of the New Testament (these
originated from 150-250; most of the copies are from the 400x). Besides
this, virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations
contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some
thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the
Council of Nicea
...
Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far
less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.
There are no wriotings by Socrates at all! is what I stated.
Plato claims to have written about Socrates but you would have to take
Platos word for that. given he was pals with a satarical writer they could
have invented Socrates for fun.
Aristophanes' work is clearly satirical, not biographical. From the play
itself, we cannot know whether he was making fun of a real philosopher known
to his audience or ridiculing certain ideas that were much discussed at the
time and using a fictional character to embody them.
Plato and Xenophon did their work after Socrates purported death and
therefore are nto contemporary in the sences they you attribute to writers
about Jesus.
Socrates himself apparent never wrote anything! Would you not considet that
odd? Hre never is recorded as having writen anything? You are talking about
a guy who was Plato's master and he apparently never wrote any of it down!
There are certainly No contemporary writings about alexander in existance to
my knowlegde.
...
"The Palestinian census was undertaken by the Syrian legate, P. Sulpicius
Quirinius, in 6 to 7 CE, about a decade after the birth of Jesus." Meier
comments (page 212),
Rev. John P. Meier in volume one of his book A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the
Historical Jesus, which has the imprimatur seal of approval of the Roman
Catholic Church.
According to ancient records, Quirinius, who became governor of Syria in AD
6, conducted a census of Judea, but not of Galilee, in AD 6-7. Attempts to
reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history are hopelessly
contrived." Census counted people in place of domicile or work, not ancestry
Prof. Crossan disputes the description of the Roman census given in Luke
2:1-7. He writes (page 372), "First there never was a worldwide census under
Augustus." Crossan observes that, "above all... the Roman custom was to
count you in the place of your domicile or work and not in that of your
ancestry or birth. That is little more than common sense. Census was for
taxation; to record people in their ancestral rather than their occupational
locations would have constituted a bureaucratic nightmare."
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00AIen are not
necessarily all mainstream Christians bt they are scholors and have valid
views.
Message-ID: <e9460$4aff3753$bc8d1d47$14...@news.upc.ie>
...
> Most historians do NOT accept the "accuracy"
> of conversations in first written down decades and
> even centuries after they happend
Oh but they do!
Just as they accept similar accounts about alexander written maybe four
centures later at best!
AuthorWhen WrittenEarliest CopyTime SpanNo. of Copies
Caesar100-44 900 A.D.1,000 yrs.10Livy59 B.C.-A.D. 20
Plato (Tetralogies)427-347 B.C.900 A.D.1,200 yrs.7
Tacitus (Annals)100 A.D.1,100 A.D.1,000 yrs.20 also minor works100 A.D.1,000
A.D.900 yrs.1
Pliny the Younger (History) 61-113 A.D.850 A.D..750 yrs.7
Thucydides(History) 460-400 B.C.900 A.D.1,300 yrs.8
Suetonius(De Vita Caesarum) 75-160 A.D.950 A.D.800 yrs.8
Herodotus(History) 480-425 B.C.900 A.D.1,300 yrs.8
Horace900 yrs.
Sophocles430-406 B.C.1,000 A.D.1,400 yrs.100
LucretiusDied 55 or 53 B.C 1,100 yrs.2
Catullus54 B.C.1,550 A.D.1,600 yrs.3
Euripedes480-406 B.C.1,100 A.D.1,500 yrs.9
Demosthenes383-322 B.C.1,100 A.D.1,300 yrs.200*
Aristotle384-322 B.C.1,100 A.D.1,400 yrs.5**
Aristophanes450-385 B .C.900 A. D.1,200 yrs.10
*All from one copy. **Of any one work.From Josh McDowell, Evidence That
Demands a Verdict, rev ed. (San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life,1979), p.
42.
So for your LOADS of contemporaneous evidence for Alexander there is NONE.
And for the First century Romans you have Tacitus ONE copy of a minor work
and twenty copies of Annals the earlies tof which is 1100AD!
Pilny - earliest 850 AD
Suetonius - Earliest copy 950 AD
So where is your copy written down about Alexander or Socrates?
[*************end excerpts of SOME of the evidence I posted************]
>
>>> Enter
>>> Constantine who was going to repackage the history of Jesus into some
>>> politically useful contiguous doctrine or religion. And it has been
>>> refined and reworked for centuries to support the RCC.
>>
>>No. in fact this "conspiracy theory" does not fit with the widespread
>>independent sources on Jesus from that time.
>>Constantine is FOURTH century! Abut the same gao between him and Jesus as
>>ther is between Socrates and Alexander and the earliest surviving writings
>>about them.
>>Not alone that but pagan anti Christian Roman, Jewish and heretical works
>>rejected by the RCC ALSO mention Jesus and Christianity!
>
> Cite something already!
Above already!
>
>>
>>>
>>> I wouldn't trust any statement with a pedigree like that.
>>
>>As opposed to WHAT about Socrates and Alexander?
>
> I don't care to think about Socrates or Alexander - that's your baby.
> My concern is with religious delusion and how that affects the
> behavior of large numbers of otherwise seemingly sane people.
Oh so you are onto another subject altogether and not the historicity of
Jesus.
You do realise people also regarded alexander as a God? but he existed none
the less did he?
>>
>>Doccuments from 350 years later? Images of Zeus Athena or Heracles?
>>No actual writings by Socrates - ever!
>
> True.
Which makes then as believable as Jesus? Less even based on yout criteria
for "truth"?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My personal standards do not come into the issue!
>>>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>>If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU have
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>show the evidence or show the logic involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes sense.
>>>>
>>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is no god.
>>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is a god.
>>>>
>>>>Lack of evidence means you can NOT claim something to be a fact!
>>>>
>>> Nor can you claim it is fact - yet that's what religionists do.
>>
>>I didnt claim it was a fact! I claimed it was as likely as others in
>>history
>>and as such not an extraordinary claim.
>>Simple really you could say all the others from ancient times have little,
>>weak or no evidence in comparison to Jesus or you could say Jesus is as
>>reasonable to assume as they are.
>>
> No. I come from the position that any religious believer is more than
> a little irrational.
I dont really care what biased position you come from. I only expect you to
adhere to logic and reason. you can believe the Moon is made of cheese if
you wish. Just dont come her claiming it is unless you can provide evidence.
>I believe that belief without proof is
> irrational.
Do you believe mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete? No formal
system like logic can ever be complete or if it is it must contain
inconsistancies.
do you believe in parallel universes or wormholes or Dark energy? Areyou a
total cynic that you dont acept what scientists say until you see the proof?
When you go to a public theatre do yo bring micrometer screws and calipers
and measure the tubing in the seat you are about to sit on and derive all
the equations necessary to satisfy you that the seat weill not collapse? Or
do you just trust engineers and believe that they in turn made a design
dependent on physics?
>I believe that Jesus was just as delusional as his
> followers.
So you believe Jesus existed? No argument about that then.
>
> I do not believe that there is a god or that he had a son or that
> there is a spirit in there somewhere.
that is fine and as expected . You are an atheist. But you dont seem smug in
that regard and proclaim all religious nelievers as inferiour or stupid or
something like that.
> I don't believe in mysteries or
> things that go bump in the night. I think there are rational
> explanations (of real things in the physical world) for the things
> people don't understand.
and ther are atheists who do believe in the supernatural. Bhudddists for
example.
> I believe people invent gods. I believe that one's parents have more
> to do with choosing one's religious belief than most individuals do.
> It isn't a rational process, and man has a long history of greed and
> corruption where ever power over people is involved, so it is suspect.
FINE!
What you believe or dont believe does not scome into the issue of a
historical Jesus.
>>
>>> As an atheist I require some proof or a preponderance of evidence
>>> before I'd believe in god.
>>
>>So what? I was arguing about a historical Jesus and not about whether he
>>was
>>Christ or God.
>>Historicity of Jesus and christology are DIFFERENT issues!
>>
> They may be different issues, but I care more about the gestalt than
> the individual questions. The group are atheism and recovery
> Catholicism, not history.
I didnt post "no evidence for Jesus" or "God must be uncaring"
If you want to be a net cop then that is your business.
If somebody posts something and I ask for "proof or a preponderance of
evidence" dont blame me!
>
> History is tangential to the issue. Important to be sure, but not the
> paramount concern. The thread starts Mavis Beacon do you believe in
> god?
Oh Im sorry I am just replying tothe QUESTION YOU ASKED about the evidence I
posted in the other thread!
I have already replied to the thread topic elsewhere . I have changed the
topic now so you dont get confused.
>
>>>I don't deny that god exists - but think
>>> that it is far more likely that man invented god than god invented
>>> man.
>>
>>do you deny the Higges bozon exists? Ther is no evidence?
>>How about wormholes or parallel univrses?
>
> No. I lack the knowledge to make those statements. We've been
> over this time and again yet you ask again?
And you can't lack knowledge about God as well?
>>
>>>Atheist just says "no belief in god," not that it is totally
>>> impossible, just that it is totally unlikely.
>>
>>So what? I was arguing about a historical Jesus and not about whether he
>>was
>>Christ or God.
>>Historicity of Jesus and christology are DIFFERENT issues!
>>
> Do you believe in god historical or otherwise?
ASked and answered.
You seem reasonable. Had you just arrived and asked I would probably have
replied but I think i have already demonstrated how ANY reply to that
question will result in off topic personal attacks in the other thread.
>>[snip]
>>>>
>>> Agreed. An all knowing omnipotent omniscient god may or may not care.
>>> This being could just be treating his creation like some form of
>>> entertainment.
>>
>>Yes. That is true. Or that god could also actually care. But Holman
>>believes
>>he logically deduced that God must either not care or be unable to act.
>>
> Oh, I don't know. Holman can certainly speak for Holman, I can't
I can! That is what he stated.
Message-ID: <Xns9CC04448044F9...@216.196.97.130>
Either he wants disasters to happen or
he is powerless to stop them. [end quote] > If I were to just listen to
Catholics and their justifications for how> the lord works in mysterious
ways and all the other propaganda I'd> come back with "God must not care"
too.And if you aunt had balls she would be your uncle.We are not discussing
Holman's motive but rather his reasoning. It is specious.> > I long since
arrived at the conclusion that there's no evidence for> god or his
character, so trying to imply divine consternation is moot> at best.Trying
to introduce it into an entirely different subject of Holman's claim is
pointless and off topic.> >>> Simply saying that god exists does nothing to
establish his character>>> or likes and dislikes (although there seem to be
enough men around>>> that claim special abilities in those areas).>>>>>> It
would take a being with the abilities of a god to discern the>>> character
and likes and dislikes . . .>>>>Indeed but Holman claims that because God
does not intervene this proves God >>does not care or hasn't the power to
intervene.> > That is your take on Holman. that is HOLMANS take [his words}
Either he wants disasters to happen or
he is powerless to stop them. Which is it?
[end quote]>I was heavily indoctrinated as a child -> I didn't wake up one
day and decide there was no god. I went through> stages. Goes something
like "this is what they tell me god wants and> is" versus "this is what
they do and what happens."So what? WE arent discussong YOU we are discussing
LOGIC! Because disasters happen it does not logically follow that Either God
wants disasters to happen or
God is powerless to stop them as Holman claims. > I'd have to ask my wife.
She's a few years younger and has some> younger friends who are going
through the stages themselves. It is> the deprogramming of cult beliefs -
very like the techniques used by> professionals but due to our own awareness
of the inconsistencies> between religion and religion and real
life.Mainstrean Christianity is not a cult but again such a discussion is
off topic. >>>>I pointed out it is bifurcation and affirming a consequent -
Logical >>fallacy to propose that or conclude it.> > Yeah but that's people
for you. Send them to school, force them to> study, tell them what is
right, and in spite of it all they learn.> What is a person to do?Well
apparently he has not learned logical argument and neither have
you.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>while keeping your>>>>>>> own secret.>>>>>>>>>>>>If I
make a claim about something based onm what I believe than I have
>>>>>>to>>>>>>produce evidence for that or admit it is just my
opinion.>>>>>>>>>>> Well I dunno. If someone avoids making an absolute
statement - you>>>>> imply dishonesty or illogic.>>>>>>>>I didnt NOT imply
it! I logically PROVED IT!>>>>Affirming a consequent and bifurcation were
involved "excluded middle" ">>>>shifting the burden" "ad hiominem" "proving
a negative" look them up!>>>>>> Now just come up with some empirical proof
and no one will argue with>>> you.>>>>Empirical proof is not necessary to
prove illogical reasoning with respect >>to an example based on an assumed
premise.>>if you say "All pink elephants have beards">>and you then say
"mavis has a beard" yu can not logically conclude "Mavis is >>a pink
elephant"> > You can prove the logic of reason till your blue in the face,
but that> doesn't prove that there is a god. No it doesnt. which is the
reason why I am jnot arguing about there being a God or there being no God
until everyine is blue in the face.What I am addressing hih Dougal and
holmans unsupported and specious claims which CAN be shown!>And I do
understand that is not> what you are writing - but it is what is at issue
and important -> logic be damned.It isnt an issue for me and as far as I am
concerned is unprovable so it isn't worth the bother.You are entitled to
your beliefs. Jhust be aware than whn you make claims based on them this
requires support.> >>>>This in NOT because you cant empirically measure pink
elephants but because >>the logic involved is wrong!> > Is there a god?I
just told you such a questiopn is my personal opinion and unprovable
anyway.>>>>> An exercise in reason is just an exercise in reason - you
can't>>> prove god exists with out producing a god or two, or some
irrefutable>>> evidence.>>>>so what? I didn't claim anything about god
existing!>>> The thread is do you believe in god? Can you prove a god?No
the thread i am posting in is not about whether I believe in God or
disbelieve in God.>[snip]>>You see I have a similar problem with
funamentalists and creationists and >>neo conservatives and Nazis and
astrologers and kooks. I have argued against >>them all and they have this
smug belief that those not in their "in group" >>are all idiots. Even in
this discussion you have the "atheists are more >>intelligent than other
people">>comments being made!> > I see them all as kooks - the only thing at
issue is the level of> kookism. > > I fear that any of them can take their
belief in god, and once they> infer that those things make them superior or
special they can be> dangerous. All the wonderful philosophy is less
important than the> feeling of righteous power some people get from
religion.Yes and indeed the atheistic regimes in particular who killed more
than any others in history and enforced state atheism as part of their
philosophy.And the mindset which despises and attacks those who have
personal beliefs in god as if atheism is a superior form of
human.[snip]>>>>>>Now If I was to state " I believe in God" or "I do not
believe in God">>do you really think for one minute it would be left
behind?>>I do not believe it would since I believe the people ranged against
me in >>this debate have been soundly trounced in their original smug
assumptions >>and have noe resorted to "ad oiminem" - personal attack - when
they have >>lost the argument they attack the person making the counter
argument.> > It is you who may be in the wrong groupI post where I feel like
posting and no net cop naziboi is going to prevent me! > if you expected to
be> congratulated for believing in god . . . I didn't bring up anything
about believing or not believing in God!I didn't expect my personal beliefs
or lack of them had anything to do with the discussion of the historicity of
Jesus or evidecen for Alexander the great.>after all, just look at the>
group names. A personal attack? That seems a bit too personal. Yet it is
exactly what is happening here. I didn't make any claims about my personal
beliefs and someone whose position I hammered in a separate thread > > There
are only two people in the whole world who's opinion of me> matters to me.
so what? Just because you care or dont care or are interested or are not
interested won't make something which is false into something that is true.>
I'm not running for public office. I went to the> "Attila the Hun School of
Charm and Poise." If you hadn't already> guessed it.so what? I can accept
your lack of manners as long as you deal with things in a reasonable way and
do not resort to ad hominem.>>>Financial information on the>>> Internet is
not in the same league with irrelevant tastes with regards>>> to this
discussion, since that financial information could be used to>>> harm me.
Your analogy is poor.>>>>Ill tell you one of my personal beliefs.>>If you
think they want to know my personal beliefs for anything other then >>to use
it in a personal attack on me then you are wrong.> > This is Usenet. What
do you care what total strangers think of you?The answer to that is another
thing which is unnecessary to go into.> A spouse or parent, a close friend,
you should care, but strangers?Well some people believe in altruism. But
whether some do or not and what the motivation is for why they do is a
different matter as to whether that happen to be logially or factually
correct.Please don't mix up the reasons why people post with the reasoning
Of their post.> Be yourself. You can never please everyone so just try for
those whom> you care about.Tell you what. I won't post why I believe in or
personally insist you must believe in my beliefs unless i provide supporting
evidence and you can refrain form telling me how to life my life by your
moral code. Ok? > > I don't get that personally involved. I'm doing this
because I get> something out of it. I assume you do also.Well you may
assume to much then. i could for excample be doing it as a punishment
:)>>>>The only reason I can see is that they want to CHANGE the subject from
the >>exposure of theor fallacies and lack of empirical evidence supporting
THEIR >>claims to a personal off topic attack on me!>>> Oh come on. You are
just a pseudonym to them. So what? wither what the CLAIM is supported by
evidence and logical and reasonable or it isnt!Makes no difference who
points out the speciousness reasoning or calls them to account.If they cant
support their side it is a pathetic argument to claim in defence of their
being wrong that they just didnt care about me or about the subject on which
they were wrong!>Don't take it so> personally. When someone personally
attacks with ad hominem ( a FALLACY) that is the only way one can take
it!>You want personal? There are social sites where you can> put every
little detail about your life and secrets and let it all> hang out. Most
people are lots less interesting than they think they> are.So what. Off
topic red herrring.>>>>>> I fail to see how admitting to a belief in god
could harm a person ->>> so perhaps you could enlighten me?>>>>I just have.>
> So someone you know and who's opinion you do value, knows your> pseudonym
or could guess it easily? My wife knows mine.Asked and answered. Move
on.[snip]>>>>Actually I have studied genetics among other things althought
my formal >>study had more to do with evolution of extinct species from pre
DNA times. >>Bi as I have already stated I do not argue from authority.> >
What is pre DNA that left evidence of existence? I wasn't aware of> any
such species.Forminifera for example particularly around the KT boundary.
Genetics existed before DNA was discovered as did the study of
evolution.>>>>theat "germ" point aroisew out of the spread of AIDS being
more to do with >>people than God (which arose from God doiesnt care about
disease) and being >>asked "Who created the AIDS virus?">>> I would assume
the virus evolved Let me bne clear that is what they asked but I pointed out
there is no virus the Virus concerned is a form of HIV.>- but someone who
believes god> creates everything would (?) believe god also created
pathogens. (and> then they'd tell me that god is doing it to punish the
unrighteous,> and I'd tune them out and walk away)It depends ther are
various philosophical and theological views.One is as pointed out that God
doesn't care. Another is that death and all harmfull things are as result of
sin.I suppose it is possible to arrest apoptosis and people might not age
and even to have cures for all diseases. >>>>>> We had a TV program some
years ago that showed some machines that were>>> supposed to be sequencing
the genes - combining chemicals in a>>> specific order to change the traits
of an organism. They showed a>>> instance where they took a simple organism
and had it glow with blue>>> light simply by re sequencing genes. It COULD
be an elaborate hoax I>>> suppose. But since millions of people saw it I
would assume that some>>> of them would be technically savvy enough to claim
it was a fraud.>>>>I would consider it plausable but ethically
questionable.>>>>>>>> But you aren't denying that there are GMA tomatoes
that have fish>>> genes in them are you? Your the one who wrote it I am
just agreeing>>> with you and saying that it is very old news.>>>>Just to
inform you.>>It arose from being asked "what microbes or life did humans
create" in >>relation to God causing disease because God doesnt care.>>The
disaster of AIDS is man made and not plague sent by God.>>The point being
made was people spread AIDS not God.>>>>Now I am told asked " God not stop
it theefore god does not care" but as i >>pointed out according tothe story
God didnt stop the crusifiction. Based on >>that One can not conclude God
did not care. quite the opposite in fact!>>> I think you just admitted you
believe in god by that statement " quite> the opposite in fact!"Let me
clarify. Based on the Christian argument ( one way of viewing God - a
position I believe I was outlining and which any person who knows about
Christian teaching and dogme is welcoe to contradict)God didnt intervene to
stop the crusifiction. According to Christian tradition the crusifiction
happened because "God so loved humanity that he was prepared to sacrifice
his only son so that ...etc." So one could conclude based on that that God
cares which is the opposite of God does not care.[snip]>>>>Normally one
draws the "species" line when it cant mate/ fertilise. some >>organisms
produce sterile offspring when forced to cross the species >>barrier -
mules - but take dogs for example they look totally differnet but >>you can
still cross one with another in spite of the phenotype. But you >>could not
fertilise a dog cat ape or horse egg with human sperm.>>> Tomatoes and
flounders can't and don't mate so by that definition we> have a new species,
unless you mean the GMA tomato can no longer mate> with other tomatoes? Yes
that is what I mean - but maybe they cleverly also made them mules so you
cant breed the tomatoes!I did say "normally" - Is this "normal"?> I guess
the dog/cat analogy answers that> question. Horses and donkeys can mate and
produce sterile offspring.> I think a line is drawn there.Lions and tigers
can mate ( yielding Ligers and Tlions) but normally don't!> >>We could
however totally change the DNSA of a human dog cat or horse. >>Geneticists
draw the line long before that but we still do change DNA.>>>>>>>> Nature
might never have gotten around to mating tomatoes with>>> flounders - so it
could, by that definition, be a "new" life form.>>>>Ni of it can still be
bread with other tomatioes. The catch with most DNA >>expirements like this
though is that they remove the ability to breed making >>them sterile. This
is usually because the corporate concern can protect >>their patent by
preventing others in breeding more crops and looking for >>mutation through
traditional methods.> > We had an incidence of a company suing a farmer for
stealing their> patented strain of corn - it turned out that the patented
strain was> dominant and it occurred due to proximity between the lab's
fields and> the farmer's fields. Or that may just be an urban legend, I
heard it> before there were personal computers (that you didn't buy as a
kit).Yes. I don't think it is a legend. It may be a mutation of a real story
though.Are you referring to http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htmYou
may aslo be referring to another case where a farmer had crops resistant to
weedkiller because his crops had developed out of GM crops created by others
in a field bordering his property.>>>>> One doesn't have to create new
instruments to create original music.>>>>You are playing with words here.
DNA alays used the same four (well five if >>you inclued Uracil in RNA but
thymine will do) notes. The music can be 99.99 >>per cent the same but the
ability for that music to contain information in >>the song which is capable
of adding other music to it or changing the notes >>itself while it combines
wth other songs does determine the originality of >>newer creations.>>>
reproduction is a messy businessParticularly if you are copying someone
elses work.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No wonder so few people bother responding to
you....>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The people responding to me include you and dougal
who both FAILED to>>>>>>support your own claims.>>>>>>>>>>> Ah yes. Failed
to conform to your regimented system of "logical">>>>> (not) proofs
perhaps.>>>>>>>>LOGIC is around for millennia! It is not MINE! I didn't
invent it!>>>>>>> Didn't imply you did. Just that you do seem to like to
make "logical">>> proofs for intangible things and then imply that such a
proof is>>> absolute, exclusive and immutable.>>>>Logic is!> > Yeah, but I
still need empirical results." I am a liar" needs no evidence to prove it is
a paradox.[snip]>>>>People here though claim "no evidence for Jesus" and
"abundant >>contemporaneous written evidnce " for Alexander or
Socrates.>>They fail to produce th latter and then insist the former should
be dealt >>with as a special case on its own.>>> Socrates had Plato,
Alexander could be more myth than fact though.Indeed. About as likely as
Jesus being a myth wouldn't you say?>>>>>>>The "Christian" academics who
were asked to look through Galileos >>>>telescope>>>>didnt bother because
they already "knew what they would see">>>>>> I can believe that. One
doesn't want to be too original when it could>>> mean one's own execution as
a heretic.>>>>Galileo did not name the philosophers concerned, but Galileo
scholars have >>identified two of them as Cesare Cremonini and Giulio Libri
(Drake, 1978, >>pp.162, 165; Sharratt, 1994, p.87).Galileo At Work. Chicago:
University of >>Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-16226-5 from wikipedia>>>>>>>>>>>>
There might be a few - after all look at how many people cling to god>>>>>
without evidence, while denying fact when it conflicts with what they>>>>>
want to believe.>>>>>>>>Yes and look how many cling to "Dark matter" and
"dark energy"?>>>>They ant to believe in Higges Boizons and parallell
universes and >>>>wormholes>>>>I guess.>>>>>>> I see those theories as just
"place keepers." You can measure what>>> appears to be an anomaly that you
can't explain. Until you can>>> explain it you have to call it something,
so dark matter it is.>>>>Dark matter isnt the anomaly it is the explaination
for it!>>> No. It only "explains" the anomaly and is not really an>
"explanation," in any strict sense of the word. It is a convenience,>
unless the field has advanced dramatically since I read about it.Dark matter
and dark energy are an explaination for all the missing matter in the
Universe.The Universe should contain more but we dont see it so they invent
"dark" matter and energy that we can't see! LOL! > >>ther should be more
matter there based on what we can see so we assume that >>ther is matter
ther and we just cant see it!> > Exactly. >>>>We assume something we can't
measure or see! Not unlike God.>>>>Is God not an ultimate place keeper in
your philosophy?>>> There is no anomaly that needs a god to explain it.So
you can now see "no anomaly" ? LOL care to show me this "no anomaly" that
only god can explain?>>>>>> Worm holes, parallel universes, and the like are
more like science>>> fiction - fun ideas to ponder, but nothing too serious.
Are people>>> making religions out of them yet?>>>>Well more is spent on
CERN than on the Vatican. Ask kaku or better yes >>Burbridge.>>He is fairly
sure about the Church of consensus physics.
>>http://casswww.ucsd.edu/personal/gburbidge.html>>>>>>> We did have a
cult>>yes yes what was their name. I remember writing abouthtenm at that
time. Aum >>shira - nope- HEAVENS GATE!>>>>>that claimed they would be swept
up into a comet>>>>Hale Bopp>>>>> and committed suicide>>>>"ascended" I
think they called it. or "vacated their containiers">>>>>> Funny you mention
it they BOUGHT a Celectron 12 inch a week before and >>brought it back and
insisted that it didnt work.>>>>The guy gave then their money back minus
about 10 or 20 per cent.>>>>This thing is like Aum Shira they were highly
technically qualified but >>nowhere in the theology or philosophy
stakes.>>>>>- I guess you had to be indoctrinated to see>>> how that was
supposed to work out - that is kind of borderline sci fi>>> religion feel to
it.>>>>Not necessarily it is not so simple as "brainwashing" in my opinion.
Part of >>what is at work is the authoritarianism culture. This is why I hae
problems >>with atheist "groups" just as I do with religious ones. You
should look up a >>guy called Leon Festinger on "dissonence" Better still
here is a great free >>book by Bob>> Altemeyer (2006). The Authoritarians,
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/>>> Atheist groups?Like some of the
denixens of the ones you are posting in remember?Or like atheistic
communists.Atheism does not have to be anarchic.Christianity or religion by
the way can be anarchic.>>>>>>>>>> I tend to think that atheists are more
intelligent and able than>>>>> theists, so I like to believe they are more
flexible and logical.>>>>>>>>I tend to think the history of the human race
would prove that wrong. The>>>>vast majority of great thinkers were Theists
or believed in some>>>>supernatural phenomena.>>>>>>>Galileo. Michelangelo,
Newton, Einstein, rioght back to ancient Greece and>>>>zoroastrans. Few
were atheist.>>>>>>> I think we could say Einstein was an atheist, but you
are basically>>> correct. Some, otherwise seemingly normal, people do
profess a belief>>> in gods. The delusion of masses is not
unknown.>>>>Whether it was a delusion is unknown.>>> Technically it is not a
delusion. That's my bias. It doesn't meet> the definition without proof
that god doesn't exist. Hallucination> any better?And Dark matter does meet
such a definition?>>>>>> Theists probably outnumber atheists.>>>>almost
certainly. atheists are a small miniroty.> > Yeah, but that's like calling a
person who attends church once a year> on Christmas a Catholic too.
Actually Catholics are not created by their annual census. ( I only recently
discovered they take one on a particular sunday). I would think going to
confession is more important for thenm and even fewer do that than go to
mass.>There are different degrees. I ask some> of my cousins and they tell
me "they do it for the kids, or their> wife, etc.." WEll then they are
probably Protestants or agnostics.>They personally won't claim or admit to
belief (or avoid> getting into religious discussions) but still go through
the motions.They either believe or they don't. "A la carte" Catholics aren't
really Christians at all. Jesus apparently was really violently opposed to
such hypocrits.I think it was BErnard Shaw said "I am a terrible Christian
but a Great Catholic"> > A Catholic denying their faith would be a sin if I
remember correctly,> but so is a lot of stuff that they do manage to
justify.Like what? One can not Justify sin.>>>>>>>> Here it is:>>>
Mavisbeacon
Claiming I should have to post proof about the Holocaust happening when some
else claims the Holocaust didn't happen is SHIFTING THE BURDEN!
Claiming I shoul dhave to prove god exists when some else (i.e. YOU) claims
that if god exists God MUST BE uncaring is SHIFTING THE BURDEN!
You have the references which you snipped go and read them!
>
> Repeatedly shouting "Proooooove it" is not a debate.
I nevert claimed it was. I have debated Islamic and Biblical
fundamentalists in other groups and against creationists, nazis,
astrologers Chlaratans, kooks and all sorts of religious believers.
>
> Debate is offering up and proving your OWN claims as
> well as debunking the other side.
When ther is an argument there! Usually about opinions and not facts!
In your case the IS NO logical argument! You can not logically conclude an
uncaring God!
>
> What are your claims?
My COUNTER claims are that your conclusion of an uncaring God is a fallacy
and that Dougal's claim of "no evidence for jesus" is not extraordinary or
moot.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
>> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument
>> itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character,
>> nationality or religion may be attacked.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I didnt assert
>> 1. God is either powerless or does not care.
>> or
>> 2. there is no evidence for Jesus abiyt lots of evidence including
>> written conntemporaneous evidence for Alexander the Great and
>> Socrates.
>>
>> I don't have to provide proof for 1 or 2!
>
>
> What do you have to prove?
I dont hace to prove anything! YOU claimed 1 and you can't proove it! Now
you are trying to attack me because you are afraid to admit you were wrong!
>>
>>>That is, you know, all you
>>> have done in this group.
>> ...ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes
>> that a person does not practise what he
>> preaches.
>>
>> No! That is NOT all I have done. I have posted a number of counter
>> claims and supported them and pointed out the logical fallacies
>> invovled in 1 and 2.
>
>
>
> Repost any proof you have posted for anything.
It is above under "affirming the consequent" . IOt is logical proof you
committed a fallacy!
>
>
>>> Generally "debate" means showing your argument is
>>> more logical and factual than the other side. What is
>>> your argument? Where are your facts?
>>
>> My argument is that 1 and 2 above are unsupported by evidence or
>> fallacious. "a connected series of statements to establish a definite
>> proposition."
>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-python.html
>
> Asserting a negative is not proof.
LOL! Above you ask what is my argument. Now you confuse the definition of an
argument ewith teh proof of it!
>
>>
>> My proposition: 1 and 2 above are unsupported or fallacious.
>
> Just my point.
That is an assertion. I have already provided the support for it elsewhere.
>
> Attacking propositions is not debate unless you
> post contrasting propositions.
You assert "1 is true"
I assert "1 is false"
But I DONT have to prove ! is false in any case ( even though I did) YOU
claim it so you have to prove it!
The fact that I proved you are wrong is not necessary for me to provide.
Next you will be proposing that people prove themselve not Guilty in a
court!
LOL!
>>>>> You don't have to say one way of the other - defend theism and you
>>>>> defend religion and faith and a belief in god.
>>>>
>>>> In the arguments in the above groups in the last month or so i
>>>> believe I have defended REASON and LOGIC . I believe I have shown
>>>> the position of mainstream christianiity to be grounded in Greek
>>>> rationality i.e. the very SAME foundation as that of science.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could repost for us your defense of
>>> "mainstream christianity".
>>
>> Correct.
>> Perhaps I could. "Mainstream" by the way I defined as Roman Orthodox
>> and you can probably add in Anglicans too of you want.That makes up
>> about 95 percent plus of Christians. Maybe 98 or 99 per cent. Anyway
>> My reference to the Faith and Reason was the doccument of that name
>> delivered by Ratzinger to at Regensburg University. You know the one
>> people made all the fuss about Islam and demanded an apology?
>
>
> OK, now we are getting somewhere. Post for us the
> Popes' claim and your defense of it.
i already told you this!
Message-ID: <a9204$4b053d37$bc8d1d47$22...@news.upc.ie>
go back and read what I posted!
and in this therad i posted:
Message-ID: <eefe0$4ad9f926$596480f8$94...@news.upc.ie>
Faith and reason run hand in hand. God would not tell people to worship
idols because it is unreasonable.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
AND YOU DIRECTLY REPLIED
Message-ID: <Xns9CA77D8E9A79B...@216.196.97.130>
"published on particle physics" was the claim but im sure if you read
through the rest you will see some particle physics.
>
>
>> Prof. Michael Tkacz of Gonzaga University entitled "A Designer
>> Universe: Chance, Design, and Cosmic Order."
>>
>> http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/coyne01.php
>> ...our knowledge of elementary particle physics, a totally independent
>> field of research, supports what we have said about the thermonuclear
>> processes in stars. So, our models for star formation appear to be
>> consistent with what we observe.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Coyne
>> Coyne has been a vocal opponent of intelligent design since at least
>> August 2005. Coyne has been forthright in criticizing the Church's
>> lukewarm admission of responsibility for its persecution of Galileo in
>> the early seventeenth century
>>
>
> That is commentary, not research.
commentary on what??? on particle physics.
I just added it in so you know Coynes posiotion for future reference.
LOL! You really believe that Jesuits have not published papers in academic
circles related to particle physics?
Jesuits dear boy are to be found wherever one looks in academia. I have
found PhD theses on the fishing patterns in Galway Bay in the West of
Ireland in the Middle ages written by a Jesuit. They are pervasive. I wont
waste any more time on that one. the Vatican is not so ill informed as you
would have people believe. It was a Jesuit who made the Inquisition aware
that Galileo's bifurcation was in Error and that there were other
possibilities to which Galileo didnt refer for example Brache's Geocentric
system.
Mitchell Holman
news:bda0e$4b1f6ba3$bc8d1d47$19...@news.upc.ie:
You mean "facts" like your claims that scientists
have created diseases? That your "Holy" Bible is not
full of references to unicorns and dragons?
> In your case the IS NO logical argument! You can not logically
> conclude an uncaring God!
>
Whereas you cannot "logically conclude" there is a God at all.
Or can you?
Let's see you try........
>>
>> What are your claims?
>
> My COUNTER claims are that your conclusion of an uncaring God is a
> fallacy and that Dougal's claim of "no evidence for jesus" is not
> extraordinary or moot.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
>>> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
>>> argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's
>>> character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I didnt assert
>>> 1. God is either powerless or does not care.
>>> or
>>> 2. there is no evidence for Jesus abiyt lots of evidence including
>>> written conntemporaneous evidence for Alexander the Great and
>>> Socrates.
>>>
>>> I don't have to provide proof for 1 or 2!
>>
>>
>> What do you have to prove?
>
> I dont hace to prove anything! YOU claimed 1 and you can't proove it!
This notestream is just about whether YOU believe in God.
Why won't you answer that one question?
> Now you are trying to attack me because you are afraid to admit you
> were wrong!
The only thing I have been wrong about here is
presuming you had the integrity to make a claim and
defend it. Instead all you do is shout "prrooooove it"
to others.
And then dare to call that "debate".
Sheesh...........
>
>>>
>>>>That is, you know, all you
>>>> have done in this group.
>>> ...ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes
>>> that a person does not practise what he
>>> preaches.
>>>
>>> No! That is NOT all I have done. I have posted a number of counter
>>> claims and supported them and pointed out the logical fallacies
>>> invovled in 1 and 2.
>>
>>
>>
>> Repost any proof you have posted for anything.
>
> It is above under "affirming the consequent" . IOt is logical proof
> you committed a fallacy!
Evasion noted.
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:a2e77$4b1dc291$bc8d1d47$22...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>> news:qtgqh5tlp9ujbv0u6...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:19:56 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU
>>>>>>have to show the evidence or show the logic involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes sense.
>>>>
>>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is no god.
>>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is a god.
>>>>
>>>>Lack of evidence means you can NOT claim something to be a fact!
>>>>
>>> Nor can you claim it is fact - yet that's what religionists do.
>>
>> I didnt claim it was a fact!
>
>
>
> "YEs We all know that. YOUR SIDE claimed it."
> MavisBeacon, Dec 7 2009
Which is a restatement of something YOUR SDE claimed is a fact.
>
>
>
>>
>>> An exercise in reason is just an exercise in reason - you can't
>>> prove god exists with out producing a god or two, or some irrefutable
>>> evidence.
>>
>> so what? I didn't claim anything about god existing!
>
>
>
> "YEs We all know that. YOUR SIDE claimed it."
> MavisBeacon, Dec 7 2009
Yes it is YOUR premise! Not mine. Based on YOUR p[premise that assumes God
exists you came to the fallacious conclusion that God doesnt care]
Stop the childish nonsense of me accepting the premise implies i claim God
exists and therefore have to prove God.
You are acting like a baby. Rather than admit your error you throw the
rattle from the pram!
Grow up and submit to academic rigour.
>>>
>>> But you aren't denying that there are GMA tomatoes that have fish
>>> genes in them are you? Your the one who wrote it I am just agreeing
>>> with you and saying that it is very old news.
>>
>> Just to inform you.
>> It arose from being asked "what microbes or life did humans create" in
>> relation to God causing disease because God doesnt care.
>
>
> Only because you claimed "people create and
> spread diseases" and "scientists created microbes"
Yes people spread diseases . I do not claim people create all diseases
althought they migh possible create some I dont know.
They didnt a hunmdred years ago and I do not claim that they did create them
then.
>
> Do you need to reposts of those?
Only if you also repost wher I clarified and retracted any claims about
people creating lifeforms of any kind.
>
>
>> The disaster of AIDS is man made and not plague sent by God.
>
>
> AIDS is just one of many diseases NOT man made.
The spread of AIDS is man made as is famine war etc. Famine War and
pestilence are spread by people.
>
>> The point being made was people spread AIDS not God.
>>
>> Now I am told asked " God not stop it theefore god does not care" but
>> as i pointed out according tothe story God didnt stop the
>> crusifiction. Based on that One can not conclude God did not care.
>> quite the opposite in fact!
>>
>
> What does the crucifiction say about God?
The mainstream interpretation of it would suggest God cares but can refrain
form acting for a deeper purpose spicifically because God cares.
Mavisbeacon
>>>
>>> Debate is offering up and proving your OWN claims as
>>> well as debunking the other side.
>>
>> When ther is an argument there! Usually about opinions and not facts!
>>
>
>
> You mean "facts" like your claims that scientists
> have created diseases?
Exactly that! If I can't support it I can not claim it is a fact!
Failing to supply support I freely admitted I do not claim it as a fact I
just believe it is possible.
>That your "Holy" Bible is not
> full of references to unicorns and dragons?
I never claimed it wasnt! I admitted I was aware of one or two references to
Dragons and none to unicorns.
I am quite happy to accepot about 13 references to both.
I never claimed there were none in the bible just that you supplied none to
support you claim they we referred to in the Bible.
"Full of" by the way is relative. A word appearing twenty times in a book of
a one and a half million words is not something I call "full of".
Put it this way if you fill a football stadium with 50,000 people that is
about one person in the whole stadium!
>> In your case the IS NO logical argument! You can not logically
>> conclude an uncaring God!
>>
>
>
> Whereas you cannot "logically conclude" there is a God at all.
Diofferent topic. One can not conclude
based on the premise that there is a God and the observation of thet God not
interfering
that such a God is uncaring.
>
>
>>>
>>> What are your claims?
>>
>> My COUNTER claims are that your conclusion of an uncaring God is a
>> fallacy and that Dougal's claim of "no evidence for jesus" is not
>> extraordinary or moot.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
>>>> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
>>>> argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's
>>>> character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didnt assert
>>>> 1. God is either powerless or does not care.
>>>> or
>>>> 2. there is no evidence for Jesus abiyt lots of evidence including
>>>> written conntemporaneous evidence for Alexander the Great and
>>>> Socrates.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have to provide proof for 1 or 2!
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you have to prove?
>>
>> I dont hace to prove anything! YOU claimed 1 and you can't proove it!
>
>
>
> This notestream is just about whether YOU believe in God.
>
> Why won't you answer that one question?
I already answered that.
>
>> Now you are trying to attack me because you are afraid to admit you
>> were wrong!
>
>
> The only thing I have been wrong about here is
> presuming you had the integrity to make a claim and
> defend it. Instead all you do is shout "prrooooove it"
> to others.
I didnt claim there was a God here!
and I have every right to ask people to prove it just as you have every
right to ask then to oproive ther is a god if they claim god as a fact.
[snip]
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>That is, you know, all you
>>>>> have done in this group.
>>>> ...ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes
>>>> that a person does not practise what he
>>>> preaches.
>>>>
>>>> No! That is NOT all I have done. I have posted a number of counter
>>>> claims and supported them and pointed out the logical fallacies
>>>> invovled in 1 and 2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Repost any proof you have posted for anything.
>>
>> It is above under "affirming the consequent" . IOt is logical proof
>> you committed a fallacy!
>
[snip]
Mitchell Holman
news:c32d8$4b20c8fe$bc8d1d47$95...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CDC4E5A130CD...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:bda0e$4b1f6ba3$bc8d1d47$19...@news.upc.ie:
>>
> [snip]
>
>>>>
>>>> Debate is offering up and proving your OWN claims as
>>>> well as debunking the other side.
>>>
>>> When ther is an argument there! Usually about opinions and not
>>> facts!
>>>
>>
>>
>> You mean "facts" like your claims that scientists
>> have created diseases?
>
> Exactly that! If I can't support it I can not claim it is a fact!
What do you support?
What do you "claim as fact"?
> Failing to supply support I freely admitted I do not claim it as a
> fact I just believe it is possible.
>
>>That your "Holy" Bible is not
>> full of references to unicorns and dragons?
>
> I never claimed it wasnt!
"But your "side" did" as you frequently say when
confronting people over claims they did not make.....
> I admitted I was aware of one or two
> references to Dragons and none to unicorns.
> I am quite happy to accepot about 13 references to both.
> I never claimed there were none in the bible just that you supplied
> none to support you claim they we referred to in the Bible.
> "Full of" by the way is relative. A word appearing twenty times in a
> book of a one and a half million words is not something I call "full
> of".
>
> Put it this way if you fill a football stadium with 50,000 people that
> is about one person in the whole stadium!
>
>
>>> In your case the IS NO logical argument! You can not logically
>>> conclude an uncaring God!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Whereas you cannot "logically conclude" there is a God at all.
>
> Diofferent topic.
Read the notestream title.
Do you believe in God?
> One can not conclude
> based on the premise that there is a God and the observation of thet
> God not interfering
> that such a God is uncaring.
So what DO you conclude?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> This notestream is just about whether YOU believe in God.
>>
>> Why won't you answer that one question?
>
> I already answered that.
Wrong.
Do you believe in God?
>
>>
>>> Now you are trying to attack me because you are afraid to admit you
>>> were wrong!
>>
>>
>> The only thing I have been wrong about here is
>> presuming you had the integrity to make a claim and
>> defend it. Instead all you do is shout "prrooooove it"
>> to others.
>
> I didnt claim there was a God here!
That's why I have been repeatedly asking
if you believe in God.
MavisBeacon, do you believe in God?
Mitchell Holman
news:3f85e$4b1fc02a$bc8d1d47$18...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CDBB9385D595...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:a2e77$4b1dc291$bc8d1d47$22...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:qtgqh5tlp9ujbv0u6...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:19:56 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU
>>>>>>>have to show the evidence or show the logic involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is no god.
>>>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is a god.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lack of evidence means you can NOT claim something to be a fact!
>>>>>
>>>> Nor can you claim it is fact - yet that's what religionists do.
>>>
>>> I didnt claim it was a fact!
>>
>>
>>
>> "YEs We all know that. YOUR SIDE claimed it."
>> MavisBeacon, Dec 7 2009
>
> Which is a restatement of something YOUR SDE claimed is a fact.
What is my "side"?
What is YOUR "side"?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> An exercise in reason is just an exercise in reason - you can't
>>>> prove god exists with out producing a god or two, or some
>>>> irrefutable evidence.
>>>
>>> so what? I didn't claim anything about god existing!
>>
>>
>>
>> "YEs We all know that. YOUR SIDE claimed it."
>> MavisBeacon, Dec 7 2009
>
> Yes it is YOUR premise!
Really?
Prove it. Repost anything *I* said on that point.
>>>>
>>>> But you aren't denying that there are GMA tomatoes that have fish
>>>> genes in them are you? Your the one who wrote it I am just
>>>> agreeing with you and saying that it is very old news.
>>>
>>> Just to inform you.
>>> It arose from being asked "what microbes or life did humans create"
>>> in relation to God causing disease because God doesnt care.
>>
>>
>> Only because you claimed "people create and
>> spread diseases" and "scientists created microbes"
>
> Yes people spread diseases . I do not claim people create all diseases
> althought they migh possible create some I dont know.
> They didnt a hunmdred years ago and I do not claim that they did
> create them then.
>>
>> Do you need to reposts of those?
>
> Only if you also repost wher I clarified and retracted any claims
> about people creating lifeforms of any kind.
So you didn't claim people created diseases but
you did RETRACT those same claims?
Do you know how silly that sounds?
>
>>
>>
>>> The disaster of AIDS is man made and not plague sent by God.
>>
>>
>> AIDS is just one of many diseases NOT man made.
>
> The spread of AIDS is man made as is famine war etc. Famine War and
> pestilence are spread by people.
The issue is the CREATION of diseases.
Who created them?
>
>>
>>> The point being made was people spread AIDS not God.
>>>
>>> Now I am told asked " God not stop it theefore god does not care"
>>> but as i pointed out according tothe story God didnt stop the
>>> crusifiction. Based on that One can not conclude God did not care.
>>> quite the opposite in fact!
>>>
>>
>> What does the crucifiction say about God?
>
> The mainstream interpretation of it would suggest God cares but can
> refrain form acting for a deeper purpose spicifically because God
> cares.
>
I didn't ask about the "mainstream interpretation",
I asked what YOU think.
Why do you keep refusing to tell us what YOU think?
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:c32d8$4b20c8fe$bc8d1d47$95...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CDC4E5A130CD...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>> news:bda0e$4b1f6ba3$bc8d1d47$19...@news.upc.ie:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Debate is offering up and proving your OWN claims as
>>>>> well as debunking the other side.
>>>>
>>>> When ther is an argument there! Usually about opinions and not
>>>> facts!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean "facts" like your claims that scientists
>>> have created diseases?
>>
>> Exactly that! If I can't support it I can not claim it is a fact!
>
>
> What do you support?
That logic reason and telling the truth should be applied to discussion.
>
> What do you "claim as fact"?
That your conclusion that "God does not care" does not follow from the
premise of an all powerfull god who does not intervene to stop disasters.
It might be that God does not care but it might also be some other reason.
>
>> Failing to supply support I freely admitted I do not claim it as a
>> fact I just believe it is possible.
>>
>>>That your "Holy" Bible is not
>>> full of references to unicorns and dragons?
>>
>> I never claimed it wasnt!
>
>
>
> "But your "side" did" as you frequently say when
> confronting people over claims they did not make.....
If I happened to be on theior side I would say so. But I do not agree with
biblical fundamentalists and claim what they claim about the Bible.
I have been quite clear about that.
THe people on YOUR dside however hae not been clear wher they differ in
their positions so as I view it they all agree uttil they tell me otherwise
just as i told your side otherwise.
>
>
>> I admitted I was aware of one or two
>> references to Dragons and none to unicorns.
>> I am quite happy to accepot about 13 references to both.
>> I never claimed there were none in the bible just that you supplied
>> none to support you claim they we referred to in the Bible.
>> "Full of" by the way is relative. A word appearing twenty times in a
>> book of a one and a half million words is not something I call "full
>> of".
>>
>> Put it this way if you fill a football stadium with 50,000 people that
>> is about one person in the whole stadium!
>>
>>
>>>> In your case the IS NO logical argument! You can not logically
>>>> conclude an uncaring God!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Whereas you cannot "logically conclude" there is a God at all.
>>
>> Diofferent topic.
>
>
> Read the notestream title.
Yes?
Why are you asking me about whether i believe in god when I am addressing
historicity of Jesus and specious reasoning that concludes god does not
care?
>
> Do you believe in God?
I believe you have posted logical fallacies about God not caring being a
valid conclusion.
The fallacy is there no matter whether I believe in God or not,
>
>
>
>> One can not conclude
>> based on the premise that there is a God and the observation of thet
>> God not interfering
>> that such a God is uncaring.
>
>
> So what DO you conclude?
That one can not make a logical conclusion based on affirming a consequent.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This notestream is just about whether YOU believe in God.
>>>
>>> Why won't you answer that one question?
>>
>> I already answered that.
>
>
> Wrong.
Nope. I already answered why I won't answer such a question.
>
> Do you believe in God?
I already told you - Im not going to say yes or no to that question and my
personal beliefs are none of your business.
>>
>>>
>>>> Now you are trying to attack me because you are afraid to admit you
>>>> were wrong!
>>>
>>>
>>> The only thing I have been wrong about here is
>>> presuming you had the integrity to make a claim and
>>> defend it. Instead all you do is shout "prrooooove it"
>>> to others.
>>
>> I didnt claim there was a God here!
>
>
> That's why I have been repeatedly asking
> if you believe in God.
I dont make any such claim that ther is or is not a God. Proving or
disproving God is not a topic for me in this group.
>
> MavisBeacon, do you believe in God?
I refrain wherever possible in asserting claims based on belief alone.
I believe Jeuss is as reasonable to assume as any other person in history.
That is what matters.
Actually whether that belief is supported by evidence is what matters.
>
>
>
>
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>"Full of" by the way is relative. A word appearing twenty times in a book of
>a one and a half million words is not something I call "full of".
>
>Put it this way if you fill a football stadium with 50,000 people that is
>about one person in the whole stadium!
True
Often the religiously afflicted will take one small biblical verse and
make it the be-all end-all of their faith.
--
Earle Jones
Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...big clip...]
Mitchell: Did you answer this? (I was offline for a while and might
have missed it.)
***
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
I think we have a communications problem. I would put a study of
comparative religious beliefs under the headings of philosophy or
psychology - not strictly speaking a peer reviewed study of a religion
or a religious belief - but comparing many beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> If there was such a thing as a "consensus," among religions there
>>>> wouldn't be many religions around.
>>>
>>>You are mixing up what religious believers believe with academic standards
>>>for publication in journals of theology or philosophy for example.
>>>
>> I'm just trying to see where "peer review" fits into religion is all.
>> I understand peer review in science but not religion.
>
>You are limiting all knowledge to scientific knowledge.
>Most journals are not science journals.
I would certainly question the value of knowing about the care and
feeding of unicorns. I love fiction, but its primary value is
entertainment. (although good author will research his work, and one
may learn while being entertained).
The question then becomes a definition of "knowledge." If you know
something that isn't so . . . you have "knowledge," even if it may be
flawed and worthless.
I think academics frequently engage in what, for lack of a better
descriptor, I would call mental masturbation. It is fun to consider
the unlikely or totally ridiculous, and has value to keep one's mind
nimble and sharp, but it shouldn't be confused with science unless
you've got hard facts.
>
>>I don't buy
>> into the idea that theology is a science
>
>I didnt claim it was but it can be scientifically studied and the
>historicity of Jesus ios a valid academic persuit.
OK. So what is known? What part of Jesus can be corroborated in,
say, municipal records (tax records, birth/death records, wills, sales
receipts, trial transcripts, or other documents of an official
nature)? Something that isn't part of the legend (gospels).
>
>>so the only peer review might
>> be in a study of comparative religious beliefs, and that might fall
>
>And therefore as a setranger give it welcom. It might be there are more
>things in heaven and earth,
>than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
>
>> under the purview of psychology (another non-science in my opinion).
>
>And in the opinion of many but statistical aspects of psychology and brain
>chemestry and neuropsychology are scientific none the less.
I would not argue against that. I happen to be hypoglycemic and
understand what blood sugar does to my mood.
>
>>
>> Likewise you might publish a journal of philosophical ideas but to
>> peer review them? Seems to me, philosophy is so much opinion.
>
>That would be your philosophical opinion. Try getting it published.
>
>By the way most cutting edge Physics is philosophy. Physicists are awarded
>doctorates in Philosophy.
>
I think all doctorates say "philosophy" on the certificates/diplomas.
For the purpose of this discussion Philosophy will mean opinion.
>>
>>>>If there was such a thing as
>>>> consensus among philosophers, they probably wouldn't be calling it
>>>> philosophy.
>>>
>>>There IS such a thing as academic journals dealing with philosophy.
>>>Plenty
>>>of them in fact.
>>
>> Lots of journals for philosophers? Amazing.
>
>Philosophy of education, philosophy of sciuence , philosophy of science
>teaching. If you see epistemology or ontology oin the title they really mat
>be getting self indulgent Synthese -An International Journal for
>Epistemology,
>Principia is a philosophical journal that publishes papers on contemporary
>epistemology
>
I see. That falls under the heading of mental masturbation IMO.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>You know things like Jesus being as reasonable to assume as others in
>>>>>history?
>>>>
>>>> I don't get the sentence. Could you rephrase it?
>>>
>>>Yes but I won't!
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reasonable? "Miracles" are not reasonable. Can they be historical?
>>>
>>>They can be explained with reason. History is just that - a story. It is
>>>not the past. History is a map.
>>
>> History, to me, implies a factual account of what happened in the
>> past.
>
>No you could have a false history. It isd pnly the map. the past is the
>territory. One can posit ther never is a 100 per cent accurate map. Even
>then two conflicting hiostories can be describing the same event. FOr
>example the American and Japenese histories of Pearl Harbour. but the raid
>did happen none the less.
I don't buy that. Maybe it is a semantic difference - to me history
is factual. A history could have some mistakes in it, but when it is
deliberately worked over to include false statements, or embellished
with wishful ideas, etc. it should not be called history but either
myth or legend or lies.
That's where King Arthur, Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn, Attila
the Hun, and the Bible reside. Interesting sure, factual no.
>
>>I've no doubt that in with all the drivel in the bible are a
>> few historical facts.
>
>Or in any other books from the time the Bible was written.
>
>>That doesn't make the bible a historical
>> account.
>
>Actually it does if the bible is describing what happened. It may however
>not be a scientific description just as other writings from that time are
>not. It is still remarkably more coherent and well written than other
>accounts one might even say "inspired". But like pearl harbour is it
>reasonable to assumne a migration of Hebrew people and the Babylonian exile
>as events that did happen etc. but Im not arguing about the Bible
>Im addressing the Historicity of Jesus anbd The Bible is a source but Ieven
>leaving it aside there are other sources.
>
I would say the bible is "inspired."
It is full of contradictions. I would never call it "coherent." I'd
have to rethink the Koran too if that was the case. Talk about
fragmented - Bible, Koran, etc..
>>Genesis alone should/would put that idea to death.
>
>I really can't see how ANY book written say 3000 years ago shoul begin form
>the point of view of present day science. Ironically The bible begins with a
>creation event as does modern Physics. But again Im not argung about The
>Bible.
It is an excellent book to have been written by superstitious goat
herding semi nomads, wrestling with ideas of mortality, purpose and a
world they had barely begun to understand.
>
>>>>
>>>> The legend of Jesus might be a more accurate way of stating it, than
>>>> historical. The legend of King Arthur might be more truthful and
>>>> historically accurate - all the romance tales of glory included.
>>>
>>>All legends are historical.
>>
>> Sure. I don't think I'd ever say ALL legends are historical, I'm
>> sure there are some entirely fictional legends, like "The Legend of
>> Sleepy Hollow"
>
>But all history is myth. the US version of Pearl Harbour is a myth but that
>does not mean the raid did not happen.
>
Another absolute statement. If I kept a journal it would be myth?
We have words like history legend and myth to describe the level of
deviation from the truth. If the US and Japan write about Pearl
Harbor from different perspectives, that is political agenda steering
the story away from a "history," and towards some agenda serving end.
It stops being history and becomes a politically expedient tale or lie
or falsehood.
>> Some parts of legends might be historical,
>
>Let us be clear by "historical" you probably mean "factual"
>All legends are historical.
Again with the absolute statements. How can you live with that? For
instance the only accurate part of the "Legend of Sleepy Hollow,"
there is a town called Sleepy Hollow. That doesn't make the legend
historical though. The legend is still fiction.
Likewise there are horses, undoubtedly one or two cavalry horsemen had
there heads shot off by cannons, etc.. But it isn't historical.
Then back to Pearl Harbor - If I were to say that on a specific date,
dive bombers, belonging to Japan, took off from aircraft carriers in
the Pacific and bombed, torpedoed and strafed battle ships sitting in
Pearl harbor THAT would be history.
If I were to say that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because they were
sneaky little devils who thought they could conquer the Pacific, that
would be opinion, but not necessarily history.
>History is just a story about an interpretation of the past. It is not the
>past itself.
That definition of history is not my definition of history. A tale
can be "historical" while not being "history."
Historical = some basis in past events
History = accurate statement of past events
>
>>but to state that all or
>> any legend is historical is wrong. Legends are usually a mixture of
>> fact and fiction.
>
>History is not the FACT of the past it is not the territory it is a map. the
>PAST is the territory.
>
>It may be a very accurate map but it is still NOT the territory.
>History also may contain fact and fiction. Just because you have a
>historical picture does not mean this is a factual picture.
So you and I view history differently. You want me to use your
definition of history (which allows embellishment, legend, lies and
fiction) so you can say that Jesus is historical? Where do we go from
there?
How important is it that Jesus is historical? Where does that go?
What does that prove? Why (or) is it important?
I am aware of the history and historical differences in the reasons
given for the attack. The attack is history - the reasons are not
necessarily history.
>>
>> No, I suspect Socrates is in better standing than Jesus for historical
>> accuracy but neither is a paragon of historical veracity.
>
>
>And your evidence for Alexander the Great or Socrates is?
That would be your baby. I don't really care. My interest in history
is the history of science and invention - not political history. Not
my thing.
>>
>> Historical records of Jesus don't seem to exist outside of religious
>> legend.
>
>Well you would be wrong there. I posted a number of pagan and Jewish sources
>who would be oppsed to Christianity.
>And I posted graffitti. And i posted heretical Christian writings not
>accepted by the Church are true.
That would be, or prove, what exactly? Graffiti? You mean one
emotionally charged whacked out religious zealot has a different
opinion than another ECWORZ? And therefore - that proves Jesus
existed?
Or perhaps there's a tree in Jerusalem with "Yeshua loves Magdala"
inscribed in the bark?
Sources with no for or against biases? Sources like government or
commercial records that might actually lend credence in a totally
impartial way?
>
>> Which doesn't mean he didn't exist, but that isn't a
>> historical proof either.
>
>History is only an interpretation. all I am saying is he is a likely as
>others in ancient history.
>
Or in other words - we can't say for sure. Although you want to call
this thread the "historicity of Jesus" so it must be important for
some reason.
If you were to dredge up proof that Jesus existed (and I think it is
likely he did) you're still a long way from proving god, and son of
god.
>>>>
>>>> The retelling of any folklore or legend tends to augment the great
>>>> qualities and derring-do of the champion in question. The number of
>>>> sources doesn't imply veracity of the sources.
>>>
>>>Twas no I who suggested that "abundant contemporaneous written sources "
>>>exist! It was my intorlocutor.
>>>But now you are arguing about the relative quality of the evidence which
>>>is
>>>different to "abundant contemporaneous written sources ".
>>
>> Well yes I am.
>
>So then let us compare the evidence for Socrates and Alexander ( Hannibal
>Cato Hammumburi Scipio Cato Brutus Marc Antony) with that for Jesus.
>
>If you go back over what I posted I think ther is a reasonable maount of
>historical sources.
>
Reasonable to make what? What are you getting to?
You don't need to prove to me Jesus existed; I think it likely he
did. I don't believe he was the son of god, or worked miracles, or
was anything but an ancient hippy who happened to be Jewish.
>
>>Just because a billion people believe something
>> doesn't make it true.
>
>Yes Im sure very much less than a billion have heard of socrates or
>alexander the Great
No. Hard to believe. Taught in schools.
>What convinces you that they existed?
There's no agenda? No money or power involved.
>why is everyine out to disprove only Jesus?
Money and power and the corruption of men. Lot of people have skin in
that game. Socrates Alexander? Who cares?
>As I have already posted it is akin to the holocaust deniers who claim the
>Holocaust didn't happen but cant apply the same standards to anything else
>in hiostory.
I don't deny the camps or execution of Jews - the numbers and
emotional crap is definitely suspect, but not the basic idea that Jews
were gassed and burned.
>
>> If it isn't true it isn't worth spit in my
>> opinion. So quality is the only thing that counts to me personally.
>
>Diogenes now is it?
>
>>
>> I care about substance over style, function over appearance, etc..
>
>Poetry and art and sport are fairly much pointless to you then?
>
Ah - those are what I would call spiritual - an appreciation for
beauty. A little Vivaldi, a glass of Porter, a fireplace on a chilly
day with my wife to cuddle. Poetry - I like the old romantics Byron
Keats Shelley, but I love Sara Teasdale. Art in all forms with
emphasis in cooking and brewing. Sport - just what challenges me
personally, kayak on a cold windy day with mountains of chop in a
swimsuit is "to die for."
I think religious beliefs are just a load of crap invented by men to
give some solace, purpose, and others control, wealth, and power.
>>
>> If a zillion people like a legend, so what? Numbers mean very little.
>
>I agree. wher is the evidecne for alexcander or socrates?
>>
>> Is the implication you are going for "where there's smoke there is
>> fire?"
>>>
>>>I am quite happy to argue about the evidence for Jesus and compare it with
>>>that for Alexander or Socrates or others in history.
>>>
>> I still consider the source - people in the grip of religious delusion
>> are already delusional, they don't want facts that may confuse or
>> contradict their pet beliefs. They want faith - they want the
>> security it provides.
>
>Whatever bias you approach the subject with
>I am quite happy to discuss evidence for Jesus and compare it with
>that for Alexander or Socrates or others in history.
>where is your evidence for alexander or socrates?
The followers (belay that). The people that profess to follow Jesus
do evil, and justify it with religious faith.
Alexander and Socrates are more benign, and less "important" today.
>
>>>>
>>>> We see that a lot in the Internet - some plausible claim will appear
>>>> and garner millions of hits on search engines, but when you try to pin
>>>> it to a single source you often find that the source has little or no
>>>> veracity or a monumental agenda that makes anything they allege
>>>> suspect.
>>>
>>>So what? I am quite happy to argue about the evidence for Jesus and
>>>compare
>>>it with that for Alexander or Socrates or others in history.
>>>You produce the " abundant contemporaneous written sources " or whatever
>>>else you have for Socrates and Alexander and we can compare them.
>>>
>> Why. I don't find either Socrates or Alexander all that interesting.
>
>We are not arguing about whether you find it interesting or not!
>We are about YOUR contention of not accepting things without evidence and
>objective standards.
You can use Socrates or Alexander as examples in historicity - but the
parallels you try to draw from them are flawed - because the emotional
zealotry of the "true believer" doesn't kick in and color the legends
in the same way or in the same degree.
>If the point I made is that Jesus is AS LIKELY AS others and I produce my
>evidence then you produce the evidence for Socrates or Alexander
>and we can compare them. if you think that Jesus is a s likely as alexander
>ot Socrates already then we dont have any argument do we?
>
Not the same thing. Religion is the abandonment of reason and
practice in the dark arts of evil manipulation. The people writing
about Jesus are whacked out nuts, with a heavy political agenda.
>>>>
>>>> The history was written long after Jesus was dead, by people who heard
>>>> it second or third hand from others who had their own agendas.
>>>
>>>WRONG! WE have been over this before in this thread.
>>
>> The council of Nicea ring a bell?
>
>Indeed it does! As I stated we have been over all this in the thread!
>Polycarp ring a bell. Josephus? Pliny? Ignatius?
>
>> Constantine's idea to bring
>> together some hundreds of believers and hammer out a "consensus."
>
>Not about the gospel that was a LATER meeting.
>
>So what? the actual history was already written by then.
>Im not arguing about the Nicean Creed or that Jesus was Christ or the
>Tirnity or the holy ghost or whatever.
>
>We are arguing about the historicity of Jesus . And the sources preceed
>Nicea by centuries!
>
Still tainted by the emotional superstitious baggage unless you have
some impartial documentation.
>
>>He
>> didn't please everyone and not everyone agreed with him but he was an
>> emperor and a politician and forced what he presented to his empire as
>> a consensus. He officially made Christ the "Son of God."
>
>so what? We are not arguing about what Nicea ratefied hundreds of years
>later but whether a history for Man Jesus existed in the first century.
>
Not at issue if I agree that there was a man named Jesus. I'll go
along with that much as being more likely than not.
Yes. Most days it is. Anytime emotion or some agenda involved it is
suspect.
>
>> Just
>> point me to the post and let me see what you are referring to.
>
>Fair enough Just point me to the evidence on alexander and Socrates:
>
>her is some of the stuff i posted
>:
>Johephus the ROMAN HISTORIAN does record that census.
>If you read the references I gave you might note that Dominic Crossan has a
>stated positionon this.
>Some scholars believe the Gospel writers may have based their accounts on an
>earlier Christian tradition.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
>
Now if and ONLY IF - you had the actual census and Jesus' name
appears, or his parents, you'd be on to something. Just saying that
because there was a census Jesus is historical, that is logical?
Where's the proof?
Proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that people are whacked out when
it comes to religion, but not providing an iota of solid historical
proof of anything.
>...
>Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far
>less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.
>
>There are no wriotings by Socrates at all! is what I stated.
well at least Plato was face to face with Socrates and it is first
hand knowledge But the issue is Jesus not Socrates.
>
>Plato claims to have written about Socrates but you would have to take
>Platos word for that. given he was pals with a satarical writer they could
>have invented Socrates for fun.
>Aristophanes' work is clearly satirical, not biographical. From the play
>itself, we cannot know whether he was making fun of a real philosopher known
>to his audience or ridiculing certain ideas that were much discussed at the
>time and using a fictional character to embody them.
>Plato and Xenophon did their work after Socrates purported death and
>therefore are nto contemporary in the sences they you attribute to writers
>about Jesus.
>Socrates himself apparent never wrote anything! Would you not considet that
>odd? Hre never is recorded as having writen anything? You are talking about
>a guy who was Plato's master and he apparently never wrote any of it down!
>
If that is the case, it would seem odd. Is there something suspect
there? Is there someone with something to gain or lose based on this?
>
>There are certainly No contemporary writings about alexander in existance to
>my knowlegde.
>
Nor Attila the Hun, or King Arthur.
They were probably real people - and not a word of what is written
about them is accurate, just like Jesus.
got it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't trust any statement with a pedigree like that.
>>>
>>>As opposed to WHAT about Socrates and Alexander?
>>
>> I don't care to think about Socrates or Alexander - that's your baby.
>> My concern is with religious delusion and how that affects the
>> behavior of large numbers of otherwise seemingly sane people.
>
>Oh so you are onto another subject altogether and not the historicity of
>Jesus.
That would be the only reason to concern myself with the historicity
of Jesus. We could say he was probably born lived and died - but
that's about it. Now that we have that much - what does that mean?
Mental masturbation?
>
>You do realise people also regarded alexander as a God? but he existed none
>the less did he?
>
Proving that people love heroes or need leaders?
>>>
>>>Doccuments from 350 years later? Images of Zeus Athena or Heracles?
>>>No actual writings by Socrates - ever!
>>
>> True.
>
>Which makes then as believable as Jesus? Less even based on yout criteria
>for "truth"?
>
I don't buy Zeus etc. Those are just religious beliefs just as valid
as Jesus or the God of Abraham.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My personal standards do not come into the issue!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If YOU CLAIM something as a fact or as logically proven then YOU have
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>show the evidence or show the logic involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is no god.
>>>>>> No evidence for god doesn't mean there is a god.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lack of evidence means you can NOT claim something to be a fact!
>>>>>
>>>> Nor can you claim it is fact - yet that's what religionists do.
>>>
>>>I didnt claim it was a fact! I claimed it was as likely as others in
>>>history
>>>and as such not an extraordinary claim.
>>>Simple really you could say all the others from ancient times have little,
>>>weak or no evidence in comparison to Jesus or you could say Jesus is as
>>>reasonable to assume as they are.
>>>
>> No. I come from the position that any religious believer is more than
>> a little irrational.
>
>I dont really care what biased position you come from. I only expect you to
>adhere to logic and reason. you can believe the Moon is made of cheese if
>you wish. Just dont come her claiming it is unless you can provide evidence.
>
Have you proven god and I missed it?
>
>>I believe that belief without proof is
>> irrational.
>
>Do you believe mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete?
Can it just be consistent and incomplete?
No formal
>system like logic can ever be complete or if it is it must contain
>inconsistancies.
Masturbation knows no limits. I think logic could be complete.
>
>do you believe in parallel universes or wormholes or Dark energy? Areyou a
>total cynic that you dont acept what scientists say until you see the proof?
>When you go to a public theatre do yo bring micrometer screws and calipers
>and measure the tubing in the seat you are about to sit on and derive all
>the equations necessary to satisfy you that the seat weill not collapse? Or
>do you just trust engineers and believe that they in turn made a design
>dependent on physics?
>
I am very cynical, that much is true. I look at motive. Everyone
seems to have an agenda and be selling something, so yes everything is
suspect.
I trust my wife and a few friends. The seat in a theatre may collapse
but how far could I fall? A roller coaster - they kill people
sometimes. I can feel comfortable climbing a 1200 foot tower in a
high wind, and scared shitless on a ladder ten feet off the ground.
But when it comes to people - I don't trust them.
>
>>I believe that Jesus was just as delusional as his
>> followers.
>
>So you believe Jesus existed? No argument about that then.
>
Yup no argument. It is likely a person named Jesus did exist around
the 1-30 CE.
>>
>> I do not believe that there is a god or that he had a son or that
>> there is a spirit in there somewhere.
>
>that is fine and as expected . You are an atheist. But you dont seem smug in
>that regard and proclaim all religious nelievers as inferiour or stupid or
>something like that.
>
I dunno . . . religious zealots seem whacked out, but a lot of
"believers" are otherwise pretty normal. Religion isn't
intrinsically bad - I'd love to be able to have the mental security it
promises - but couldn't live with myself if I said I "believed."
They say ignorance is bliss, but they say a lot of things.
>> I don't believe in mysteries or
>> things that go bump in the night. I think there are rational
>> explanations (of real things in the physical world) for the things
>> people don't understand.
>
>and ther are atheists who do believe in the supernatural. Bhudddists for
>example.
That is true. They've god some good philosophy too.
>
>> I believe people invent gods. I believe that one's parents have more
>> to do with choosing one's religious belief than most individuals do.
>> It isn't a rational process, and man has a long history of greed and
>> corruption where ever power over people is involved, so it is suspect.
>
>FINE!
>What you believe or dont believe does not scome into the issue of a
>historical Jesus.
>
It doesn't. Agreed.
>>>
>>>> As an atheist I require some proof or a preponderance of evidence
>>>> before I'd believe in god.
>>>
>>>So what? I was arguing about a historical Jesus and not about whether he
>>>was
>>>Christ or God.
>>>Historicity of Jesus and christology are DIFFERENT issues!
>>>
>> They may be different issues, but I care more about the gestalt than
>> the individual questions. The group are atheism and recovery
>> Catholicism, not history.
>
>I didnt post "no evidence for Jesus" or "God must be uncaring"
>If you want to be a net cop then that is your business.
>If somebody posts something and I ask for "proof or a preponderance of
>evidence" dont blame me!
>
You must be confusing me with some other responder.
>>
>> History is tangential to the issue. Important to be sure, but not the
>> paramount concern. The thread starts Mavis Beacon do you believe in
>> god?
>
>Oh Im sorry I am just replying tothe QUESTION YOU ASKED about the evidence I
>posted in the other thread!
>
>I have already replied to the thread topic elsewhere . I have changed the
>topic now so you dont get confused.
>
>>
>>>>I don't deny that god exists - but think
>>>> that it is far more likely that man invented god than god invented
>>>> man.
>>>
>>>do you deny the Higges bozon exists? Ther is no evidence?
>>>How about wormholes or parallel univrses?
>>
>> No. I lack the knowledge to make those statements. We've been
>> over this time and again yet you ask again?
>
>And you can't lack knowledge about God as well?
>
Of course I can. If there was a god, I think the pope would lack
knowledge of god.
>>>
>>>>Atheist just says "no belief in god," not that it is totally
>>>> impossible, just that it is totally unlikely.
>>>
>>>So what? I was arguing about a historical Jesus and not about whether he
>>>was
>>>Christ or God.
>>>Historicity of Jesus and christology are DIFFERENT issues!
>>>
>> Do you believe in god historical or otherwise?
>
>
>ASked and answered.
>You seem reasonable. Had you just arrived and asked I would probably have
>replied but I think i have already demonstrated how ANY reply to that
>question will result in off topic personal attacks in the other thread.
>
Well just between us - you believe in god.
>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>> Agreed. An all knowing omnipotent omniscient god may or may not care.
>>>> This being could just be treating his creation like some form of
>>>> entertainment.
>>>
>>>Yes. That is true. Or that god could also actually care. But Holman
>>>believes
>>>he logically deduced that God must either not care or be unable to act.
>>>
>> Oh, I don't know. Holman can certainly speak for Holman, I can't
>
>I can! That is what he stated.
>Message-ID: <Xns9CC04448044F9...@216.196.97.130>
Snipped a tiny bit off the end there.
You don't think Holman can develop or refine his ideas, or he may have
been misconstrued or mistaken?
Holman strikes me as someone who has more recently figured out
something isn't quite right about religion.
I was indoctrinated from age zero to eighteen. I knew the people
telling me that stuff didn't believe it themselves, but I knew enough
to keep my mouth shut (or I learned quickly enough). For years I
didn't think about it. Then president Bush came along and the
so-called moral majority, and now I'm vociferously anti religion.
I used to think religion was either good or harmless, now I see the
evil it can do. I hate the unmitigated gall of people (my parents
included) that think they have some right to subject children to this
crap before they have learned to reason for themselves. It takes
years to "recover" and I doubt we ever do.
At some point they aught to say that god is only a theory.
--
Mitchell Holman
news:8903i5hun4nd3185e...@4ax.com:
...while ignoring every other biblical verse that
claims just the contrary.
Mitchell Holman
news:9ea89$4b2110fa$bc8d1d47$20...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CDD4578C30A8...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:c32d8$4b20c8fe$bc8d1d47$95...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CDC4E5A130CD...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:bda0e$4b1f6ba3$bc8d1d47$19...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Debate is offering up and proving your OWN claims as
>>>>>> well as debunking the other side.
>>>>>
>>>>> When ther is an argument there! Usually about opinions and not
>>>>> facts!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You mean "facts" like your claims that scientists
>>>> have created diseases?
>>>
>>> Exactly that! If I can't support it I can not claim it is a fact!
>>
>>
>> What do you support?
>
> That logic reason and telling the truth should be applied to
> discussion.
So start by "telling the truth" about whether
you believe in God.
>
>>
>> What do you "claim as fact"?
>
> That your conclusion that "God does not care" does not follow from the
> premise of an all powerfull god who does not intervene to stop
> disasters. It might be that God does not care but it might also be
> some other reason.
WHAT "other reason" is that?
>
>>
>>> Failing to supply support I freely admitted I do not claim it as a
>>> fact I just believe it is possible.
>>>
>>>>That your "Holy" Bible is not
>>>> full of references to unicorns and dragons?
>>>
>>> I never claimed it wasnt!
>>
>>
>>
>> "But your "side" did" as you frequently say when
>> confronting people over claims they did not make.....
>
> If I happened to be on theior side I would say so.
You have admitted to being a Christian.
That pretty much tells us what "side" you are on.
> But I do not agree
> with biblical fundamentalists and claim what they claim about the
> Bible. I have been quite clear about that.
What DO you "agree with"?
> THe people on YOUR dside however hae not been clear wher they differ
> in their positions so as I view it they all agree uttil they tell me
> otherwise just as i told your side otherwise.
What is "my side"?
What is YOUR "side"?
>
>>
>>
>>> I admitted I was aware of one or two
>>> references to Dragons and none to unicorns.
>>> I am quite happy to accepot about 13 references to both.
>>> I never claimed there were none in the bible just that you supplied
>>> none to support you claim they we referred to in the Bible.
>>> "Full of" by the way is relative. A word appearing twenty times in a
>>> book of a one and a half million words is not something I call "full
>>> of".
>>>
>>> Put it this way if you fill a football stadium with 50,000 people
>>> that is about one person in the whole stadium!
>>>
>>>
>>>>> In your case the IS NO logical argument! You can not logically
>>>>> conclude an uncaring God!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whereas you cannot "logically conclude" there is a God at all.
>>>
>>> Diofferent topic.
>>
>>
>> Read the notestream title.
>
> Yes?
> Why are you asking me about whether i believe in god when I am
> addressing historicity of Jesus and specious reasoning that concludes
> god does not care?
>
Now you just being dishonest.
You claimed in every other notestream that your
religious beliefs were "off topic".
So I created one that ON topic.
Do you believe in God?
__yes
__no
>>
>> Do you believe in God?
>
> I believe you have posted logical fallacies about God not caring being
> a valid conclusion.
Evasion noted.
> The fallacy is there no matter whether I believe in God or not,
>>
Do you believe in God?
__yes
__no
>>
>>
>>> One can not conclude
>>> based on the premise that there is a God and the observation of thet
>>> God not interfering
>>> that such a God is uncaring.
>>
>>
>> So what DO you conclude?
>
>
> That one can not make a logical conclusion based on affirming a
> consequent.
Evasion noted.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This notestream is just about whether YOU believe in God.
>>>>
>>>> Why won't you answer that one question?
>>>
>>> I already answered that.
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Nope. I already answered why I won't answer such a question.
You are a Christian who refuses to admit
you believe in God?
How hypocritical is THAT?
>> Do you believe in God?
>
> I already told you - Im not going to say yes or no to that question
> and my personal beliefs are none of your business.
So why are you posting here?
duke
Like you do, default.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
Yep, you atheist wannabes are big about doing that.
Mitchell Holman
news:l8e4i5902eaqvmu42...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:03:39 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in
>>news:8903i5hun4nd3185e...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:01:32 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Full of" by the way is relative. A word appearing twenty times in a
>>>>book of a one and a half million words is not something I call "full
>>>>of".
>>>>
>>>>Put it this way if you fill a football stadium with 50,000 people
>>>>that is about one person in the whole stadium!
>>>
>>> True
>>>
>>> Often the religiously afflicted will take one small biblical verse
>>> and make it the be-all end-all of their faith.
>>
>>
>> ...while ignoring every other biblical verse that
>>claims just the contrary.
>
> Yep, you atheist wannabes are big about doing that.
Oh, look, Duke "God never killed anyone despite what
the Bible says" is back.
Mitchell Holman
news:9ea89$4b2110fa$bc8d1d47$20...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CDD4578C30A8...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:c32d8$4b20c8fe$bc8d1d47$95...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I didnt claim there was a God here!
>>
>>
>> That's why I have been repeatedly asking
>> if you believe in God.
>
> I dont make any such claim that ther is or is not a God.
Isn't that rather contrary to your faith as a Christian?
"No just that my being a christian is nothing to do with the discussion"
MavisBeacon, Christian, Dec 9 2009
default
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>news:9ea89$4b2110fa$bc8d1d47$20...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CDD4578C30A8...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>> news:c32d8$4b20c8fe$bc8d1d47$95...@news.upc.ie:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didnt claim there was a God here!
>>>
>>>
>>> That's why I have been repeatedly asking
>>> if you believe in God.
>>
>> I dont make any such claim that ther is or is not a God.
>
>
>
> Isn't that rather contrary to your faith as a Christian?
>
It is a "sin" in most Christian sects to deny one's faith. It isn't
(technically) a sin to avoid answering the question, which is what
Mavis is doing or will claim. (logic)
Then I guess it just depends on how the big banana in the sky feels on
a particular day as to whether he will adhere to the idea of
technicalities in his laws or decide the "intent" is wrong.
Some sects do go one further and add the idea of mandatory
proselytizing (every believer's duty to be a missionary). It would be
a piece of cake for the Christian attorney/theologian to slide it by
as a clever ruse to inject Christianity while still denying any
personal involvement. They would be manipulating us weak-brained
atheists into believing, by making us think we thought of it
ourselves.
Clever, and dishonest by my standards.
>
>"No just that my being a christian is nothing to do with the discussion"
>MavisBeacon, Christian, Dec 9 2009
>
She's really made little effort to conceal her bias, in spite of the
proclamations to the contrary.
--
default
Works for them. Mavis in imposing rules that don't allow atheists to
use the same methods as zealots. And we shouldn't -or we become just
like them.
--
ar...@hobbiton.net
wrote:
Your pigeon-holing ignores the various college or university
disciplines and degree levels which include studies of comparative
religious beliefs. You can find such courses in undergraduate
programmes focusing on literature (any period), history, sociology and
education.
>>>>> If there was such a thing as a "consensus," among religions there
>>>>> wouldn't be many religions around.
>>>>
>>>>You are mixing up what religious believers believe with academic standards
>>>>for publication in journals of theology or philosophy for example.
>>>>
>>> I'm just trying to see where "peer review" fits into religion is all.
>>> I understand peer review in science but not religion.
>>
>>You are limiting all knowledge to scientific knowledge.
>>Most journals are not science journals.
>
>I would certainly question the value of knowing about the care and
>feeding of unicorns. I love fiction, but its primary value is
>entertainment. (although good author will research his work, and one
>may learn while being entertained).
T. H. White, for example. He has a lot to say about unicorns.
Most of the people we encounter who hold doctorates are PhDs, yes --
or sometimes the same degree is written DPhil -- and it's "Doctor of
Philosophy" in some special subject or other. Sometimes, particle
physics.
But there are other flavours and labels for doctorates which avoid
using the word 'philosophy.'
Medicine, obviously. Dental Medicine, and Veterinary Medicine. Law
(JD meaning something other than juvenile delinquent for once, or LLD
in other countries), Business Administration (DBA, the step beyond the
MBA), Public Administration, Science (DSc), Engineering (DEng),
Education (remember Bill Cosby?), Computer Science, Information
Technology .... and the list goes on.
Oh, yeah -- let's not forget ThD (Doctor of Theology).
>>>>>If there was such a thing as
>>>>> consensus among philosophers, they probably wouldn't be calling it
>>>>> philosophy.
>>>>
>>>>There IS such a thing as academic journals dealing with philosophy.
>>>>Plenty
>>>>of them in fact.
>>>
>>> Lots of journals for philosophers? Amazing.
>>
>>Philosophy of education, philosophy of sciuence , philosophy of science
>>teaching. If you see epistemology or ontology oin the title they really mat
>>be getting self indulgent Synthese -An International Journal for
>>Epistemology,
>>Principia is a philosophical journal that publishes papers on contemporary
>>epistemology
>>
>I see. That falls under the heading of mental masturbation IMO.
I have some experience with one or two such journals. They are
written by experts in a given field, and for other experts in the same
or closely related fields. To anyone outside the target field the
journals are bound to appear at least abstruse and, very possibly,
inbred.
>>>>>>You know things like Jesus being as reasonable to assume as others in
>>>>>>history?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't get the sentence. Could you rephrase it?
>>>>
>>>>Yes but I won't!
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reasonable? "Miracles" are not reasonable. Can they be historical?
>>>>
>>>>They can be explained with reason. History is just that - a story. It is
>>>>not the past. History is a map.
>>>
>>> History, to me, implies a factual account of what happened in the
>>> past.
>>
>>No you could have a false history. It isd pnly the map. the past is the
>>territory. One can posit ther never is a 100 per cent accurate map. Even
>>then two conflicting hiostories can be describing the same event. FOr
>>example the American and Japenese histories of Pearl Harbour. but the raid
>>did happen none the less.
>
>I don't buy that. Maybe it is a semantic difference - to me history
>is factual. A history could have some mistakes in it, but when it is
>deliberately worked over to include false statements, or embellished
>with wishful ideas, etc. it should not be called history but either
>myth or legend or lies.
Alas, professional historians won't agree with you. What you may call
wishful ideas may, to the professional, be interpretation. False
statements, and invented facts and quotations are, of course, severely
frowned upon.
>That's where King Arthur, Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn, Attila
>the Hun, and the Bible reside. Interesting sure, factual no.
I hope you mean the great, confusing miasma of fanciful embellishments
which surround most of the people on that list.
There is no question of the historical existence of Alexander the
Great, Genghis Khan, and a Hun chieftain whose name has come down to
us as 'Attila.' But they have all been given the Hollywood treatment.
Perhaps that's what you mean when you call then legendary?
You've just thrown out a lively field of enterprise for the
professional historian -- the investigation of causes and effects of a
single, undisputable event.
Google 'Causes of World War I' and see what you get.
An event can be considered 'major' for a lot of reasons. Cost in
lives or treasure are obvious. But beyond that we get very quickly
into related areas which grown increasingly open to interpretation,
and finally rely entirely on interpretation.
Reduce a major event to a self-contained string of facts and you might
as well be taking an inventory of the contents of a warehouse without
bothering to investigate the ownership of the building, the ownership
of its contents, why said contents were placed there. how they were
made, what impact did their existence have on the surrounding society
... see what I mean?
>>> Some parts of legends might be historical,
>>
>>Let us be clear by "historical" you probably mean "factual"
>>All legends are historical.
>
>Again with the absolute statements. How can you live with that? For
>instance the only accurate part of the "Legend of Sleepy Hollow,"
>there is a town called Sleepy Hollow. That doesn't make the legend
>historical though. The legend is still fiction.
Dear Mavis is being somewhat technical, here, methinks -- much as I
was being when dealing with the slug some while ago (until I got bored
with him).
'History' was, formerly (I had better say 'originally), a written
record. Technology has expanded the acceptable sources of history to
include such things as recorded sound, photographic evidence both
still and moving, surviving architecture and monuments, and artifacts
discovered through archaeological investigations.
But it remains, to the professional, a field which pays special
attention to the written word.
The Legend of Sleepy Hollow may not be based on facts; but the writing
itself is now a fact, and thus it has become a part of history.
Paul Bunyan came out of folk tales from many parts of North America --
but the legend of the man has entered North American history.
You had to have been there, sir, when this got started.
Several people -- mostly habitual residents of alt.atheism --
responded to a troll in the enormous thread, "God created a weight so
heavy that not even He could lift it."
I'm sure you recognize that subject line as a small variation on the
now somewhat tired question atheists used to throw at simplistic
theists -- Can God create a weight so heavy not even He can lift it?
Loaded question, of course -- an omnipotent deity can both create an
infinite weight and lift it. But it's hard for the simplistic to
reconcile both actions in one 'omnipotent' being.
The lads from alt.atheism were amusing themselves, poking sharpened
sticks at one or two theists who blundered into the thread.
Some old chestnuts were tossed about regarding deities and their
followers.
With most of the contributors coming from North America, the deity
holding preponderance among believers in our society was dragged in by
proxy when that deity's followers were named: Christians.
It was about this time that Mavis joined in.
Dear Mavis started taking references to Christians as references to
the figure identified as 'Christ' and went on to make a direct
reference to Jesus.
It was suggested by one of the alt.atheism regulars that Jesus was as
imaginary as Superman.
From there, it became a running and ever-expanding challenge -- mainly
to get Mavis to support her claim that there was evidence for the man,
Jesus, in history.
Mavis did twist and squirm -- warping the definition of
'contemporary,' ignoring objections that any evidence to Jesus had to
be written since there was nothing in architecture or archaeology, and
interpolating words into the demands of opponents for 'contemporary
evidence' or 'written evidence' until he/she convinced him/herself
that we who disagreed with her had claimed 'abundant contemporaneous
written evidence' about some undeniably historical figures he/she had
introduced as a red herring.
You were busy engaging Mavis in another thread while all this was
going on, sir.
You can find the whole thread on Google groups:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.recovery.catholicism/browse_frm/thread/7e7e81f5072501f4#
Mavis enters at message 49, responding to Mitchell Holman.
<remainder snipped>
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:9ea89$4b2110fa$bc8d1d47$20...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CDD4578C30A8...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>> news:c32d8$4b20c8fe$bc8d1d47$95...@news.upc.ie:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didnt claim there was a God here!
>>>
>>>
>>> That's why I have been repeatedly asking
>>> if you believe in God.
>>
>> I dont make any such claim that ther is or is not a God.
>
>
>
> Isn't that rather contrary to your faith as a Christian?
If I am one the answer is NO it isn't!
Christians are not bound to preach.
And I certainly dont want to work against the house will in the FAQ.
>
>
> "No just that my being a christian is nothing to do with the discussion"
> MavisBeacon, Christian, Dec 9 2009
You left out the words which immediately follow!
You know the ones saying about it isnt just my being a non believer either?
Mavisbeacon
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:15:50 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>news:9ea89$4b2110fa$bc8d1d47$20...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CDD4578C30A8...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:c32d8$4b20c8fe$bc8d1d47$95...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I didnt claim there was a God here!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's why I have been repeatedly asking
>>>> if you believe in God.
>>>
>>> I dont make any such claim that ther is or is not a God.
>>
>>
>>
>> Isn't that rather contrary to your faith as a Christian?
>>
> It is a "sin" in most Christian sects to deny one's faith.
You seem to be getting the logic confused as usual.
If true it is a case odf not broadcasting or maybe not admitting but
certainly not denial!
[snip]
> Some sects do go one further and add the idea of mandatory
> proselytizing (every believer's duty to be a missionary).
Or even go the opposite way and forbit it - like Judaism.
>>
>>"No just that my being a christian is nothing to do with the discussion"
>>MavisBeacon, Christian, Dec 9 2009
>>
yu left out the words which follow. What are they?
>
> She's really made little effort to conceal her bias, in spite of the
> proclamations to the contrary.
I diorfnt claim I was a christian or not. I didnt claim I was or was not a
woman.
Mavisbeacon
> Works for them. Mavis in imposing rules that don't allow atheists to
> use the same methods as zealots. And we shouldn't -or we become just
> like them.
No all i am insisting is that logic is the same. One plus one is still two
even if you claim it is three and abundant contemporaneous written evidence
for Alexander still doesnt exist even if you claim it does.
default
Not at all. I specifically mention comparative religious beliefs and
would put any study of them under psychology, or philosophy, or
anthropology.
A peer reviewed study within a single religion - that I find harder to
understand. Usually dogma kicks in and people aren't supposed to form
opinions but go to the church elders for "guidance."
>
>>>>>> If there was such a thing as a "consensus," among religions there
>>>>>> wouldn't be many religions around.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are mixing up what religious believers believe with academic standards
>>>>>for publication in journals of theology or philosophy for example.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm just trying to see where "peer review" fits into religion is all.
>>>> I understand peer review in science but not religion.
>>>
>>>You are limiting all knowledge to scientific knowledge.
>>>Most journals are not science journals.
>>
>>I would certainly question the value of knowing about the care and
>>feeding of unicorns. I love fiction, but its primary value is
>>entertainment. (although good author will research his work, and one
>>may learn while being entertained).
>
>T. H. White, for example. He has a lot to say about unicorns.
Indeed.
Thanks.
>
>>>>>>If there was such a thing as
>>>>>> consensus among philosophers, they probably wouldn't be calling it
>>>>>> philosophy.
>>>>>
>>>>>There IS such a thing as academic journals dealing with philosophy.
>>>>>Plenty
>>>>>of them in fact.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of journals for philosophers? Amazing.
>>>
>>>Philosophy of education, philosophy of sciuence , philosophy of science
>>>teaching. If you see epistemology or ontology oin the title they really mat
>>>be getting self indulgent Synthese -An International Journal for
>>>Epistemology,
>>>Principia is a philosophical journal that publishes papers on contemporary
>>>epistemology
>>>
>>I see. That falls under the heading of mental masturbation IMO.
>
>I have some experience with one or two such journals. They are
>written by experts in a given field, and for other experts in the same
>or closely related fields. To anyone outside the target field the
>journals are bound to appear at least abstruse and, very possibly,
>inbred.
Appear? or be inbred (abstruse is assumed)
Yes. I wouldn't certainly not deny them a place in history, but they
do tend to be sensationalized to the point where I don't know what is
true.
I get your point. Within the context of historicity of Jesus, I'd be
interested in knowing your own take on him arjay - and the truth
worthiness of the sources.
>
>>>> Some parts of legends might be historical,
>>>
>>>Let us be clear by "historical" you probably mean "factual"
>>>All legends are historical.
>>
>>Again with the absolute statements. How can you live with that? For
>>instance the only accurate part of the "Legend of Sleepy Hollow,"
>>there is a town called Sleepy Hollow. That doesn't make the legend
>>historical though. The legend is still fiction.
>
>Dear Mavis is being somewhat technical, here, methinks -- much as I
>was being when dealing with the slug some while ago (until I got bored
>with him).
>'History' was, formerly (I had better say 'originally), a written
>record. Technology has expanded the acceptable sources of history to
>include such things as recorded sound, photographic evidence both
>still and moving, surviving architecture and monuments, and artifacts
>discovered through archaeological investigations.
>But it remains, to the professional, a field which pays special
>attention to the written word.
>The Legend of Sleepy Hollow may not be based on facts; but the writing
>itself is now a fact, and thus it has become a part of history.
>Paul Bunyan came out of folk tales from many parts of North America --
>but the legend of the man has entered North American history.
>
The legend's existence is history, but the legend itself may be
entirely fiction and not history. No argument with that idea.
Tell me arjay, have you been following that entire thread ?
Mavis is juggling too many individual responders to keep them all
straight herself. We are skirmishing and she's waging battle.
--
duke
Hmmm, that makes no sense, but then again, you never do.
Mitchell Holman
news:6d50c$4b22a65a$bc8d1d47$10...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> news:2gm4i5dkg8ghmjph0...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:03:39 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>[snip]
>> Works for them. Mavis in imposing rules that don't allow atheists to
>> use the same methods as zealots. And we shouldn't -or we become just
>> like them.
>
>
> No all i am insisting is that logic is the same.
The logic that has demanding people prove up
claims they never made because someone else "on
their side" did?
What "side" are YOU on?
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:9ea89$4b2110fa$bc8d1d47$20...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CDD4578C30A8...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>> news:c32d8$4b20c8fe$bc8d1d47$95...@news.upc.ie:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9CDC4E5A130CD...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>>> news:bda0e$4b1f6ba3$bc8d1d47$19...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Debate is offering up and proving your OWN claims as
>>>>>>> well as debunking the other side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When ther is an argument there! Usually about opinions and not
>>>>>> facts!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean "facts" like your claims that scientists
>>>>> have created diseases?
>>>>
>>>> Exactly that! If I can't support it I can not claim it is a fact!
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you support?
>>
>> That logic reason and telling the truth should be applied to
>> discussion.
>
>
> So start by "telling the truth" about whether
> you believe in God.
If thAT WAS WHAT i WAS DISCUSSING i WOULD!
I just dont happen to be discussing my persoanl beliefs here.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> What do you "claim as fact"?
>>
>> That your conclusion that "God does not care" does not follow from the
>> premise of an all powerfull god who does not intervene to stop
>> disasters. It might be that God does not care but it might also be
>> some other reason.
>
>
> WHAT "other reason" is that?
Well there are several
1. god does care
2. God cares sometimes and not other times
3. several gods working sometimes against and sometimes for a common purpose
4. gods of limited powers
5. even more other reasons
I just picked the christian version of how mainstream Christians view God.
>>
>>>
>>>> Failing to supply support I freely admitted I do not claim it as a
>>>> fact I just believe it is possible.
>>>>
>>>>>That your "Holy" Bible is not
>>>>> full of references to unicorns and dragons?
>>>>
>>>> I never claimed it wasnt!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "But your "side" did" as you frequently say when
>>> confronting people over claims they did not make.....
>>
>> If I happened to be on theior side I would say so.
>
>
> You have admitted to being a Christian.
No I havent! You picked out a comment and ignored the sentence following it.
> That pretty much tells us what "side" you are on.
You r bias is showing. I am on the siode of empirical evidence objective
truth and logic and reason.
>
>> But I do not agree
>> with biblical fundamentalists and claim what they claim about the
>> Bible. I have been quite clear about that.
>
>
> What DO you "agree with"?
Logic honesty and reason.
>
>
>> THe people on YOUR dside however hae not been clear wher they differ
>> in their positions so as I view it they all agree uttil they tell me
>> otherwise just as i told your side otherwise.
>
>
> What is "my side"?
the side that claims two things
1. that ther is no evidence for Jesus in hostory as opposed to other people
like alexander and Socrates for which ther is abundant contemporaneous
written evidence
2. That God eoither doesn not care or is not omnipotent.
>
> What is YOUR "side"?
The side that dispiutes the truth of 1 and 2
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I admitted I was aware of one or two
>>>> references to Dragons and none to unicorns.
>>>> I am quite happy to accepot about 13 references to both.
>>>> I never claimed there were none in the bible just that you supplied
>>>> none to support you claim they we referred to in the Bible.
>>>> "Full of" by the way is relative. A word appearing twenty times in a
>>>> book of a one and a half million words is not something I call "full
>>>> of".
>>>>
>>>> Put it this way if you fill a football stadium with 50,000 people
>>>> that is about one person in the whole stadium!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> In your case the IS NO logical argument! You can not logically
>>>>>> conclude an uncaring God!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whereas you cannot "logically conclude" there is a God at all.
>>>>
>>>> Diofferent topic.
>>>
>>>
>>> Read the notestream title.
>>
>> Yes?
>> Why are you asking me about whether i believe in god when I am
>> addressing historicity of Jesus and specious reasoning that concludes
>> god does not care?
>>
>
> Now you just being dishonest.
How so?
>
> You claimed in every other notestream that your
> religious beliefs were "off topic".
Yes.
>
> So I created one that ON topic.
And i reserved the right to post to that thread and say "none of your
business"
>
> Do you believe in God?
>
> __yes
>
> __no
None of your business.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Do you believe in God?
>>
>> I believe you have posted logical fallacies about God not caring being
>> a valid conclusion.
>
>
> Evasion noted.
Yes note my evasion because I am happy to state they you asking my personal
beliefs are nothing to do with you supporting your claims and none of your
business and my persoanl opinions are off topic and i am happy to evade
anyone asking about them.
>
>> The fallacy is there no matter whether I believe in God or not,
>>>
[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>> One can not conclude
>>>> based on the premise that there is a God and the observation of thet
>>>> God not interfering
>>>> that such a God is uncaring.
>>>
>>>
>>> So what DO you conclude?
>>
>>
>> That one can not make a logical conclusion based on affirming a
>> consequent.
>
>
> Evasion noted.
I dint evade there! I posted a clearly reasonable statement.,
> >>>> This notestream is just about whether YOU believe in God.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why won't you answer that one question?
>>>>
>>>> I already answered that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Nope. I already answered why I won't answer such a question.
>
>
> You are a Christian who refuses to admit
> you believe in God?
I aleady answered why my personal beliefs wont be discussed.
>
> How hypocritical is THAT?
how hypocritical is any fallacious conclusion?
>>> Do you believe in God?
>>
>> I already told you - Im not going to say yes or no to that question
>> and my personal beliefs are none of your business.
>
>
> So why are you posting here?
I am addressing historicity of Jesus and specious reasoning that concludes
god does not care.
Mavisbeacon
<ar...@hobbiton.net> wrote in message
news:4tt4i558ekim43e9p...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:44:03 -0500, default <def...@defaulter.net>
> wrote:
>>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:52:18 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>><Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:40irh5l1j29o3b8m0...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 03:05:19 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:qtgqh5tlp9ujbv0u6...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:19:56 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip
>>
>>How important is it that Jesus is historical? Where does that go?
>>What does that prove? Why (or) is it important?
>
> You had to have been there, sir, when this got started.
> Several people -- mostly habitual residents of alt.atheism --
> responded to a troll in the enormous thread, "God created a weight so
> heavy that not even He could lift it."
> I'm sure you recognize that subject line as a small variation on the
> now somewhat tired question atheists used to throw at simplistic
> theists -- Can God create a weight so heavy not even He can lift it?
> Loaded question, of course -- an omnipotent deity can both create an
> infinite weight and lift it. But it's hard for the simplistic to
> reconcile both actions in one 'omnipotent' being.
> The lads from alt.atheism were amusing themselves, poking sharpened
> sticks at one or two theists who blundered into the thread.
> Some old chestnuts were tossed about regarding deities and their
> followers.
> With most of the contributors coming from North America, the deity
> holding preponderance among believers in our society was dragged in by
> proxy when that deity's followers were named: Christians.
> It was about this time that Mavis joined in.
I wont comment on anything before I posted except the message to which I was
posting
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:35:09 -0600
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.religion.christianity.hypocrisy,alt.atheism.satire,alt.recovery.catholicism,alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: God created a weight so heavy that not even He could lift it
From: Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130>
Where he claimed :
Either God is not capable of preventing
tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
he WANTS tragedy to happen.
MY direct reply was:
Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole option
left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
> Dear Mavis started taking references to Christians as references to
> the figure identified as 'Christ' and went on to make a direct
> reference to Jesus.
This is a false history unsupported by evidence.
I was replying to the question " Are you saying God cannot control
events?" aqsked by Holman.
The answer might be different if you were a pagan or believed in gods with
limited powers or uncaring Gods.
I have already pointed out there were other options.
So rather than go throught all of them I took an example familiar to
Christians
The example was of Christ ( who Christians believe is God) choosing not to
control events.
I showed why for example this might happen and the reason NOt be that God
does not care:
ME In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
happening
then people could not do the same as him could they?
How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
position?
> It was suggested by one of the alt.atheism regulars that Jesus was as
> imaginary as Superman.
Not true they asked a question about Superman as being more important to
ask.
They did not suggest Jesus was as imaginary.
Until I pointed out
ME Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
> super powers.
They then asserted Superman as imaginary as Jesus. I hadnt made any claims
abnout Jesus being real or imaginary uup to this point
just that if he was real then certain assumtions were there just as they had
assumed that God being real as a premise.
Of all the OTHER POSSIBILITIES this christian one was just one whereas they
were claiming that there was only one possibility - the uncaring God one.
Now i pointed out in this possibility Jesus WAS different because he isnt
allowed to use super powers like superman can.
> From there, it became a running and ever-expanding challenge -- mainly
> to get Mavis to support her claim that there was evidence for the man,
> Jesus, in history.
Nope. The other person claimed Jesus was an imaginary figure in history just
like superman.
I pointed out Jesus was DIFFERENT in two aspectws
1. in terms of the example jesus chooses not to use superpowers even if he
has them
2. historicity of the real live person Jesus is in fact a valid academic
fioeld Historicity of Clark Kent isnt!
> Mavis did twist and squirm -- warping the definition of
> 'contemporary,'
Wrong!
Right from the start I asked wht they meant by "contemporary Evidence" i
never warped it!
> ignoring objections that any evidence to Jesus had to
> be written since there was nothing in architecture or archaeology,
I have shown this to be untrue by showing "Christian" Graffitti from Rome
>and
> interpolating words into the demands of opponents for 'contemporary
> evidence' or 'written evidence' until he/she convinced him/herself
> that we who disagreed with her had claimed 'abundant contemporaneous
> written evidence' about some undeniably historical figures he/she had
> introduced as a red herring.
I clearly stated that Jesus was as likely in hoistory as others such as
socrates or Alexander.
the reply to me was that ther was "abundant contemporaneous writings about
Alexander and Socrates"
There arent!
Yo arjaty then arrived and claimed on Josephus :
"that the Testimonium
Flavianum itself has been suspect for roughly three hundred years and
has now been overwhelmingly judged to be a forgery"
But you ignored the OTHER Johephus "james the brother of jesus" Josephus
piece!
You even stated:
The excerpt from the writings
attributed to Flavius Josephus which was under discussion was the
so-called Testimonium Flavianum, and nothing else.
And in spite the TF being vchanged scholars agree ti referred to a man
(Jesus) but was changed to reflect a King or superman or God ( Christ)
The whole thing was not made up just that the persoan crusified during
pilates time was The Christ.
ar...@hobbiton.net
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:01:01 -0500, ar...@hobbiton.net wrote:
>>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:44:03 -0500, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>>wrote:
>>>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:52:18 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>><Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:40irh5l1j29o3b8m0...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 03:05:19 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:qtgqh5tlp9ujbv0u6...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:19:56 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>>>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip
<another snip>
>>>I think we have a communications problem. I would put a study of
>>>comparative religious beliefs under the headings of philosophy or
>>>psychology - not strictly speaking a peer reviewed study of a religion
>>>or a religious belief - but comparing many beliefs.
>>
>>Your pigeon-holing ignores the various college or university
>>disciplines and degree levels which include studies of comparative
>>religious beliefs. You can find such courses in undergraduate
>>programmes focusing on literature (any period), history, sociology and
>>education.
>
>Not at all. I specifically mention comparative religious beliefs and
>would put any study of them under psychology, or philosophy, or
>anthropology.
Again, such pigeon-holing is somewhat arbitrary and ignores the
various practices of degree-granting institutions.
And I was less than clear.
Courses on comparative religion need not delve into a comparison of
beliefs beyond noting major differences between or among them; rarely
will they attempt to evaluate those beliefs, unless the course is
offered by an avowedly sectarian section of a Faculty of
Religion/Theology.
And comparative religion courses are offered in some institutions
which do not have (and by charter may not have) a Department/Faculty
of Religion/Theology. When there is no Faculty of Anthropology they
are frequently offered under the umbrella of the Faculty of History.
>A peer reviewed study within a single religion - that I find harder to
>understand. Usually dogma kicks in and people aren't supposed to form
>opinions but go to the church elders for "guidance."
Usually, perhaps -- especially the more recent studies which focus on
Xianity.
But sometimes a single religion (and its offshoots) must be studied if
one is to get a complete picture of quite a different field -- such as
African studies, Assyriology (the distant past mined to establish and
demonstrate historical and cultural continuities in places like Iraq),
and -- let us never forget -- Egyptology.
>>>>>>> If there was such a thing as a "consensus," among religions there
>>>>>>> wouldn't be many religions around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are mixing up what religious believers believe with academic standards
>>>>>>for publication in journals of theology or philosophy for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just trying to see where "peer review" fits into religion is all.
>>>>> I understand peer review in science but not religion.
>>>>
>>>>You are limiting all knowledge to scientific knowledge.
>>>>Most journals are not science journals.
>>>
>>>I would certainly question the value of knowing about the care and
>>>feeding of unicorns. I love fiction, but its primary value is
>>>entertainment. (although good author will research his work, and one
>>>may learn while being entertained).
>>
>>T. H. White, for example. He has a lot to say about unicorns.
>
>Indeed.
But he never told us how it happened that the unicorn's cranial spike
was neither horn nor bone, i.e. an antler, but _ivory_.
>>>The question then becomes a definition of "knowledge." If you know
>>>something that isn't so . . . you have "knowledge," even if it may be
>>>flawed and worthless.
>>>
>>>I think academics frequently engage in what, for lack of a better
>>>descriptor, I would call mental masturbation. It is fun to consider
>>>the unlikely or totally ridiculous, and has value to keep one's mind
>>>nimble and sharp, but it shouldn't be confused with science unless
>>>you've got hard facts.
>>>>
>>>>>I don't buy
>>>>> into the idea that theology is a science
>>>>
>>>>I didnt claim it was but it can be scientifically studied and the
>>>>historicity of Jesus ios a valid academic persuit.
>>>
>>>OK. So what is known? What part of Jesus can be corroborated in,
>>>say, municipal records (tax records, birth/death records, wills, sales
>>>receipts, trial transcripts, or other documents of an official
>>>nature)? Something that isn't part of the legend (gospels).
You noticed, I assume, that your question went unanswered by Mavis?
<snip>
>>>>> Lots of journals for philosophers? Amazing.
>>>>
>>>>Philosophy of education, philosophy of sciuence , philosophy of science
>>>>teaching. If you see epistemology or ontology oin the title they really mat
>>>>be getting self indulgent Synthese -An International Journal for
>>>>Epistemology,
>>>>Principia is a philosophical journal that publishes papers on contemporary
>>>>epistemology
>>>>
>>>I see. That falls under the heading of mental masturbation IMO.
>>
>>I have some experience with one or two such journals. They are
>>written by experts in a given field, and for other experts in the same
>>or closely related fields. To anyone outside the target field the
>>journals are bound to appear at least abstruse and, very possibly,
>>inbred.
>
>Appear? or be inbred (abstruse is assumed)
Appear, sir. To a diminishing number of people who belong to the
indigenous societies of the upper Amazon, the function, structure and
composition of a flashlight battery is impossibly abstruse. But _you_
know what it does, how it works and how it is made ... don't you?
The abstrusity of a thing or area of investigation is in the
puzzlement of the beholder.
And any journal written by an expert for other experts can be so
exclusively restricted to references within its own field as to appear
inbred. A paper on disorders of the aqueous humour of the human
eyeball is unlikely to mention astronomy.
<snip>
Take this much as true: Alexander the Great was nothing like Colin
Farrell; Julius Caesar did not resemble Louis Calherne; Genghis Khan
did not look like Omar Sharif or John Wayne; no Ukrainian Cossack ever
looked like Tony Curtis.
<snip>
>>>We have words like history legend and myth to describe the level of
>>>deviation from the truth. If the US and Japan write about Pearl
>>>Harbor from different perspectives, that is political agenda steering
>>>the story away from a "history," and towards some agenda serving end.
>>>It stops being history and becomes a politically expedient tale or lie
>>>or falsehood.
>>
>>You've just thrown out a lively field of enterprise for the
>>professional historian -- the investigation of causes and effects of a
>>single, undisputable event.
>>Google 'Causes of World War I' and see what you get.
>>
>>An event can be considered 'major' for a lot of reasons. Cost in
>>lives or treasure are obvious. But beyond that we get very quickly
>>into related areas which grown increasingly open to interpretation,
>>and finally rely entirely on interpretation.
>>Reduce a major event to a self-contained string of facts and you might
>>as well be taking an inventory of the contents of a warehouse without
>>bothering to investigate the ownership of the building, the ownership
>>of its contents, why said contents were placed there. how they were
>>made, what impact did their existence have on the surrounding society
>>... see what I mean?
>
>I get your point. Within the context of historicity of Jesus, I'd be
>interested in knowing your own take on him arjay - and the truth
>worthiness of the sources.
I mistrust all surviving sources referring directly to the man, and
not to his followers, precisely because they are only anecdotal
accounts, never from eyewitnesses or even third-party writings
inscribed by someone who could reasonably be called a contemporary of
the man.
I reject the NT entirely as an historical record, and challenge its
honesty in it main effort of convincing me that Yeshua/Jesse/Jesus had
any supra-human qualities.
BUT -- and this may surprise you -- I accept the probability of the
existence of the man himself.
There may once have been mentions of the man in certain records, Roman
or Jewish. But to the Romans he would have been a political danger, a
possible fomenter of rebellion and an annoying gadfly who might
threaten the public peace of a Roman province. The Romans would have
dealt with him in their usual summary way with such people, and they
need not have made much about it in any records they may have kept.
(It's not insignificant that even the NT has the man dispatched as one
of several convicted criminals, and not accorded an individual
execution -- as tradition tells us happened with Paul of Tarsus and
Simon Peter.)
If there once were records of the storied trial of Jesus they would
have been kept in the enormous complex of Jerusalem's Second Temple.
And if they did exist there we can't be surprised if they didn't
survive the destruction of the Temple by the Romans under Titus.
What makes it easy for me to accept the probability that there was
once a man onto whom the transcendent characteristics of 'the Christ'
were grafted is the simple fact that the Romans never tried to claim
he never existed.
They dealt with Xians in various ways, some of them harsh. But they
never denied the existence of the man himself -- an approach which
would have been open to them had they any grounds to take it.
Jesus as a man, an itinerant mystic and rabbi in a time rife with
Messianic expectations -- quite likely, it seems to me.
Jesus as a deity incarnate? No.
I find it significant that while the Gospels report the man as calling
himself a 'Son of Man' and a 'Son of God' he is _never_ reported as
claiming he is the _only_ 'Son of God.'
I'll go along with the implicit meaning of the greeting gesture
pactised by Hindus and members of some other South Asian sects: palms
clasped as if in the Xian posture of prayer, with a nod or bow in the
direction of the person being greeted.
Joseph Campbell once translated that gesture as meaning "I salute the
god within you."
Jesus as 'Son of God?' So are we all, in that we all possess what
poets have often called the divine spark.
<snip>
Not with much devotion in the past week or so. Seasonal distractions,
weather-related, have taken priority.
>Mavis is juggling too many individual responders to keep them all
>straight herself.
That much is clear, and neither of us is alone in observing it.
>We are skirmishing and she's waging battle.
Mavis responds in a manner which often hints strongly to me of a
certain underlying condition. But this is probably not the place to
declare which condition I mean.
He/she can be very prickly, seeing ad hominems where none were
intended, using them him/herself while denying having done so.
I tried offering some survival tips for Usenet posters and was
labelled a net cop.
I like your metaphor. Here's another:
Mavis thinks it's a chess game while everyone else is playing poker --
with no one declaring which type of poker he is playing.
ar...@hobbiton.net
But no one does, Mavis dear. No one but you ever placed that string
of qualifiers -- "abundant contemporaneous written" -- before the word
"evidence" when referring to Alexander.
You can't demand others support a claim they never made.
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
One plus one does equal two, or it depends on your counting system.
As for Alexander? I don't remember making any claims about
contemporary writings.
I do think there would be a much better chance of finding some
relatively unbiased records for Alexander's life than Jesus'. I don't
think it likely that you can move, supply and equip an army, appoint
governors, etc., without leaving a record.
--
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Often the religiously afflicted will take one small biblical verse and
> >> make it the be-all end-all of their faith.
> >
> >
> > ...while ignoring every other biblical verse that
> >claims just the contrary.
>
> Yep, you atheist wannabes are big about doing that.
On the contrary, we atheists and wannabes are quite sensitive to to the
myriad of internal contradictions in your allegedly holy book.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Oh, look, Duke "God never killed anyone despite what
> >the Bible says" is back.
>
> Hmmm, that makes no sense, but then again, you never do.
While he who miscalls himself "Duke" seldom makes any sense, those who
criticize him usually do.
Mitchell Holman
news:88056$4b22e9f5$bc8d1d47$3...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CDDD7E0BC8BF...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:9ea89$4b2110fa$bc8d1d47$20...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you "claim as fact"?
>>>
>>> That your conclusion that "God does not care" does not follow from
>>> the premise of an all powerfull god who does not intervene to stop
>>> disasters. It might be that God does not care but it might also be
>>> some other reason.
>>
>>
>> WHAT "other reason" is that?
>
> Well there are several
>
> 1. god does care
Killing thousands of people show He cares?
> 2. God cares sometimes and not other times
So God is fickle?
> 3. several gods working sometimes against and sometimes for a common
> purpose
There are multiple gods?
Then the Pagans were right all along.
> 4. gods of limited powers
Kinda like the Norse pantheon.
> 5. even more other reasons
Keep going, we are listening.........
>
> I just picked the christian version of how mainstream Christians view
> God.
Tell us how YOU view God.
>
>>
>> Do you believe in God?
>>
>> __yes
>>
>> __no
>
> None of your business.
Too late.
"No just that my being a christian is nothing to
do with the discussion of the historicity of Jesus
or the claim that God must be uncaring."
MavisBeacon, admitted Christian, 12/09/09
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didnt claim there was a God here!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why I have been repeatedly asking
>>>>> if you believe in God.
>>>>
>>>> I dont make any such claim that ther is or is not a God.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that rather contrary to your faith as a Christian?
>>>
>> It is a "sin" in most Christian sects to deny one's faith.
>
>
>You seem to be getting the logic confused as usual.
>
No. Denial of "religious faith" is a "sin." Religious doctrine is
about as far from logic as one gets.
>If true it is a case odf not broadcasting or maybe not admitting but
>certainly not denial!
Understood. You are going for the gambit I predicted.
>
>[snip]
>> Some sects do go one further and add the idea of mandatory
>> proselytizing (every believer's duty to be a missionary).
>
>
>Or even go the opposite way and forbit it - like Judaism.
Jews are a strange bunch. They are so brainwashed into the concept of
being chosen by god almighty, amongst all other peoples of the earth,
that they feed on the exclusivity, being chosen confers. Snob appeal.
>
>>>
>>>"No just that my being a christian is nothing to do with the discussion"
>>>MavisBeacon, Christian, Dec 9 2009
>>>
>yu left out the words which follow. What are they?
>
I didn't make that quote.
>>
>> She's really made little effort to conceal her bias, in spite of the
>> proclamations to the contrary.
>
>I diorfnt claim I was a christian or not. I didnt claim I was or was not a
>woman.
>
You have been most vociferous on that score, no one would deny that.
But your bias and one or two slips contradict that idea
It is also inconsistent to drop into Alt atheism and recovery
Catholicism - since, in the case of atheism at least, questions about
Jesus become moot. Might be interesting to ponder an idea of the
historicity of Jesus, but that wouldn't make him a god.
One might recover from being Catholic and still remain religious or
even Christian.
Woman or man? I was intrigued by that question. Normally gender is
somewhat easier to discern from the perspectives and biases one
presents. Your use of logic is masculine, your ability to keep your
cool, or maybe the way you seem able to regroup and come back for
more, seems more feminine.
I see you as a Catholic woman.
You may, and will, deny that.
--
Mavisbeacon
No! All i stated when several of you are arguing against me and posting and
mixing the same material of each other in your replies that you state if you
are on the side of the other people. FOr example I am arguing agianst
1. It is logically proven that if god exists then God does not care
and
2. There is abundant contemporaneous writings about alexander the Great asn
Socrates.
If you post on 1 or support 1 but also include material about 2 or post in
reply to the person who claims 2 withut actually saying you support 2 all I
want from you is to say that
Either you support the person claiming 2 or you don't support 2 . If you do
not support 2 you do not support the position of the person claiming 2 and I
have no beef with you about 2.
In such a manner I have clarified that I do not claim or support any
argument about Biblical fundamentalism. I am not "ON THEIR SIDE" because i
have speciffically stated that.
On the other hand you want to eat your cake and then have it. If you do not
support or claim "abundant contemporeanous writings" all you have to do is
say so and you are not ON THAT SIDE you are in fact MY side of that
particulart argument.
> What "side" are YOU on?
The side of logic and reason and not lying or cheating even if it means I
have to say of someone I may support in other arguments that I disagree with
them in this one.
Mavisbeacon
<ar...@hobbiton.net> wrote in message
news:9is5i515for6ue8av...@4ax.com...
From: Puck Greenman <dubh_gh...@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:58:20 +0000
Local: Thurs, Nov 12 2009 7:58 pm
Subject: Re: God created a weight so heavy that not even He could lift it
Message-ID: <0aunf5ptviqi2fcsa...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.107.208.14
X-Trace: newsfe30.ams2 1258055911 81.107.208.14 (Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:58:31
UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:58:31 UTC
Organization: virginmedia.com
[ME]Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
[Puck in reply]There is an abundance of contemporaneous third party
writings, about both characters, to
be convincing.
There is none, about your Jesus.
[end quote]
I CAN and DO demand people support a claim they made!
do you deny a claim of abundant contemporaneouds writings for Alexander and
Socrates and none for Jesus was made?
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:88056$4b22e9f5$bc8d1d47$3...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CDDD7E0BC8BF...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>> news:9ea89$4b2110fa$bc8d1d47$20...@news.upc.ie:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you "claim as fact"?
>>>>
>>>> That your conclusion that "God does not care" does not follow from
>>>> the premise of an all powerfull god who does not intervene to stop
>>>> disasters. It might be that God does not care but it might also be
>>>> some other reason.
>>>
>>>
>>> WHAT "other reason" is that?
>>
>> Well there are several
>>
>> 1. god does care
>
>
> Killing thousands of people show He cares?
That is affirming a consequent again. You are assuming God is intentionally
causing disasters. God could be allowing them to happen or another cause
might be causing them.
But also you are assuming death or suffering can't ever be a good thing.
Christianity suggests otherwise as does Bhuddism, Islam etc. Inded even
secular philosophies also do.
>
>
>> 2. God cares sometimes and not other times
>
>
> So God is fickle?
Could be. It is another possibility.
>
>
>> 3. several gods working sometimes against and sometimes for a common
>> purpose
>
>
> There are multiple gods?
>
> Then the Pagans were right all along.
Could be it is another possibility.
>
>
>> 4. gods of limited powers
>
>
> Kinda like the Norse pantheon.
Could be
Or Roman or Greek or Celtic depending on the limits. They alll had limited
Gods and had demigods.
>
>> 5. even more other reasons
>
>
> Keep going, we are listening.........
It is sufficient to show ONE counter example to show your logical conclusion
is affirming the consequent.
>> I just picked the christian version of how mainstream Christians view
>> God.
>
>
> Tell us how YOU view God.
Not in an argument about the logical conclusion that God therefore doe snot
care.
Incidentally if you posted "Superman does not care" I would also have shown
your logic to be wrong.
>>
>>> Do you believe in God?
>>>
>>> __yes
>>>
>>> __no
>>
>> None of your business.
>
>
> Too late.
Only because you try to bring in my personal beliefs when you logical
fallacy is exposed. when you cant deal with admitting the error you resoprt
to a persoanl attack on the person demonstrating your error.
> "No just that my being a christian is nothing to
> do with the discussion of the historicity of Jesus
> or the claim that God must be uncaring."
> MavisBeacon, admitted Christian, 12/09/09
Selective quote. the following lines refer to my being an atheist.
It was not an admission of me being either.
Mavisbeacon
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:39:10 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didnt claim there was a God here!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why I have been repeatedly asking
>>>>>> if you believe in God.
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont make any such claim that ther is or is not a God.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that rather contrary to your faith as a Christian?
>>>>
>>> It is a "sin" in most Christian sects to deny one's faith.
>>
>>
>>You seem to be getting the logic confused as usual.
>>
> No. Denial of "religious faith" is a "sin." Religious doctrine is
> about as far from logic as one gets.
Where does the religious doctrine of Christianity say that if someone is
asked their religion and they either deny it or evem refuse to answer that
it is a sin?
>
>>If true it is a case odf not broadcasting or maybe not admitting but
>>certainly not denial!
>
> Understood. You are going for the gambit I predicted.
I do not deny I am an atheist. I just say being a believer or an atheist
have nothing to do with the logical content of the posts I make.
>>[snip]
>>> Some sects do go one further and add the idea of mandatory
>>> proselytizing (every believer's duty to be a missionary).
>>
>>
>>Or even go the opposite way and forbit it - like Judaism.
>
> Jews are a strange bunch.
[snip]
>>>>
>>yu left out the words which follow. What are they?
>>
> I didn't make that quote.
Oh sorry why did you leave it in then? do you agree with the point made
>>> She's really made little effort to conceal her bias, in spite of the
>>> proclamations to the contrary.
>>
>>I diorfnt claim I was a christian or not. I didnt claim I was or was not a
>>woman.
>>
> You have been most vociferous on that score, no one would deny that.
> But your bias and one or two slips contradict that idea
Believe as you wish. I dont bring my personal beliefs into the argument. It
is YOU who say it.
>
> It is also inconsistent to drop into Alt atheism and recovery
> Catholicism - since, in the case of atheism at least, questions about
> Jesus become moot.
I explained why and when I arrived - because of a discussion relating to
communism elsewhere. I know Fasanagh piosted stats about that and
crossposted hoping he would reply. In reading the group (which was
alt.atheism.satire and still is for me) I got caught up in this "no evidence
" thing.
Similar happened about a year ago with Malkin as I recall.
>Might be interesting to ponder an idea of the
> historicity of Jesus, but that wouldn't make him a god.
Indeed and I stated that in probably my forst or second post on that
argument about historicity.
Here are some excerpts:
First I posted NOTHING about MY personal beliefs.
I just happened to point out the rationality in christianity.
If you had tried to criticised Islam and began by claiming that Mohammad
never existed in history as a way into doing so I might have on a similar
basis showed you historicity of Mohammad.
But i am glad you admit you are only interested in attacking christians and
that is the sole motivation for you posting to atheistic groups.
I was not aware polyamory was part of atheism as you claim. Can you provide
evidence.
Finally I am sure atheists will be upset at you for claiming that a central
issue of their NGs is attacking Christians
This CONTRADICTS the main gangplank of the contention that anti religious
atheism killed hundreds of millions of people.
The main defence for this is the claim that atheism is not about attacking
any religion.
YOU however clearly display how atheists manifest as anti religion and I
assume no atheist here will criticise you so either they agree with you or
remain complicit to or ignorant of the anti religious controlling agressors
which represent atheism.
The historicity of Jesus is nothing to do with the religion of believing he
was also God!
One can accept Jesus and Mohammad existed without accepting God existed!
Bt YOU apparently can't accept this and apply DOUBLE STANDARDS to Jesus that
you refuse to apply to others like Alexander or Socrates for example!
[end excerpts]
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:37:38 -0000
Message-ID: <b56b6$4afe39ed$bc8d1d47$25...@news.upc.ie>
> > One might recover from being Catholic and still remain religious or>
> > even Christian.True. > > Woman or man? I was intrigued by that
> > question. Normally gender is> somewhat easier to discern from the
> > perspectives and biases one> presents. Your use of logic is masculine,
> > your ability to keep your> cool, or maybe the way you seem able to
> > regroup and come back for> more, seems more feminine.> > I see you as a
> > Catholic woman. > > You may, and will, deny that.I neiother deny or
> > confirm it. believe as you please. Just judge my posts by content.
Mitchell Holman
news:de7cb$4b242950$bc8d1d47$28...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CDEB58AB9A4B...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:6d50c$4b22a65a$bc8d1d47$10...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2gm4i5dkg8ghmjph0...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:03:39 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>> Works for them. Mavis in imposing rules that don't allow atheists
>>>> to use the same methods as zealots. And we shouldn't -or we become
>>>> just like them.
>>>
>>>
>>> No all i am insisting is that logic is the same.
>>
>>
>>
>> The logic that has demanding people prove up
>> claims they never made because someone else "on
>> their side" did?
>
> No! All i stated when several of you are arguing against me and
> posting and mixing the same material of each other in your replies
> that you state if you are on the side of the other people.
You are either lazy or lying. I have repeatedly told
you I AGREE that Jesus existed. And yet you keep demanding
that I "back up the claim from my side" that he didn't.
Why do you do that?
duke
That's another way of saying you can't understand those more intelligent than
you but you get along just fine with those no more intelligent than you.
v-boy, if you ever intend to enjoy discussion, you have a lot of study to do.
duke
But there is not so much as one contradiction in the bible re God's plans for
mankind and the salvation of his soul. As I said, you are out of your league
with me, but definitely on a par with those as ignorant as you are.
Of course, I'm always willing to give another chance, but it's time for you to
step up to the plate.
duke
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:41:42 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
><Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>
>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>news:2gm4i5dkg8ghmjph0...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:03:39 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>> Works for them. Mavis in imposing rules that don't allow atheists to
>>> use the same methods as zealots. And we shouldn't -or we become just
>>> like them.
>>
>>
>>No all i am insisting is that logic is the same. One plus one is still two
>>even if you claim it is three and abundant contemporaneous written evidence
>>for Alexander still doesnt exist even if you claim it does.
>
>One plus one does equal two, or it depends on your counting system.
Good grief. Now he says it might be something other than 2. Speaking as an
illogical fallacy, he's entered the world of make believe. You got him nailed
now, mavis.
Budikka666
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:08:28 -0500, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> >On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:41:42 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>
> >>"default" <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
> >>news:2gm4i5dkg8ghmjph0...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:03:39 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> >>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>[snip]
> >>> Works for them. Mavis in imposing rules that don't allow atheists to
> >>> use the same methods as zealots. And we shouldn't -or we become just
> >>> like them.
>
> >>No all i am insisting is that logic is the same. One plus one is still two
> >>even if you claim it is three and abundant contemporaneous written evidence
> >>for Alexander still doesnt exist even if you claim it does.
>
> >One plus one does equal two, or it depends on your counting system.
>
> Good grief. Now he says it might be something other than 2. Speaking as an
> illogical fallacy, he's entered the world of make believe. You got him nailed
> now, mavis.
>
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Since you've now admitted that at least two gospels are at least in
part not historical, and the resurrection, by your own criteria isn't
historical, you've pretty much given the farm away, boy. Time to show
us what a clean pair of heels you have.
Budikka
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>news:9tj7i5lvs6bnlnmkd...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:39:10 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didnt claim there was a God here!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's why I have been repeatedly asking
>>>>>>> if you believe in God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dont make any such claim that ther is or is not a God.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that rather contrary to your faith as a Christian?
>>>>>
>>>> It is a "sin" in most Christian sects to deny one's faith.
>>>
>>>
>>>You seem to be getting the logic confused as usual.
>>>
>> No. Denial of "religious faith" is a "sin." Religious doctrine is
>> about as far from logic as one gets.
>
>Where does the religious doctrine of Christianity say that if someone is
>asked their religion and they either deny it or evem refuse to answer that
>it is a sin?
Is there a "religious doctrine of Christianity?" Would that there
were, but I'm not aware of any. The beauty of a religious affliction
like Christianity is that it spins off so many sects or cults, that
can brand it with beliefs other than the "official" Catholic inspired
ones.
But my own indoctrination has it that to die a martyr for Christ is a
very noble thing and guaranteed ascension to heaven (where have we
heard that idea before?) and it was a sin to deny one's religion, and
duty to proclaim it.
Probably also makes the ashes you're supposed to wear, and things like
crossing yourself as you pass in front of a church etc. more
palatable, in comparison to death. And practically speaking- one does
want ones brainwashed minions to be vocal, because that gives the
church political power. The Irish seem to have mastered this.
Even if the nuns didn't feed you that load of crap - it would be a sin
to lie - much more noble to be torn apart by lions in the arena. They
even had pictures in our religious indoc books. Soon to be martyrs,
kneeling praying or beseeching with upraised arms, with halos around
their heads (getting the jump on sainthood - or making it perfectly
clear where they were headed after the lions had breakfast)
>>
>>>If true it is a case odf not broadcasting or maybe not admitting but
>>>certainly not denial!
>>
>> Understood. You are going for the gambit I predicted.
>
>I do not deny I am an atheist. I just say being a believer or an atheist
>have nothing to do with the logical content of the posts I make.
You wouldn't deny you are an atheist, because to do so might nullify
the converse - you couldn't say you were not religious or a theist,
logically speaking. Understood, no need to belabor the point.
>
>>>[snip]
>>>> Some sects do go one further and add the idea of mandatory
>>>> proselytizing (every believer's duty to be a missionary).
>>>
>>>
>>>Or even go the opposite way and forbit it - like Judaism.
>>
>> Jews are a strange bunch.
>[snip]
>
>
>>>>>
>>>yu left out the words which follow. What are they?
>>>
>> I didn't make that quote.
>Oh sorry why did you leave it in then? do you agree with the point made
>
>>>> She's really made little effort to conceal her bias, in spite of the
>>>> proclamations to the contrary.
>>>
>>>I diorfnt claim I was a christian or not. I didnt claim I was or was not a
>>>woman.
>>>
>> You have been most vociferous on that score, no one would deny that.
>> But your bias and one or two slips contradict that idea
>
>Believe as you wish. I dont bring my personal beliefs into the argument. It
>is YOU who say it.
Of course. Understood. I would hold exception to the idea that "you
don't bring (your) personal beliefs into the argument." You most
certainly do. You bring your beliefs, while denying you have any.
>>
>> It is also inconsistent to drop into Alt atheism and recovery
>> Catholicism - since, in the case of atheism at least, questions about
>> Jesus become moot.
>
>I explained why and when I arrived - because of a discussion relating to
>communism elsewhere. I know Fasanagh piosted stats about that and
>crossposted hoping he would reply. In reading the group (which was
>alt.atheism.satire and still is for me) I got caught up in this "no evidence
>" thing.
>
And now you are chained here? Fasanagh might be one of the most
whacked idiots here. He, duke, old man joe, and some others have been
on my filter list for ages - because they don't respond except with a
lot of scripture or don't/can't read and respond logically.
>Similar happened about a year ago with Malkin as I recall.
>
Yeah. This is Usenet; anyone can join.
I like to think everyone has something they can teach me. In the case
of the filtered, there's just too much dross to wade through to get to
any gems.
>
>>Might be interesting to ponder an idea of the
>> historicity of Jesus, but that wouldn't make him a god.
>
>
>Indeed and I stated that in probably my forst or second post on that
>argument about historicity.
Well, I understand what you did or didn't write - that was merely a
comment questioning your motives on specifically posting here - or
more correctly, you expressed ire at having to defend your statements
on these groups.
>
>Here are some excerpts:
>First I posted NOTHING about MY personal beliefs.
>I just happened to point out the rationality in christianity.
Rationality and religion are incompatible, mutually exclusive,
concepts. One must be a religionist to make a statement like that.
>If you had tried to criticised Islam and began by claiming that Mohammad
>never existed in history as a way into doing so I might have on a similar
>basis showed you historicity of Mohammad.
Actually I'd go along with the idea of historicity of Mohammad more
readily than the history attributed to Jesus.
The Koran is more believable than the bible to me. To me the Koran
reads like court (as in royalty- not justice, but that too)
transcripts. How to judge rights of property, marriage,
justifications for war, etc. combined with the philosophical ramblings
of a dictator who used religion to elevate himself over his people.
The contradictions might be attributable to how he was feeling a
particular day (and a sorry lack of people able or willing, to speak
out disagreeing with him).
I imagine the pope too, "has a sorry lack of people willing to
contradict him."
>But i am glad you admit you are only interested in attacking christians and
>that is the sole motivation for you posting to atheistic groups.
>I was not aware polyamory was part of atheism as you claim. Can you provide
>evidence.
I'm pretty steamed about what religion has done to people, generally;
here in the US it is the "Moral Majority" and their pet agendas that
have me up in arms - but religion,generally, is the culprit and
specifically the Abrahamic ones.
But make no mistake, I bear a special hatred of Catholicism, popes and
brainless followers.
>Finally I am sure atheists will be upset at you for claiming that a central
>issue of their NGs is attacking Christians
Don't try to make my views those of atheists in general. They/we
don't attack Christians - just irrational stupidity.
>
>This CONTRADICTS the main gangplank of the contention that anti religious
>atheism killed hundreds of millions of people.
Is that what you believe? You really think atheists got together and
went around killing "people?" How or what doctrine were they
following when the did this?
We don't believe in a god without evidence for god and therefore it is
only logical we kill people. I mean, the idiot nuns who indoctrinated
me might jump to such depths, but certainly not you.
Atheists killed people and Catholicism,Hindus,et al, killed people.
No matter their stated justifications, they did so for their own
reasons. None of their gods condones murder, but that doesn't stop
man from inferring that they do.
>The main defence for this is the claim that atheism is not about attacking
>any religion.
Atheism should attack religious stupidity and the use of religion to
achieve political (moral, financial, or just other) ends.
In an ideal world this would be desirable - but as long as the
religiously afflicted presume to make everyone follow their banner,
because it is WHAT GOD WANTS, I, personally, do feel obliged to
attack religionists. Just my bias and prejudice these days.
Kind of like not denying you're Christian - I have a need to proclaim
what I believe in the face of so many idiots telling me what their
gods want.
>YOU however clearly display how atheists manifest as anti religion and I
>assume no atheist here will criticise you so either they agree with you or
>remain complicit to or ignorant of the anti religious controlling agressors
>which represent atheism.
Well I endeavored to explain my feelings, if you don't get it, that's
just fine, and (even) to be expected.
>
>
>The historicity of Jesus is nothing to do with the religion of believing he
>was also God!
>One can accept Jesus and Mohammad existed without accepting God existed!
>Bt YOU apparently can't accept this and apply DOUBLE STANDARDS to Jesus that
>you refuse to apply to others like Alexander or Socrates for example!
>[end excerpts]
Time and again I have agreed with you, yet you continue to reiterate
this idea of what you think I wrote. Methinks thou doth read a lot of
responders, while not seeing that there are differences, and somehow
choosing to amalgamate this into "atheist doctrine."
From there its only a matter of skimming a post and generating a more
or less canned response. We all may be guilty of this from time to
time, but understand too: you may be trying to hold up too many
threads at the same time.
>Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:37:38 -0000
>Message-ID: <b56b6$4afe39ed$bc8d1d47$25...@news.upc.ie>
>> > One might recover from being Catholic and still remain religious or>
>> > even Christian.True. > > Woman or man? I was intrigued by that
>> > question. Normally gender is> somewhat easier to discern from the
>> > perspectives and biases one> presents. Your use of logic is masculine,
>> > your ability to keep your> cool, or maybe the way you seem able to
>> > regroup and come back for> more, seems more feminine.> > I see you as a
>> > Catholic woman. > > You may, and will, deny that.I neiother deny or
>> > confirm it. believe as you please. Just judge my posts by content.
>
--
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >One plus one does equal two, or it depends on your counting system.
>
> Good grief. Now he says it might be something other than 2.
In fields of characteristic 2, it is 0.
In binary, it is 10.
So it DOES depend on your counting system.
At least among those less ignorant of mathematics than puke.
Teresita
> correction 1+1=10
Oh, I get it. That's why all those computer geeks think I'm a 10.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
default
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:47:38 -0500, default wrote:
>
>> correction 1+1=10
>
>Oh, I get it. That's why all those computer geeks think I'm a 10.
All those computer geeks are being commandeered to reward Muslim
jihadists.
--
duke
wrote:
>> >One plus one does equal two, or it depends on your counting system.
>> Good grief. �Now he says it might be something other than 2. �Speaking as an
>> illogical fallacy, he's entered the world of make believe. �You got him nailed
>> now, mavis.
>Since you've now admitted that at least two gospels are at least in
>part not historical, and the resurrection, by your own criteria isn't
>historical,
No kidding, you major dud. Like, where did I say that?
> you've pretty much given the farm away, boy. Time to show
>us what a clean pair of heels you have.
Yeah, right up your rectum.
duke
1+1=2 forevermore.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:53:36 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> >One plus one does equal two, or it depends on your counting system.
>
> >> Good grief. �Now he says it might be something other than 2. �Speaking as
> >> an
> >> illogical fallacy, he's entered the world of make believe. �You got him
> >> nailed
> >> now, mavis.
>
> >Since you've now admitted that at least two gospels are at least in
> >part not historical, and the resurrection, by your own criteria isn't
> >historical,
>
> No kidding, you major dud. Like, where did I say that?
>
> > you've pretty much given the farm away, boy. Time to show
> >us what a clean pair of heels you have.
>
> Yeah, right up your rectum.
Puke reveals his fundamentalism, and simultaneously outs himself.
Bindlestiff
So you lie, instead.
>
>I just dont happen to be discussing my persoanl beliefs here.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you "claim as fact"?
>>>
>>> That your conclusion that "God does not care" does not follow from the
>>> premise of an all powerfull god who does not intervene to stop
>>> disasters. It might be that God does not care but it might also be
>>> some other reason.
>>
>>
>> WHAT "other reason" is that?
>
>Well there are several
>
>1. god does care
That is logical. God cares so he does nothing.
...Like any caring father.
>2. God cares sometimes and not other times
Show evidence that the god of the bible, EVER has.
>3. several gods working sometimes against and sometimes for a common purpose
The bible says that there is only one god.
>4. gods of limited powers
That is the atheist suggestion: Are you changing sides?
>5. even more other reasons
List them, and show supporting arguments.
>
>I just picked the christian version of how mainstream Christians view God.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Failing to supply support I freely admitted I do not claim it as a
>>>>> fact I just believe it is possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>That your "Holy" Bible is not
>>>>>> full of references to unicorns and dragons?
>>>>>
>>>>> I never claimed it wasnt!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "But your "side" did" as you frequently say when
>>>> confronting people over claims they did not make.....
>>>
>>> If I happened to be on theior side I would say so.
>>
>>
>> You have admitted to being a Christian.
>
>No I havent! You picked out a comment and ignored the sentence following it.
>
>> That pretty much tells us what "side" you are on.
>
>
>You r bias is showing. I am on the siode of empirical evidence objective
>truth and logic and reason.
>
When are you going to start providing them?
>>
>>> But I do not agree
>>> with biblical fundamentalists and claim what they claim about the
>>> Bible. I have been quite clear about that.
>>
>>
>> What DO you "agree with"?
>
>Logic honesty and reason.
>
I ought to bill you for a new keyboard.
>>
>>
>>> THe people on YOUR dside however hae not been clear wher they differ
>>> in their positions so as I view it they all agree uttil they tell me
>>> otherwise just as i told your side otherwise.
>>
>>
>> What is "my side"?
>
>the side that claims two things
Evasion noted.
By lying.
>
>>
>> You claimed in every other notestream that your
>> religious beliefs were "off topic".
>
>
>Yes.
>
>>
>> So I created one that ON topic.
>
>And i reserved the right to post to that thread and say "none of your
>business"
But you do not have the right, to change the subject.
>
>>
>> Do you believe in God?
>>
>> __yes
>>
>> __no
>
>None of your business.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe in God?
>>>
>>> I believe you have posted logical fallacies about God not caring being
>>> a valid conclusion.
>>
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>
>Yes note my evasion because I am happy to state they you asking my personal
>beliefs are nothing to do with you supporting your claims and none of your
>business and my persoanl opinions are off topic and i am happy to evade
>anyone asking about them.
>
>
>>
>>> The fallacy is there no matter whether I believe in God or not,
>>>>
>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> One can not conclude
>>>>> based on the premise that there is a God and the observation of thet
>>>>> God not interfering
>>>>> that such a God is uncaring.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what DO you conclude?
>>>
>>>
>>> That one can not make a logical conclusion based on affirming a
>>> consequent.
>>
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>
>
>I dint evade there! I posted a clearly reasonable statement.,
>
Which had nothing to do with the question asked.
>
>
>
>> >>>> This notestream is just about whether YOU believe in God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why won't you answer that one question?
>>>>>
>>>>> I already answered that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> Nope. I already answered why I won't answer such a question.
>>
>>
>> You are a Christian who refuses to admit
>> you believe in God?
>
>I aleady answered why my personal beliefs wont be discussed.
>
Are you ashamed of them?
>>
>> How hypocritical is THAT?
>
>how hypocritical is any fallacious conclusion?
>
>>>> Do you believe in God?
>>>
>>> I already told you - Im not going to say yes or no to that question
>>> and my personal beliefs are none of your business.
>>
>>
>> So why are you posting here?
>
>I am addressing historicity of Jesus and specious reasoning that concludes
>god does not care.
In this thread, you are the only one.
>
>
dubh_...@hotmail.com
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns9CDF5ED4DF31n...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:88056$4b22e9f5$bc8d1d47$3...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CDDD7E0BC8BF...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:9ea89$4b2110fa$bc8d1d47$20...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you "claim as fact"?
>>>>>
>>>>> That your conclusion that "God does not care" does not follow from
>>>>> the premise of an all powerfull god who does not intervene to stop
>>>>> disasters. It might be that God does not care but it might also be
>>>>> some other reason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHAT "other reason" is that?
>>>
>>> Well there are several
>>>
>>> 1. god does care
>>
>>
>> Killing thousands of people show He cares?
>
>That is affirming a consequent again. You are assuming God is intentionally
>causing disasters.
Distortion.
The assumption is that God, is deliberately NOT doing anything to
prevent them.
> God could be allowing them to happen
God IS allowing them to happen, according to christians.
>or another cause
>might be causing them.
>But also you are assuming death or suffering can't ever be a good thing.
>Christianity suggests otherwise as does Bhuddism, Islam etc. Inded even
>secular philosophies also do.
>>
>>
>>> 2. God cares sometimes and not other times
>>
>>
>> So God is fickle?
>
>Could be. It is another possibility.
That makes it even worse than a malicious god.
>>
>>
>>> 3. several gods working sometimes against and sometimes for a common
>>> purpose
>>
>>
>> There are multiple gods?
>>
>> Then the Pagans were right all along.
>
>Could be it is another possibility.
But not according to the bible, and it is the god of the bible which
is being discussed.
>>
>>
>>> 4. gods of limited powers
>>
>>
>> Kinda like the Norse pantheon.
>
>Could be
>Or Roman or Greek or Celtic depending on the limits. They alll had limited
>Gods and had demigods.
>
But not according to the bible, and it is the god of the bible which
is being discussed.
>
>>
>>> 5. even more other reasons
>>
>>
>> Keep going, we are listening.........
>
>It is sufficient to show ONE counter example to show your logical conclusion
>is affirming the consequent.
So produce your counter example.
>
>>> I just picked the christian version of how mainstream Christians view
>>> God.
>>
>>
>> Tell us how YOU view God.
>
>Not in an argument about the logical conclusion that God therefore doe snot
>care.
>Incidentally if you posted "Superman does not care" I would also have shown
>your logic to be wrong.
>
>>>
>>>> Do you believe in God?
>>>>
>>>> __yes
>>>>
>>>> __no
>>>
>>> None of your business.
>>
>>
>> Too late.
>
>Only because you try to bring in my personal beliefs when you logical
>fallacy is exposed. when you cant deal with admitting the error you resoprt
>to a persoanl attack on the person demonstrating your error.
>
>
>> "No just that my being a christian is nothing to
>> do with the discussion of the historicity of Jesus
>> or the claim that God must be uncaring."
>> MavisBeacon, admitted Christian, 12/09/09
>
>Selective quote. the following lines refer to my being an atheist.
>It was not an admission of me being either.
>
You back peddle well.
Mavisbeacon
"Teresita" <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.13....@newsguy.com...
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:47:38 -0500, default wrote:
>
>> correction 1+1=10
>
> Oh, I get it. That's why all those computer geeks think I'm a 10.
They seem to think that two in binary is ten!
As i pointed out two is tewo and ten is ten "10" is only a REPRESENTATION of
a number
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:de7cb$4b242950$bc8d1d47$28...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CDEB58AB9A4B...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>> news:6d50c$4b22a65a$bc8d1d47$10...@news.upc.ie:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:2gm4i5dkg8ghmjph0...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:03:39 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>> Works for them. Mavis in imposing rules that don't allow atheists
>>>>> to use the same methods as zealots. And we shouldn't -or we become
>>>>> just like them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No all i am insisting is that logic is the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The logic that has demanding people prove up
>>> claims they never made because someone else "on
>>> their side" did?
>>
>> No! All i stated when several of you are arguing against me and
>> posting and mixing the same material of each other in your replies
>> that you state if you are on the side of the other people.
>
>
>
> You are either lazy or lying.
> I have repeatedly told
> you I AGREE that Jesus existed. And yet you keep demanding
> that I "back up the claim from my side" that he didn't.
>
> Why do you do that?
i already explained
1 because your parts of merssages get mixed up with iother parts
2. Because you dont specifically say you disagree with others wh say Jesus
dint exist and there is no evidence for Jesus.
So you reject Dougals position about no evidencefor Jesus and abundanr
contemporaneous written ervidnce fo rJesus d you?
>
[snip]
>
Mavisbeacon
"Bindlestiff" <the_bin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g4tai5lomehvak04s...@4ax.com...
That is illogical. I am also not "telling the truth" about the causes of
world War I because I am not discussing the causes of world War I.
That does not mean I am lying about World War I
>
>>
>>I just dont happen to be discussing my persoanl beliefs here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you "claim as fact"?
>>>>
>>>> That your conclusion that "God does not care" does not follow from the
>>>> premise of an all powerfull god who does not intervene to stop
>>>> disasters. It might be that God does not care but it might also be
>>>> some other reason.
>>>
>>>
>>> WHAT "other reason" is that?
>>
>>Well there are several
>>
>>1. god does care
>
> That is logical. God cares so he does nothing.
Yes. I have shown how. One might take other religious beliefs but
for example in the Christian tradition Jesus/God does not want the
crusifiction to happen and does not want to suffer but he allows it to
happen
for a higher purpose. He does not prevent his capture torture and death. He
does nothing to prevent himself being crusified.
>
> ...Like any caring father.
I am glad you do not apply the argument to and omnipotent God alone as
Holman tried but accept the general example of anyone with the power to act
choosing not to act.
For example a human father might allow a child to almost drown or get burned
by a fire or bitten by an insect in order that they learn to protect
themselves from such harm in the future.
>
>
>>2. God cares sometimes and not other times
>
> Show evidence that the god of the bible, EVER has.
I don't argue a Biblical god here or even a single God. It could be for
exampel one god cares and another does not.
It is ANOTHER logical possibility.
>
>
>>3. several gods working sometimes against and sometimes for a common
>>purpose
>
> The bible says that there is only one god.
So you think if the Bible states something that it it must be true?
So what? we are arguing about reason and logic here not about what the Bible
says.
All I am pointing out is that the conclusion of "God doesnt care" is based
on affirming a consequent wherby the ONLY possible cause is assumed to be an
uncaring God. But it isnt the only possible cause! Looads of other
possibilities exist including non-Biblical ones.
>
>
>>4. gods of limited powers
>
> That is the atheist suggestion: Are you changing sides?
No that is certianly NOT the atheist side. Atheists do not believe in gods
of limited powers!
But the exampe was of a single GOD of limited powers.
WE can dismiss all this "limited God or gods" bit by assuming a single
omnipotent God and that will leave us with "God doesnt care" again.
"God does not care" is NOT a valid conclusion!
>
>>5. even more other reasons
>
> List them, and show supporting arguments.
dont have to ! A single counter example is all that is needed. i provided
several.
>
>
>>
>>I just picked the christian version of how mainstream Christians view
>>God.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Failing to supply support I freely admitted I do not claim it as a
>>>>>> fact I just believe it is possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That your "Holy" Bible is not
>>>>>>> full of references to unicorns and dragons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never claimed it wasnt!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "But your "side" did" as you frequently say when
>>>>> confronting people over claims they did not make.....
>>>>
>>>> If I happened to be on theior side I would say so.
>>>
>>>
>>> You have admitted to being a Christian.
>>
>>No I havent! You picked out a comment and ignored the sentence following
>>it.
>>
>>> That pretty much tells us what "side" you are on.
>>
>>
>>You r bias is showing. I am on the siode of empirical evidence objective
>>truth and logic and reason.
>>
>
> When are you going to start providing them?
Look above under 1 2 and 3
>
>>>
>>>> But I do not agree
>>>> with biblical fundamentalists and claim what they claim about the
>>>> Bible. I have been quite clear about that.
>>>
>>>
>>> What DO you "agree with"?
>>
>>Logic honesty and reason.
>>
>
> I ought to bill you for a new keyboard.
[snip]
>>>
>>> What is "my side"?
>>
How am I lying? What lie do you claim? state wher you say I am lying!
>>> You claimed in every other notestream that your
>>> religious beliefs were "off topic".
>>
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> So I created one that ON topic.
>>
>>And i reserved the right to post to that thread and say "none of your
>>business"
>
> But you do not have the right, to change the subject.
Oh yes I do. You are not a usenet cop are you?
I can discuss whatever I want. If you want to only discuss whether I believe
in God I wont post anything on that to this thread.
I am happy to discuss the meta discussion however as to WHY you want to
discuss MY persoanl beliefs instead of the historicity of Jesus or defending
specious claims about God having to be an uncaring God.
>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> I believe you have posted logical fallacies about God not caring being
>>>> a valid conclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Evasion noted.
>>
>>Yes note my evasion because I am happy to state that you asking my
>>personal
>>beliefs are nothing to do with you supporting your claims and none of your
>>business and my persoanl opinions are off topic and i am happy to evade
>>anyone asking about them.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The fallacy is there no matter whether I believe in God or not,
>>>>>
>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> One can not conclude
>>>>>> based on the premise that there is a God and the observation of thet
>>>>>> God not interfering
>>>>>> that such a God is uncaring.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what DO you conclude?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That one can not make a logical conclusion based on affirming a
>>>> consequent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Evasion noted.
>>
>>
>>I dint evade there! I posted a clearly reasonable statement.,
>>
>
> Which had nothing to do with the question asked.
It had EVERYTHING to do with it!
The question asked was what id I conclude.
I told you what I concluded: That one can not make a logical conclusion
based on affirming a
consequent. You can not conclude God does not care by affirming the
consequent!
>>> >>>> This notestream is just about whether YOU believe in God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why won't you answer that one question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already answered that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. I already answered why I won't answer such a question.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are a Christian who refuses to admit
>>> you believe in God?
>>
>>I aleady answered why my personal beliefs wont be discussed.
>>
>
> Are you ashamed of them?
I already told you why my personal beliefs wont be discussed.
> >>
>>> How hypocritical is THAT?
>>
>>how hypocritical is any fallacious conclusion?
>>
>>>>> Do you believe in God?
>>>>
>>>> I already told you - Im not going to say yes or no to that question
>>>> and my personal beliefs are none of your business.
>>>
>>>
>>> So why are you posting here?
>>
>>I am addressing historicity of Jesus and specious reasoning that concludes
>>god does not care.
>
> In this thread, you are the only one.
No you for exampole are also in it! I am NOT the only one posting.
Mavisbeacon
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-3F5309....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
No it doesnt! At least to those les ignorant of NUMERALS!
If you knew anything about mathematics you would know it is an extentions of
logic as a formal language.
You seem not to know what the number two is.
"Two" "2" and "10" in binary are REPRESENTATIONS of the number two.
The number two is like an ordinal index to a set of objects. A "one to one"
relationship between equivalent sets.
Please dont get off on an tangent into number theory it can get quite
complicated
and your "less ignorant of mathematics" comment my become the antithesis of
your intention.
... Pythagoras believed in the absoluteness of numbers, and could not accept
the existence of irrational numbers. He could not disprove their existence
through logic, but his beliefs would not accept the existence of irrational
numbers and so he sentenced Hippasus to death by drowning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number#History_of_irrational_numbers
Mavisbeacon
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:08:11 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>
>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>news:9tj7i5lvs6bnlnmkd...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:39:10 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didnt claim there was a God here!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why I have been repeatedly asking
>>>>>>>> if you believe in God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I dont make any such claim that ther is or is not a God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't that rather contrary to your faith as a Christian?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is a "sin" in most Christian sects to deny one's faith.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be getting the logic confused as usual.
>>>>
>>> No. Denial of "religious faith" is a "sin." Religious doctrine is
>>> about as far from logic as one gets.
>>
>>Where does the religious doctrine of Christianity say that if someone is
>>asked their religion and they either deny it or evem refuse to answer that
>>it is a sin?
>
> Is there a "religious doctrine of Christianity?"
Well above the claim was made by poster default: Denial of "religious
faith" is a "sin." Religious doctrine is
about as far from logic as one gets.
[ens quote]
>Would that there
> were, but I'm not aware of any.
Contradicting yourself now! You u just stated : Religious doctrine is about
as far from logic as one gets.
Now you are saying religious doctrine doe not exist!
>The beauty of a religious affliction
> like Christianity is that it spins off so many sects or cults, that
> can brand it with beliefs other than the "official" Catholic inspired
> ones.
Nope. No goalposts moved by ME! iI clearly referred to "mainstream" 95 per
cent plus of Christians as anglican Orthodox and Roman.
I have no intention of changing tyhe argument to that of some fringe cult.
>
> But my own indoctrination has it that to die a martyr for Christ is a
> very noble thing and guaranteed ascension to heaven (where have we
> heard that idea before?)
Well one can argue that to lay down ones life for a cause is a noble thing
whether one believes in God or not!
>and it was a sin to deny one's religion, and
> duty to proclaim it.
so your fringe cult taught you that it is your duty to proclaim your
religion and if asked whether you believe you are NEVER to say you wil not
answer or NEVER to say you do not believe? So what? What I am asking you is
how can you show that is a mainstream dogma?
> Probably also makes the ashes you're supposed to wear, and things like
> crossing yourself as you pass in front of a church etc. more
> palatable, in comparison to death.
Sackcloth and ashes are not cumposory for Christians nor is crossing
oneself!
> And practically speaking- one does
> want ones brainwashed minions to be vocal, because that gives the
> church political power. The Irish seem to have mastered this.
WEll case in point when yu mentioned ashes I thought of the "sackcloth and
ashes" reference made by Irishman Ian Paisley . But I would hardly call him
mainstream.
> Even if the nuns didn't feed you that load of crap - it would be a sin
> to lie
REally? While western Christianity might think lying the worst thing one can
do That would come far down the pecking order of sins in Japan or china.
I didnt lie about anything aby the way and you can't show where I did can
you ?
> - much more noble to be torn apart by lions in the arena. They
> even had pictures in our religious indoc books. Soon to be martyrs,
> kneeling praying or beseeching with upraised arms, with halos around
> their heads (getting the jump on sainthood - or making it perfectly
> clear where they were headed after the lions had breakfast)
This in Ireland included the Limerick soviet I suppose ( atheists) and James
Connolly ( socialist worker) who was executed while tied to a chir as he
could not stand up due to the wounds he already suffered?
How about Terence Mc Sweeny "It is not those who inflict more but those who
endure more who ultimately triumph" world record hunger striker?
He did that so he could be a saint or for Irish freedom?
The church specifically wanted the H Block hunger strikers to come off the
strike. They were folowing the Church orders were they?
>>>
>>>>If true it is a case odf not broadcasting or maybe not admitting but
>>>>certainly not denial!
>>>
>>> Understood. You are going for the gambit I predicted.
>>
>>I do not deny I am an atheist. I just say being a believer or an atheist
>>have nothing to do with the logical content of the posts I make.
>
> You wouldn't deny you are an atheist, because to do so might nullify
> the converse - you couldn't say you were not religious or a theist,
> logically speaking. Understood, no need to belabor the point.
LOL! I could not say I was NOT religious?
The opposite being??? I could say I was not or I could not say I was?
But youy are alreadyt claiming I could not say I was so you are claiming I
could not say I was and I could not say I was not
Which insidentally is all I am claiming Im not going to say I am or am not.
[snip]
her bias, in spite of the
>>>>> proclamations to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>I diorfnt claim I was a christian or not. I didnt claim I was or was not
>>>>a
>>>>woman.
>>>>
>>> You have been most vociferous on that score, no one would deny that.
>>> But your bias and one or two slips contradict that idea
>>
>>Believe as you wish. I dont bring my personal beliefs into the argument.
>>It
>>is YOU who say it.
>
> Of course. Understood. I would hold exception to the idea that "you
> don't bring (your) personal beliefs into the argument." You most
> certainly do. You bring your beliefs, while denying you have any.
Not into the arguemtn I dont! What argument have i made which are based on
my belifs.
All I have doen is refer to logic and counter evidence relating to other
peoples claims.
>>>
>>> It is also inconsistent to drop into Alt atheism and recovery
>>> Catholicism - since, in the case of atheism at least, questions about
>>> Jesus become moot.
>>
>>I explained why and when I arrived - because of a discussion relating to
>>communism elsewhere. I know Fasanagh piosted stats about that and
>>crossposted hoping he would reply. In reading the group (which was
>>alt.atheism.satire and still is for me) I got caught up in this "no
>>evidence
>>" thing.
>>
> And now you are chained here? Fasanagh might be one of the most
> whacked idiots here. He, duke, old man joe, and some others have been
> on my filter list for ages - because they don't respond except with a
> lot of scripture or don't/can't read and respond logically.
SO what? i explained why and when I arrived. If you dont accept that then
tough! It has nothing to do with what you think of others here.
>
>>Similar happened about a year ago with Malkin as I recall.
>>
> Yeah. This is Usenet; anyone can join.
Exactly . If you don't like it tough!
>
> I like to think everyone has something they can teach me. In the case
> of the filtered, there's just too much dross to wade through to get to
> any gems.
That is a rether unexpected comment. I am surprised.
>>
>>>Might be interesting to ponder an idea of the
>>> historicity of Jesus, but that wouldn't make him a god.
>>
>>
>>Indeed and I stated that in probably my forst or second post on that
>>argument about historicity.
>
> Well, I understand what you did or didn't write - that was merely a
> comment questioning your motives on specifically posting here - or
> more correctly, you expressed ire at having to defend your statements
> on these groups.
>>
>>Here are some excerpts:
>>First I posted NOTHING about MY personal beliefs.
>>I just happened to point out the rationality in christianity.
>
> Rationality and religion are incompatible, mutually exclusive,
> concepts. One must be a religionist to make a statement like that.
Nope. One does not have to be. One could be an professor speaking to his old
institution on academic matters. The fact that the man happened also to be
Pope was apart from that. AS I also pointed out there are Jesuiots with
academic knowledge in all sorts of fields.
>
>>If you had tried to criticised Islam and began by claiming that Mohammad
>>never existed in history as a way into doing so I might have on a similar
>>basis showed you historicity of Mohammad.
>
> Actually I'd go along with the idea of historicity of Mohammad more
> readily than the history attributed to Jesus.
"history attributed to " is an odd pphrase. all I am saying is it is
reasonable to assume some person eixted in history.
>
> The Koran is more believable than the bible to me. To me the Koran
> reads like court (as in royalty- not justice, but that too)
> transcripts. How to judge rights of property, marriage,
> justifications for war, etc. combined with the philosophical ramblings
> of a dictator who used religion to elevate himself over his people.
>
> The contradictions might be attributable to how he was feeling a
> particular day (and a sorry lack of people able or willing, to speak
> out disagreeing with him).
>
> I imagine the pope too, "has a sorry lack of people willing to
> contradict him."
Not really. Usenet is chock full of then apparently!
Bt most fdont have the philosophical calibre to take on serious acadmic
muscle.
>
>>But i am glad you admit you are only interested in attacking christians
>>and
>>that is the sole motivation for you posting to atheistic groups.
>>I was not aware polyamory was part of atheism as you claim. Can you
>>provide
>>evidence.
>
> I'm pretty steamed about what religion has done to people, generally;
Yeah. and how about what atheistic regimes did as well eh? Steamed about
that are you?
> here in the US it is the "Moral Majority" and their pet agendas that
> have me up in arms - but religion,generally, is the culprit and
> specifically the Abrahamic ones.
Unlike Mao and stalin and other atheistic regimes who killed hundreds of
millions ?
> But make no mistake, I bear a special hatred of Catholicism, popes and
> brainless followers.
Does this bigotry not have much supporting it in the way of evidence?
>
>>Finally I am sure atheists will be upset at you for claiming that a
>>central
>>issue of their NGs is attacking Christians
>
> Don't try to make my views those of atheists in general. They/we
> don't attack Christians - just irrational stupidity.
AS I was doing!
>>
>>This CONTRADICTS the main gangplank of the contention that anti religious
>>atheism killed hundreds of millions of people.
>
> Is that what you believe?
No. It is a fact suppoerted by statistical evidence! Not just a belief.
>You really think atheists got together and
> went around killing "people?" How or what doctrine were they
> following when the did this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/653192/posts
My source is The Guinness Book of World Records . Look up the category
"Judicial" and under the subject of "Crimes: Mass Killings," the greatest
massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against the
government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse
Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by
the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed the
parameters of the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32 and 61.7
million people. An estimate of 63.7 million was published by Figaro magazine
on November 5, 1978.
In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the
loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to
December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million.
Finally, in Cambodia (and this was close to me because I lived in Thailand
in 1982 working with the broken pieces of the Cambodian holocaust from 1975
to 1979) "as a percentage of a nation's total population, the worst genocide
appears to be that in Cambodia, formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer
Rouge foreign minister, more than one third of the eight million Khmer were
killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire
country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the
Communist Party of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property
were abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club was introduced for
such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking too many questions,
playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being the offspring of an
undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact, deaths in the Tuol Sleng
interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea,
reached 582 in a day."
Then in Chinese history of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries there
were three periods of wholesale massacre. The numbers of victims attributed
to these events are assertions rather than reliable estimates. The figures
put on the Mongolian invasion of northern China form 1210 to 1219 and from
1311 to 1340 are both on the order of 35 million people. While the number of
victims of bandit leader Chang Hsien-Chung, known as the Yellow Tiger, from
1643 to 1647 in the Szechwan province has been put at 40 million people.
China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report,
63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in
China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people.
Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million
Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history,
somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and
gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or
points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of
these involve religion. And all but the very last actually assert atheism.
[end excerpt]
>
> We don't believe in a god without evidence for god and therefore it is
> only logical we kill people. I mean, the idiot nuns who indoctrinated
> me might jump to such depths, but certainly not you.
>
> Atheists killed people and Catholicism,Hindus,et al, killed people.
On a\ totally DIFFERENT scale!
[snip]
Richo
> "Teresita" <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
Well said - it is annoying that people cannot distinguish between an
abstract concept like number and a physical representation of it as an
ink mark on paper.
Mathematics is all about abstraction.
Mark.
Richo
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CD8DE7117A6B...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
> > Since "Mavis" dodges this question in every other
> > notestream by declaring it to be "off-topic" or at least
> > "irrelevant" a new notestream is called for.
>
> > So Mavis -
>
> > Do you believe God exists?
>
> > __yes
>
> > __no
>
> I will give you a straight answer to this question.
>
> My answer is that my belief or none belief in God is none of your business!
>
I for one, respect that answer.
> Clearly you want to makle my belief an issue. You are free to speculate all
> you want.
> I have pointed out why I came to the above groups.
> I came in reference to communistic and other forms of state atheism being
> responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.
> Fasanagh who IIR is an agnostic posts a lot of stats to do with that.
He posted lots of stats on deaths caused by communist regimes - what
he consistently fails to do is to back up the assertion (or sometimes
it is left as an implication) that the absence of a belief in God is a
causitive agent in bringing about those deaths recorded in those
statistics.
> If you have a problem with a non believer posting stats critical of atheism
> take it up with him.
Many have tried!
He just responds by abuse/distraction/misdirection/non sequetur/red
herring and every other rhetorical trick in the book and then reposts
the statistics.
I believe the statistics are substantially correct (you can always
quibble - but when talking about millions of deaths it seems indecent)
- I dont believe the assertion that not believing in God is the cause
of the violence that led to the deaths recorded in those statistics.
No evidence has been presented to back that assertion - so far.
> I dont see how his belief or lack of belief makes the FACTS change.
> In fact persoanl belief or lack of it it has nothing to do with the actual
> stats!
>
Well said.
Most reasonable.
Mark.
Mitchell Holman
news:d6020$4b257e8a$bc8d1d47$18...@news.upc.ie:
If you cannot separate the claims made by individual
posters here maybe you should not be posting at all.
> 2. Because you dont specifically say you disagree with others wh say
> Jesus dint exist and there is no evidence for Jesus.
I am supposed to jump into notestreams and disagree
with other posters just to please you?
How arrogant is THAT?
>
> So you reject Dougals position about no evidencefor Jesus and abundanr
> contemporaneous written ervidnce fo rJesus d you?
Do you reject the claims of "duke" about the
historical and factual accuracy of the Bible?
Show us such a post.
PS: Get a spell checker. Your posts are becoming
virtually unreadable.
Mavisbeacon
Eventually I find an atheist who is prepared to deal with reason and logic
and not personally attack me,
accuse me of being a "believer" or avoid the logical of factual errors in
their posts.
Shakespearian references aside thank you Mark.
I am sure when an atheist resorts to ad hominem you will accept the
criticism of it.
And I anm sure yu will apply the same standard to anyone and the fact that
they might or might not be an atheist believer or whatever does not come
into it.
"Richo" <m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:61f62666-3411-4c60...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 8:57 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
[snip]
Mavisbeacon
<dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u6tai5521lrnl8qtg...@4ax.com...
Exactly not stopping something (when you are capable of stopping it) and
making it happen are two DIFFERENT things!
This seems to the the kernel of the logical confusion.
If there is a request bus stop where people can hold out their hand to stop
a bus and if none of the people stop the bus does that mean they are driving
the bus?
>
>
>> God could be allowing them to happen
>
> God IS allowing them to happen, according to christians.
Yes.
So?
Let us take the christian example and forget about multiple or limited power
gods.
How do you equate allowing something to happen with causing it to happen?
Suppose I can stop yu hiting a child and I don't. I allow you to do it. Have
I caused you to hit the child?
>
>
>>or another cause
>>might be causing them.
>>But also you are assuming death or suffering can't ever be a good thing.
>>Christianity suggests otherwise as does Bhuddism, Islam etc. Inded even
>>secular philosophies also do.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. God cares sometimes and not other times
>>>
>>>
>>> So God is fickle?
>>
>>Could be. It is another possibility.
>
> That makes it even worse than a malicious god.
Maybe. But the logical point is (whether God is worse or not) that ther ARE
other logical possibilities.
It is not a bifurcation.
>>>
>>>> 3. several gods working sometimes against and sometimes for a common
>>>> purpose
>>>
>>>
>>> There are multiple gods?
>>>
>>> Then the Pagans were right all along.
>>
>>Could be it is another possibility.
>
> But not according to the bible, and it is the god of the bible which
> is being discussed.
No I only brought it in an ONE example of the many other possibilities not
dealt with in "either God is not omnipotent or God does not care"
But im quite happy to limit the discussion to the Christian God if you want.
In which case you can also rule out the "not omnipotent" bi and it just
reduces to "God does not care"
>>>> 4. gods of limited powers
>>>
>>>
>>> Kinda like the Norse pantheon.
>>
>>Could be
>>Or Roman or Greek or Celtic depending on the limits. They alll had limited
>>Gods and had demigods.
>>
>
> But not according to the bible,
Which was not mentioned in the original example. But Im happy to take the
mainstream Christian view if you want.
It considerably cuts down a lot of other diiscussions.
> and it is the god of the bible which
> is being discussed.
Well the "God of the Bible" could be the Jewish or even Islamic or Coptic or
Jehovas Witness one so why not just go with "mainstream christianity" ?
>>
>>>> 5. even more other reasons
>>>
>>>
>>> Keep going, we are listening.........
>>
>>It is sufficient to show ONE counter example to show your logical
>>conclusion
>>is affirming the consequent.
>
> So produce your counter example.
I did above. Take for example the Christian God which cares but does not
act. In fact in this case god does not act BECAUSE God cares.
Probably one of the worst things that could happen is the crusifiction of
Christ but
as mainstream Christians would view it God des not stop this because God
cares.
[snip]
>>
>>
>>> "No just that my being a christian is nothing to
>>> do with the discussion of the historicity of Jesus
>>> or the claim that God must be uncaring."
>>> MavisBeacon, admitted Christian, 12/09/09
>>
>>Selective quote. the following lines refer to my being an atheist.
>>It was not an admission of me being either.
>>
> You back peddle well.
no you selectively quote well.
I wrote the whole bit originally and you only quoted one sentence and
ignored the following one.
Mavisbeacon
Maybe I shouldn't. And maybe you shoul not leave in their parts in your
replies .
But post I do.
>
>
>
>
>> 2. Because you dont specifically say you disagree with others wh say
>> Jesus dint exist and there is no evidence for Jesus.
>
> I am supposed to jump into notestreams and disagree
> with other posters just to please you?
No you are suppost not to leave in their comments and make direct replies to
them
and then when asked directly whether you agree with their position IN THE
SPECIFIC reply in that specific thread
you refuse to do so.
>
>>
>> So you reject Dougals position about no evidencefor Jesus and abundanr
>> contemporaneous written ervidnce fo rJesus d you?
>
>
> Do you reject the claims of "duke" about the
> historical and factual accuracy of the Bible?
I already told you I did reject it several times!
See I don't have double standards like you do.
He posted that in the thread did he?
So you reject Dougals position about no evidence for Jesus and abundant
contemporaneous written evidnce for Jesus do you?
>
> Show us such a post.
dont have to I just told you AGAIN I dont claim the Bible is a science book
and it literally fundamentally true.
> PS: Get a spell checker. Your posts are becoming
> virtually unreadable.
dont resort to spelling flames when you are trying to avois answering
questions. My main problem is my TYPING not my spelling.
Do you reject Dougals position about no evidence for Jesus and abundant
contemporaneous written evidence for Jesus do you?
Teresita
> 1+1=2 forevermore.
OCT 31 = DEC 25
This sort of ambiguity occurs in every counting system except binary.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Bindlestiff
The result is the same, and there is no reason to suppose that merely
allowing a disaster, offers any more evidence of caring, than
deliberately causing it does.
Then why don't you offer suggestions and arguments for those other
supposed possibilities.
>
>>>>
>>>>> 3. several gods working sometimes against and sometimes for a common
>>>>> purpose
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are multiple gods?
>>>>
>>>> Then the Pagans were right all along.
>>>
>>>Could be it is another possibility.
>>
>> But not according to the bible, and it is the god of the bible which
>> is being discussed.
>
>No
Yes
> I only brought it in an ONE example of the many other possibilities not
>dealt with in "either God is not omnipotent or God does not care"
>But im quite happy to limit the discussion to the Christian God if you want.
>In which case you can also rule out the "not omnipotent" bi and it just
>reduces to "God does not care"
>
>>>>> 4. gods of limited powers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kinda like the Norse pantheon.
>>>
>>>Could be
>>>Or Roman or Greek or Celtic depending on the limits. They alll had limited
>>>Gods and had demigods.
>>>
>>
>> But not according to the bible,
>
>Which was not mentioned in the original example.
In the original argument, I believe that God, was capitalised, written
as a noun, a proper name.
How many other gods are known by the name "God"?
> But Im happy to take the
>mainstream Christian view if you want.
>It considerably cuts down a lot of other diiscussions.
>
>> and it is the god of the bible which
>> is being discussed.
>
>Well the "God of the Bible" could be the Jewish or even Islamic or Coptic or
>Jehovas Witness one so why not just go with "mainstream christianity" ?
>
>>>
>>>>> 5. even more other reasons
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Keep going, we are listening.........
>>>
>>>It is sufficient to show ONE counter example to show your logical
>>>conclusion
>>>is affirming the consequent.
>>
>> So produce your counter example.
>
>I did above. Take for example the Christian God which cares but does not
>act. In fact in this case god does not act BECAUSE God cares.
>Probably one of the worst things that could happen is the crusifiction of
>Christ
No it wasn't
Between three and six hours on a cross?
Others spent days on them before they died.
> but
>as mainstream Christians would view it God des not stop this because God
>cares.
>
Then why did the church persecute the Jews for so long, if that is
what they believe?
snip
default
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't that rather contrary to your faith as a Christian?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a "sin" in most Christian sects to deny one's faith.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to be getting the logic confused as usual.
>>>>>
>>>> No. Denial of "religious faith" is a "sin." Religious doctrine is
>>>> about as far from logic as one gets.
>>>
>>>Where does the religious doctrine of Christianity say that if someone is
>>>asked their religion and they either deny it or evem refuse to answer that
>>>it is a sin?
>>
>> Is there a "religious doctrine of Christianity?"
>
>Well above the claim was made by poster default: Denial of "religious
>faith" is a "sin."
This is what I did post:
"It is a "sin" in most Christian sects to deny one's faith." the
Denial with no qualifier was intended to reiterate the basic idea.
It is doctrine in Catholicism (or certainly was when I went through
their mill).
>Religious doctrine is about as far from logic as one gets.
>[ens quote]
>
YUP.
>>Would that there
>> were, but I'm not aware of any.
>
>Contradicting yourself now! You u just stated : Religious doctrine is about
>as far from logic as one gets.
>Now you are saying religious doctrine doe not exist!
Sorry I forget I'm dealing with literal fundamentalism.
Let me clarify:
There is no one contiguous doctrine for all of Christianity (which
would make it easier to pin down "doctrine"), there are many
individual sects or cults each providing their own "interpretation"
(agenda) and each sect has its own custom made doctrine.
>
>>The beauty of a religious affliction
>> like Christianity is that it spins off so many sects or cults, that
>> can brand it with beliefs other than the "official" Catholic inspired
>> ones.
>
>Nope. No goalposts moved by ME! iI clearly referred to "mainstream" 95 per
>cent plus of Christians as anglican Orthodox and Roman.
>I have no intention of changing tyhe argument to that of some fringe cult.
>
Huh? You lost me there. I don't see Catholics or Adventists or
Baptists as any different (or Jews or Muslims for that matter).
Presumably the "mainstream" faith would be the one you embrace, and
all others would therefore be cults. Or you could say that the
numbers of people sharing a particular delusion somehow prove an
overwhelming consensus.
Is there a difference between religion and cult?
>> But my own indoctrination has it that to die a martyr for Christ is a
>> very noble thing and guaranteed ascension to heaven (where have we
>> heard that idea before?)
>
>Well one can argue that to lay down ones life for a cause is a noble thing
>whether one believes in God or not!
Dying for a "cause" and "noble death" are somewhat alien concepts to
me. I can understand dying for "freedom or liberty" but can't by any
stretch of my imagination associate those "noble" attributes with any
governmental organization, or political leader.
Dying for the cause of Christianity? Is that what people who blow up
abortion clinics are doing? Is that what the crusades where all
about? Is it noble to be doing those things? No doubt the Israeli
army probably pushes that concept, and Bush thought he was doing the
Lord's work, and Muslims certainly get that.
That way insanity lies.
We who sit at home and pay for wars, don't understand that the people
who do the actual fighting aren't doing it for a cause. They may
enlist with some romantic ideas about the nobility of "fighting for
their country," in their heads, but when blood is let, they are
fighting to preserve themselves and their comrades, not their
president's political agenda.
Sweat, filth, blood, brains pain and entrails . . . not noble.
>
>>and it was a sin to deny one's religion, and
>> duty to proclaim it.
>
>so your fringe cult taught you that it is your duty to proclaim your
>religion and if asked whether you believe you are NEVER to say you wil not
>answer or NEVER to say you do not believe? So what? What I am asking you is
>how can you show that is a mainstream dogma?
My RCC fringe cult you mean? Doctrine or dogma? Presumably doctrine
is the large body of beliefs and dogma is the "you do this or else,"
body of beliefs.
We were inculcated with the idea that a Catholic MUST acknowledge
faith in Christ if asked. No ands ifs or buts. But I do remember
seeing some papal letter, much later, that softens it to denial is OK
"during certain times of serious persecution," without a reference to
when those times may be, or what constitutes persecution.
I can't show it is "mainstream dogma" to you, and won't take the time
to try. I doubt we could agree on what mainstream dogma is.
Frankly, this is the insanity of religion. MARK MY QUALIFIERS:
For all intents and purposes, religious doctrine is whatever the
person delivering the message of your particular flavor of religion
says it is. You acquiesce to their superior knowledge - or that's
what you are supposed to be doing. So if a particular preacher says
homosexuality is a sin, that's now the doctrine, for all practical
purposes, for that congregation.
Being rational, you would of course reject this unless you also think
homosexuality is bad, or you just don't like some preconceived notion
of what a homosexual is. You personally - the more weak minded in the
flock would accept this as doctrine, the children would accept this
as doctrine.
Technically, even a rational person would be sinning, since it is the
sin of "liberalism" to try and interpret scripture or doctrine. Right
or wrong, though he may be, the Catholic priest, as representative of
the holy C, makes the calls, everyone else is just brainless
followers.
>
>> Probably also makes the ashes you're supposed to wear, and things like
>> crossing yourself as you pass in front of a church etc. more
>> palatable, in comparison to death.
>
>Sackcloth and ashes are not cumposory for Christians nor is crossing
>oneself!
We back to allowing cults in when we say "Christianity" or is that
just Catholics and Protestants? I think there's some 5 sects of the
latter so you may want to be more specific.
The crossing is not compulsory? I don't remember it being any choice.
You do it when you pass in front of a RCC church, on entering a
church, during mass, during confession, etc.. That's what my
brainwashing into my Catholic Cult was. Inside the church you were
supposed to genuflect when crossing in front of the alter - although
some folks would make a big deal of it on the steps outside too.
Protestants are just lying heretical heathens that broke away from the
one true church. What they may, or may not believe, is of little or
no consequence. Only Catholics are going to heaven and know what is
right. Everyone else is either going to hell or may work out a deal
with god almighty that lets them slide - with Catholics, you toe the
line and you're assured of paradise.
So say the nuns.
>
> > And practically speaking- one does
>> want ones brainwashed minions to be vocal, because that gives the
>> church political power. The Irish seem to have mastered this.
>
>WEll case in point when yu mentioned ashes I thought of the "sackcloth and
>ashes" reference made by Irishman Ian Paisley . But I would hardly call him
>mainstream.
>
>> Even if the nuns didn't feed you that load of crap - it would be a sin
>> to lie
>
>REally? While western Christianity might think lying the worst thing one can
>do That would come far down the pecking order of sins in Japan or china.
>I didnt lie about anything aby the way and you can't show where I did can
>you ?
No.
Don't try to slide by now either - by making the statement about
"Western Christianity" you've just implied that there is a difference
in doctrine - and that based on geographical constraints!
I have to admit I do personally feel lying is among the worse things
people can do. And if a person is cloaking themselves in the mantle
of justice, public service, or service to god, they have already
elevated themselves above their fellows and we should expect more from
them and punish them more harshly when they break our trust.
I'd make lying a capital offence; no little white lie, no convenient
lie, no lie to assuage someone's feelings, no quarter, no weaseling.
>
>> - much more noble to be torn apart by lions in the arena. They
>> even had pictures in our religious indoc books. Soon to be martyrs,
>> kneeling praying or beseeching with upraised arms, with halos around
>> their heads (getting the jump on sainthood - or making it perfectly
>> clear where they were headed after the lions had breakfast)
>
>This in Ireland included the Limerick soviet I suppose ( atheists) and James
>Connolly ( socialist worker) who was executed while tied to a chir as he
>could not stand up due to the wounds he already suffered?
>
>How about Terence Mc Sweeny "It is not those who inflict more but those who
>endure more who ultimately triumph" world record hunger striker?
>He did that so he could be a saint or for Irish freedom?
>The church specifically wanted the H Block hunger strikers to come off the
>strike. They were folowing the Church orders were they?
Those examples seem like politically motivated murders. Their crime
was their principles not their religion.
Presumably the Christians vs lions was solely to stamp out
Christianity - or that's the way the nuns told it. Realistically, the
problem was probably more to do with an identifiable (socialist?)
group, threatening the political power of Rome.
>
>>>>
>>>>>If true it is a case odf not broadcasting or maybe not admitting but
>>>>>certainly not denial!
>>>>
>>>> Understood. You are going for the gambit I predicted.
>>>
>>>I do not deny I am an atheist. I just say being a believer or an atheist
>>>have nothing to do with the logical content of the posts I make.
>>
>> You wouldn't deny you are an atheist, because to do so might nullify
>> the converse - you couldn't say you were not religious or a theist,
>> logically speaking. Understood, no need to belabor the point.
>
>LOL! I could not say I was NOT religious?
>
>The opposite being??? I could say I was not or I could not say I was?
>
If you say you are not an atheist you have to be a deist or theist and
visa versa. It is a binary choice.
>
>But youy are alreadyt claiming I could not say I was so you are claiming I
>could not say I was and I could not say I was not
>
No I'm not claiming you could not - just that to do so would
automatically put you in the other category. The only way you could
weasel is by saying you are undecided and still studying the options.
Technically that is possible - but don't ask me to believe it, and
don't ask me if I think you are lying. The chance of your being
truly non-polar is too remote to even consider IMO.
>Which insidentally is all I am claiming Im not going to say I am or am not.
>
>[snip]
>her bias, in spite of the
>>>>>> proclamations to the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>>I diorfnt claim I was a christian or not. I didnt claim I was or was not
>>>>>a
>>>>>woman.
>>>>>
>>>> You have been most vociferous on that score, no one would deny that.
>>>> But your bias and one or two slips contradict that idea
>>>
>>>Believe as you wish. I dont bring my personal beliefs into the argument.
>>>It
>>>is YOU who say it.
>>
>> Of course. Understood. I would hold exception to the idea that "you
>> don't bring (your) personal beliefs into the argument." You most
>> certainly do. You bring your beliefs, while denying you have any.
>
>Not into the arguemtn I dont! What argument have i made which are based on
>my belifs.
>All I have doen is refer to logic and counter evidence relating to other
>peoples claims.
and you among all humankind are without bias or agenda? I don't
believe that. I do believe that you have a bias and what you say or
write is influenced by that bias. I don't believe you are on these
newsgroups to wow us with your brilliant superior reasoning ability or
logic (that may be one reason) but I like to think that you have other
motives.
A machine might be capable of ambivalence.
>
>>>>
>>>> It is also inconsistent to drop into Alt atheism and recovery
>>>> Catholicism - since, in the case of atheism at least, questions about
>>>> Jesus become moot.
>>>
>>>I explained why and when I arrived - because of a discussion relating to
>>>communism elsewhere. I know Fasanagh piosted stats about that and
>>>crossposted hoping he would reply. In reading the group (which was
>>>alt.atheism.satire and still is for me) I got caught up in this "no
>>>evidence
>>>" thing.
>>>
>> And now you are chained here? Fasanagh might be one of the most
>> whacked idiots here. He, duke, old man joe, and some others have been
>> on my filter list for ages - because they don't respond except with a
>> lot of scripture or don't/can't read and respond logically.
>
>SO what? i explained why and when I arrived. If you dont accept that then
>tough! It has nothing to do with what you think of others here.
You are the one referring to Fasanagh, I'm merely saying the tooth
fairy has more credibility.
>
>>
>>>Similar happened about a year ago with Malkin as I recall.
>>>
>> Yeah. This is Usenet; anyone can join.
>
>Exactly . If you don't like it tough!
>
My skin is thick. Been here since ~92 . . . We "Westerners," outside
of academic institutions, had a head start on the Internet. Before
that we were using bulletin boards with all the same personality
differences - but not the cultural ones.
>>
>> I like to think everyone has something they can teach me. In the case
>> of the filtered, there's just too much dross to wade through to get to
>> any gems.
>
>That is a rether unexpected comment. I am surprised.
>
Sorry about that.
>>>
>>>>Might be interesting to ponder an idea of the
>>>> historicity of Jesus, but that wouldn't make him a god.
>>>
>>>
>>>Indeed and I stated that in probably my forst or second post on that
>>>argument about historicity.
>>
>> Well, I understand what you did or didn't write - that was merely a
>> comment questioning your motives on specifically posting here - or
>> more correctly, you expressed ire at having to defend your statements
>> on these groups.
>>>
>>>Here are some excerpts:
>>>First I posted NOTHING about MY personal beliefs.
>>>I just happened to point out the rationality in christianity.
>>
>> Rationality and religion are incompatible, mutually exclusive,
>> concepts. One must be a religionist to make a statement like that.
>
>Nope. One does not have to be. One could be an professor speaking to his old
>institution on academic matters. The fact that the man happened also to be
>Pope was apart from that. AS I also pointed out there are Jesuiots with
>academic knowledge in all sorts of fields.
Rationality and religion are mutually exclusive. XOR
That doesn't say someone who is religious is not capable of being
rational, just that religion itself isn't rational. I thought this
logic thing was your bailiwick?
>>
>>>If you had tried to criticised Islam and began by claiming that Mohammad
>>>never existed in history as a way into doing so I might have on a similar
>>>basis showed you historicity of Mohammad.
>>
>> Actually I'd go along with the idea of historicity of Mohammad more
>> readily than the history attributed to Jesus.
>
>
>"history attributed to " is an odd pphrase. all I am saying is it is
>reasonable to assume some person eixted in history.
>
Yeah "history attributed" is totally wrong. "History the church
attributes to Jesus" maybe.
AND I'm not disagreeing with you. It is entirely reasonable,
plausible, believable, likely, that someone named Jesus existed.
>>
>> The Koran is more believable than the bible to me. To me the Koran
>> reads like court (as in royalty- not justice, but that too)
>> transcripts. How to judge rights of property, marriage,
>> justifications for war, etc. combined with the philosophical ramblings
>> of a dictator who used religion to elevate himself over his people.
>>
>> The contradictions might be attributable to how he was feeling a
>> particular day (and a sorry lack of people able or willing, to speak
>> out disagreeing with him).
>>
>> I imagine the pope too, "has a sorry lack of people willing to
>> contradict him."
>
>Not really. Usenet is chock full of then apparently!
>Bt most fdont have the philosophical calibre to take on serious acadmic
>muscle.
>
I don't think the pope hears, listens or cares. I think the Vatican,
has been believing its own bullshit for far too long and is too
insular to be more an anachronism.
I think when the pope conferred infallibility on popes, he really
screwed the pooch. The intent was probably (fast cheap and easy way)
to prevent and squelch dissension, but one effect is that doctrine and
dogma cannot change with the times.
From the popes immediate point of view it is great - he makes his
statement and there's no discussion - the theologians can then work it
in at their leisure.
A logical quagmire - if an infallible pope says one thing, another,
later, equally infallible, pope can't contradict him. Any change in
doctrine has to include reworked definitions, stories explaining away
the inconsistencies so they don't appear to be inconsistencies, or
just attributing the change to the "mysterious nature of God."
How many times can you do that and retain credibility? Even the
mindless followers are going to start thinking.
>>
>>>But i am glad you admit you are only interested in attacking christians
>>>and
>>>that is the sole motivation for you posting to atheistic groups.
>>>I was not aware polyamory was part of atheism as you claim. Can you
>>>provide
>>>evidence.
>>
>> I'm pretty steamed about what religion has done to people, generally;
>
>Yeah. and how about what atheistic regimes did as well eh? Steamed about
>that are you?
>
Nope. Not at all.
>> here in the US it is the "Moral Majority" and their pet agendas that
>> have me up in arms - but religion,generally, is the culprit and
>> specifically the Abrahamic ones.
>
>Unlike Mao and stalin and other atheistic regimes who killed hundreds of
>millions ?
Stalin and Mao? bad people. Two wrongs don't make it right.
>
>
>> But make no mistake, I bear a special hatred of Catholicism, popes and
>> brainless followers.
>
>Does this bigotry not have much supporting it in the way of evidence?
No just my own childhood. I don't expect you to understand. We had
one pedo priest, one junkie, physically abusive, priest, and one
alcoholic politician priest running our parish. The nuns weren't any
better. But you would really have had to be there to understand.
One of our nun's gems of wisdom went something like "if you strike
your parents, after you die your hand will extend from the grave and
have to be beaten down"
The context was that nuns are like surrogate parents while we were in
school. And it wasn't like anyone hit their parents OR nuns it was
just some of the general intimidation and mind messing crap they
heaped on us.
I wouldn't have even remembered that particular stupidity, but for the
fact that my mother told me the same thing. I went to the same
Catholic grammar school that she had - so that story was in there for
25+ years. Keep children cowed, frightened and you won't have any
problems.
Fear breeds resentment and mistrust.
>>
>>>Finally I am sure atheists will be upset at you for claiming that a
>>>central
>>>issue of their NGs is attacking Christians
>>
>> Don't try to make my views those of atheists in general. They/we
>> don't attack Christians - just irrational stupidity.
>
>AS I was doing!
So you say.
>
>>>
>>>This CONTRADICTS the main gangplank of the contention that anti religious
>>>atheism killed hundreds of millions of people.
>>
>> Is that what you believe?
>
>No. It is a fact suppoerted by statistical evidence! Not just a belief.
The statistics you are so fond of, don't try to find out how many of
the followers of these ostensibly atheist regimes are just theists
following orders, do they?
How many of the murderers are Christians? Stats for Russia is 71.8%
Russian Orthodox, - Muslim 5.5%. Say another 3% mongrel religions and
that leaves about 20% atheists and agnostics to do your killing for
you.
AND one of these days when you apply logic to these statistics and try
to see how atheism was a direct and predominate factor in motivating
the killings you will have something you can crow about.
It is just this application of reasoning that brands you a Christian.
The inference you would like me to accept, is that atheists kill
because they are atheists. That is not supported in logic, nor is it
supported statistically.
Nor are you saying it in so many words, BUT you keep coming back to
this idea that atheism kills people as if it is somehow relevant to
what religion does, to allow men to kill people in god's name.
Aren't you ashamed of this misuse of logic (your own god).
>
>>
>> We don't believe in a god without evidence for god and therefore it is
>> only logical we kill people. I mean, the idiot nuns who indoctrinated
>> me might jump to such depths, but certainly not you.
>>
>> Atheists killed people and Catholicism,Hindus,et al, killed people.
>
>
>On a\ totally DIFFERENT scale!
Meaning what? Two wrongs are right? It was just a small murder? God
condoned our murders and not those atheist ones?
Have you tried to correlate percents of world populations at the times
of the murders or population densities, or the other cultural or
societal factors? A rather complex undertaking, fraught with bias
and emotionalism, to even begin to see truth. Well nigh impossible
undertaking.
Sorry Mavis you aren't meeting your own standards of logic in your
attempt to justify your lily white pure church.
>
>[snip]
>
--
Aquilon
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>> So start by "telling the truth" about whether
>>>> you believe in God.
>>>
>>>
>>>If thAT WAS WHAT i WAS DISCUSSING i WOULD!
>>
>> So you lie, instead.
>
>That is illogical.
It is what you said.
>I am also not "telling the truth" about the causes of
>world War I because I am not discussing the causes of world War I.
>That does not mean I am lying about World War I
I have noted from your posts that you are very fond of wrongly
accusing people of committing logical fallacies.
The one which you are currently committing, is equivocation.
In Jesus love, Aquilon.
Earle Jones
Teresita <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:47:38 -0500, default wrote:
>
> > correction 1+1=10
>
> Oh, I get it. That's why all those computer geeks think I'm a 10.
*
See whether you understand this:
"Halloween = Christmas."
Why: Because Oct 31 = Dec 25.
earle
*
Richo
> LOL! A Daniel a Daniel! If you cut me do i not bleed?
> Eventually I find an atheist who is prepared to deal with reason and logic
> and not personally attack me,
> accuse me of being a "believer" or avoid the logical of factual errors in
> their posts.
>
> Shakespearian references aside thank you Mark.
> I am sure when an atheist resorts to ad hominem you will accept the
> criticism of it.
> And I anm sure yu will apply the same standard to anyone and the fact that
> they might or might not be an atheist believer or whatever does not come
> into it.
>
8-)
I always try and be fair and reasonable.
Sometimes my passions get the better of me of course...
In this thread I have been stuck by how much effort you were putting
in to staying away from personal attacks and bluster that usually
substitutes for debate on the internet. I would prefer if you were
someone from "my side" - but I value rational and reasonable debate
from wherever it comes.
If we do cross swords I hope it will be with a certain amount of style
and panache!
And no hard feelings.
Mark.
ar...@hobbiton.net
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
><ar...@hobbiton.net> wrote in message
>news:4tt4i558ekim43e9p...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:44:03 -0500, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:52:18 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>><Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 03:05:19 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>>>"default" <def...@defaulter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 17:19:56 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>>>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip
>[snip]
>>>
>>>How important is it that Jesus is historical? Where does that go?
>>>What does that prove? Why (or) is it important?
>>
>> You had to have been there, sir, when this got started.
>> Several people -- mostly habitual residents of alt.atheism --
>> responded to a troll in the enormous thread, "God created a weight so
>> heavy that not even He could lift it."
>> I'm sure you recognize that subject line as a small variation on the
>> now somewhat tired question atheists used to throw at simplistic
>> theists -- Can God create a weight so heavy not even He can lift it?
>> Loaded question, of course -- an omnipotent deity can both create an
>> infinite weight and lift it. But it's hard for the simplistic to
>> reconcile both actions in one 'omnipotent' being.
>> The lads from alt.atheism were amusing themselves, poking sharpened
>> sticks at one or two theists who blundered into the thread.
>> Some old chestnuts were tossed about regarding deities and their
>> followers.
>> With most of the contributors coming from North America, the deity
>> holding preponderance among believers in our society was dragged in by
>> proxy when that deity's followers were named: Christians.
>> It was about this time that Mavis joined in.
>
>I wont comment on anything before I posted except the message to which I was
>posting
Think you can do it accurately, Mavis dear?
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:35:09 -0600
>Newsgroups:
>alt.atheism,alt.religion.christianity.hypocrisy,alt.atheism.satire,alt.recovery.catholicism,alt.polyamory
>Subject: Re: God created a weight so heavy that not even He could lift it
>From: Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net>
>Message-ID: <Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130>
>
>Where he claimed :
>Either God is not capable of preventing
>tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>
>MY direct reply was:
>Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole option
>left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
No, you can't do it accurately. Clearly you can not even keep track
of your own posts.
Your direct reply to the Holman post to which you referred was not at
all what you claim above. Rather, it was the following:
Message <5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:52:43 +0100
"If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
stopping you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want
you to stop doing it?
"Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't
want you to do?"
Oh, by the way -- in your example quoted immediately above, your
inaction, in many jurisdictions, would be construed, legally, as tacit
agreement with or approval of the witnessed action.
And if that action were illegal -- as, in many places, beating a child
in public is illegal -- you would be as liable to arrest and a court
charge as the doer of the deed.
>> Dear Mavis started taking references to Christians as references to
>> the figure identified as 'Christ' and went on to make a direct
>> reference to Jesus.
>
>This is a false history unsupported by evidence.
Oh now, Mavis dear, don't go off on a hissy fit with me as you did
with Puck Greenman when he changed "if the cap fits ... " to "if the
_hat_ fits ..." (or vice versa) within the same post.
You get so busy finding inconsequential faults in others, Mavis dear,
that you fail to see your own blunders.
And if you want supporting evidence for every utterance made in reply
to you, you are in the wrong forum -- one may say even in the wrong
discussion system. Neither Usenet as a whole nor the three groups in
which this discussion occurs follow the conventions of a leaderless
post-graduate seminar at any university you might care to name. It is
assumed that any participant will recognize oblique or shorthand
references to certain things which recur as topics or themes within
the newsgroup to which he is posting; it is also assumed that any
poster who does not understand these things will ask for an expansion
of the troublesome reference -- and not do as you did in Message
<11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie>, NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu,
05 Nov 2009 14:25:52 +0100, your second response to Holman -- in which
you cut his paragraph in two, responded to the first half with a
question, assumed an answer without foundation and followed up with
three more questions.
It is assumed, in short, that you can keep up with the group -- or at
least that you can keep track of your own posts.
What you call a false history, above, was an overview, a summary, a
pr�cis if you will, of the early development of that thread in an
attempt to answer, relatively briefly, the question posed by the
poster default:
"How important is it that Jesus is historical?"
Since he and I were exchanging positions on various points and
sub-topics raised by one of your posts, default's question could only
have been a reference to the importance _you_ continue to place on the
historical existence of Jesus -- especially since I had never
suggested the man's existence had any importance whatsoever, any more
than I had thus far affirmed or denied his existence.
Now, I could have done nothing more than supply default with the link
to the whole thread, as archived in Google Groups. But that would
have been the lazy way out, and not much fun.
>I was replying to the question " Are you saying God cannot control
>events?" aqsked by Holman.
No, you weren't replying to that question -- as Google archives
clearly show.
Your "Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen . . . "which
you tried to pass off as your first response to Holman was part of
your response to Holman's second post in that sub-section of the
thread -- "So what is the point of prayer?" That was the essence of
his first response to you in that thread.
You objected to that question coming in response to what you may have
thought to be one of your own direct questions, but I submit Holman
took your 'direct question' to be rhetorical. As a mere reader at
that point -- my first contribution to that thread coming ten (10)
days later -- I certainly took it that way.
You do know what a rhetorical question is, don't you? As opposed to
an interrogative in simple present tense? (And feel free to take
either of those questions as either direct or rhetorical, at your
convenience.)
>The answer might be different if you were a pagan or believed in gods with
>limited powers or uncaring Gods.
Indeed so, but those cases are irrelevant. It was established in the
very first post -- the troll which began the thread -- that it was the
_Christian_ concept of the deity, or, if you will, the deity most
North American Christians profess to believe in, which was under
discussion:
Message-ID:
<ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
'"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
'That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
and eat a banana.'
Nothing there about pagans or "gods with limited powers or uncaring
Gods." Or can you find a reference in that message to such
supernatural entities -- cleverly hidden in some numerological code?
>I have already pointed out there were other options.
You may say that now, in present tense. But at the point we have so
far reached in this nostalgic return to the thread in question, and to
your chronological participation in it, you had not done so.
>So rather than go throught all of them I took an example familiar to
>Christians
Not immediately, Mavis dear. That came two posts further on.
>The example was of Christ ( who Christians believe is God) choosing not to
>control events.
>
>I showed why for example this might happen and the reason NOt be that God
>does not care:
>ME In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>happening
> then people could not do the same as him could they?
> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
> position?
Correct, at last. Now read your own quoted text again, Mavis dear,
from the point of view of the regulars in alt.atheism,
alt.atheism.satire, and alt.recovery.catholicism -- three groups in
which any poster advancing what may be seen as a theistic point of
view would do well to disavow that point of view in the same post, or
expect to be taken by the majority of posters to be a theist.
Read your text, Mavis -- and show me where, up to this point, you made
it clear that the words were not a reflection or revelation of your
own opinions or beliefs.
And remember that up to the point of your entry in the thread the
regular posters had referred only to 'God' or to 'Christians.' The
terms 'Christ' or 'Jesus' had been used only by a notorious Christian
troll.
>> It was suggested by one of the alt.atheism regulars that Jesus was as
>> imaginary as Superman.
>
>Not true they asked a question about Superman as being more important to
>ask.
>They did not suggest Jesus was as imaginary.
>Until I pointed out
Ah -- you've found the proper chronology of the thread, at last! Well,
almost.
And you are insisting that we deal with each and every post, in exact
chronological order, are you? Then let us do so.
Alan Ford's question about Superman's cape was itself a response to
your argument about "Christ" using "god powersd to prevent all the bad
things happening."
His reference to the mundane side-effects of Superman using super
powers was, clearly, sarcastic. You failed to recognize that,
proceeding to argue a question of principle as if that question would
apply equally to both individuals -- his Superman and _your_ Jesus --
that is, as if an admittedly fictional character and a supposedly
historical one could stand together for comparison.
Indeed, your objection began with "Your comic book analogy is not apt
because it involves Superman using his super powers." You continued
by trying to insist on a question of principle -- in which you
referred to both Superman and Clark Kent as if both had actually
existed. In other words, there was no acknowledgment (from you) that
those two characters never lived.
To your mention of Superman (or Clark Kent) and Jesus, Ford replied:
"That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
imaginary, fictional characters, their alleged characteristics and the
methods those characters would employ as a response to certain
physical stimuli."
Kindly note, Mavis dear, those words from Ford: "imaginary, fictional
characters." Those words had never appeared in any earlier post
within the thread -- least of all in any post from _you_.
As your exchanges with Ford continued he peppered each of his posts
with sarcasm and bits or irony, all of which you showed no sign of
recognizing -- just as you failed to see the joke in his (obviously)
deliberate misquotation of some Pink Floyd lyrics.
I'm astonished that Ford dangled you on his string as long as he did.
I can only assume he was enjoying your near-infinite capacity for
misinterpretations.
>ME Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
>> super powers.
>
>They then asserted Superman as imaginary as Jesus. I hadnt made any claims
>abnout Jesus being real or imaginary uup to this point
But you didn't waste any time after Ford identified both Jesus and
Superman as imaginary, fictional characters. Your very next post, in
response to Ford, shouted: "WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure as a
human being as well as any claims of him being either a Prophet or of
him being God."
It was your assertion, Mavis -- yours to support, with evidence.
>just that if he was real then certain assumtions were there just as they had
>assumed that God being real as a premise.
That was no part of your tussle with Ford, Mavis dear. It belongs
with the exchanges you had, later, with Holman.
>Of all the OTHER POSSIBILITIES this christian one was just one whereas they
>were claiming that there was only one possibility - the uncaring God one.
Who is "they," Mavis? Only Holman had yet made any reference to the
paradox attributed to Epicurus, which he always presented in an
abbreviated form. Only Holman. There was no "they," until later.
Incidentally, I found it somewhat puzzling that someone as practised,
nay, expert in logical and philosophical disputation as you pretended
to be did not immediately recognize that paradox, and realize that
when fully stated it could be cast in the form of a syllogism -- and a
valid one, at that.
"If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
"There is evil in the world.
"Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist."
Use your best Aristotelian skills on that one, Mavis. Try to show us
it isn't valid -- that the form of _denying_ the consequent is not
acceptable.
We (I and anyone who hasn't lost interest in you) await eagerly your
rebuttal of that syllogism.
>Now i pointed out in this possibility Jesus WAS different because he isnt
>allowed to use super powers like superman can.
Ah -- back to your discussion with Ford, now. OK.
But you are out of chronological order. Your absurd comparison of
Jesus and Superman as one being allowed to use super powers while the
other one can't was back in your first response to Ford. It had
nothing to do with the Paradox of Evil -- for that, I remind you, was
Holman, and he withdrew from the fray just as you began your
engagement with Ford. Holman's next post in that thread came some ten
(10) days later, as a response to the slug, Patrick. Holman was
ignoring you, Mavis dear -- I expect he was too busy laughing at your
evident inability to realize you were being mocked by Ford to see any
reason to interrupt the fun. Indeed, his post to the slug was two
full days after Ford had written to you, in Message-ID:
<hdk6jv$1pn$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13
Nov 2009 17:56:15 +0000 (UTC):
"I lost interest. Believe what you want and keep your belief to
yourself, that's all I'm asking."
Exit Ford. Re-enter Holman, two days later.
>> From there, it became a running and ever-expanding challenge -- mainly
>> to get Mavis to support her claim that there was evidence for the man,
>> Jesus, in history.
>
>Nope. The other person claimed Jesus was an imaginary figure in history just
>like superman.
>I pointed out Jesus was DIFFERENT in two aspectws
>
>1. in terms of the example jesus chooses not to use superpowers even if he
>has them
>2. historicity of the real live person Jesus is in fact a valid academic
>fioeld Historicity of Clark Kent isnt!
You attempted those points, to be sure -- but later, not to Ford in
both cases, and in at least two different posts.
>> Mavis did twist and squirm -- warping the definition of
>> 'contemporary,'
>
>Wrong!
>Right from the start I asked wht they meant by "contemporary Evidence" i
>never warped it!
Really? The word "contemporary" does not appear in the thread until
Message-ID: <hdetn3$9sr$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:53:40 +0000 (UTC), from Ford.
That read, in part:
"I asked for evidence for the existence of Jesus. Therefore:
"1. Since the Bible is the sole source of his existence, in order to
confirm this, other _contemporary_ sources [my emphasis] must be
provided. Not only do they not exist, but even the New Testament is
known to have been written considerably after Jesus' alleged
existence.
"2. Since the original biblical claim is that he was of a divine
origin, even more detailed evidence of his alleged existence *and*
divinity is to be provided. None exist.
"3. His existence and his divinity cannot be separated, i.e. by
claiming that some person named Jesus existed some time in the 1st
century Judea, that he dabbled in carpentry and preaching, but that he
was just a man, is a banal claim - it would be like claiming that some
guy named Joe who was a plumber and talked some shit about politics
existed in the 21st century USA. It is a banal claim and does
nothing."
Far from asking "from the start" what was meant by 'contemporary
evidence,' Mavis dear, you failed to respond to that post in any way.
>> ignoring objections that any evidence to Jesus had to
>> be written since there was nothing in architecture or archaeology,
>
>I have shown this to be untrue by showing "Christian" Graffitti from Rome
And was it 'contemporary,' Mavis dear? Does it demonstrate that the
graffitists knew the man, Jesus, or does it express a belief in the
divinity of the Christ figure?
In the 1960s I saw some graffiti proclaiming "Frodo lives!" But the
only living entity ever to have worn than name (at the time) was one
of the chimpanzees in Gombe National Park, whose antics had been
lovingly described by Jane Goodall. Do you suppose, in that instance,
the graffitist was referring to the ape? Or was he referring to the
fictional character created by Tolkien?
Look you, Mavis, I have seen Christians declare solemnly that a
cruciform indentation found in one of the surviving walls of a
domestic structure in Pompeii was a representation of the Christian
cross -- ignoring, first, the improbability of a Christian household
existing in that city in 79 C.E., second, the fact that the cross had
not yet been adopted as a Christian symbol, and third, that the
Tau-cross-shaped indentation was obviously all that remained of a wall
bracket for a wooden shelf.
Get it? Graffiti is no evidence of the man's "historicity."
>>and
>> interpolating words into the demands of opponents for 'contemporary
>> evidence' or 'written evidence' until he/she convinced him/herself
>> that we who disagreed with her had claimed 'abundant contemporaneous
>> written evidence' about some undeniably historical figures he/she had
>> introduced as a red herring.
>
>I clearly stated that Jesus was as likely in hoistory as others such as
>socrates or Alexander.
That was back on November 9, Mavis dear. We're up to November 11 now.
(Do try to keep up.)
You wrote, on that date:
"There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters
Son two thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the
Great or Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before
that."
>the reply to me was that ther was "abundant contemporaneous writings about
>Alexander and Socrates"
No, that was two posts further on. It came after your prod of November
10:
"Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?"
None of the words -- 'abundant,' 'contemporaneous' or 'writings'
appear in Ford's response of the same date WRT Alexander and Socrates:
"Their existence is well documented in several independent sources and
most importantly, there is nothing extraordinary about the existence
of warlords and philosophers. Jesus, otoh, is claimed to be a deity's
offspring slash deity himself. This, according to the only source of
his existence - the Bible. There is no other source."
The word 'contemporary,' as noted above, appears nowhere in the thread
until Ford's post of November 11, already quoted.
>There arent!
Not as you gradually refined you demands, no. But only _you_, Mavis
dear, slowly shifted the goalposts after Puck Greenman entered the
fray -- just as Ford was washing his hands of you.
(BTW -- don't expect Message numbers or dates of posts in the rest of
this. Start a scholarly journal -- one published on paper -- and I'll
provide all the footnotes your humourless heart could desire. But not
here, any longer.)
With Greenman, at last, we get some of the words you keep throwing in
the teeth of those who disagree with you.
(By the way, I loved your protestation to Holman that his failure to
chide some other poster for a statement with which he may not agree
was the equivalent of agreement! Where now is your position that your
witnessing the beating of a child in silence or inaction could be
merely your tolerance of an action of which you may not approve?)
Jumping in, and responding to that same line "Well you believe
Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?" in the post to
Ford, Greenman answered in part:
"There is an abundance of contemporaneous third party writings, about
both characters, to be convincing.
"There is none, about your Jesus."
If you can not see the difference between 'an abundance of
contemporaneous third party writings . . . to be convincing' and
'abundant contemporaneous writings' as you want them to appear in the
claims of others then I despair of you.
At first you held your objections to repeated statements that there
were no writings at all _by_ Socrates.
When Aristophanes, Plato and Xenophon -- all of whose lives are not in
question, with their vital dates overlapping the dates of Socrates'
life -- were put forward, you objected that the Socrates of the
Aristophanes play 'The Clouds' could have been an invention (ignoring,
or more likely ignorant of, the fact that Aristophanes peopled all of
his plays with caricatures of real people, some living, some dead).
Undeniably historical figures appearing or mentioned in plays by
Aristophanes included: Prodicus, a sophist mentioned in two plays;
Herodotus, a contemporary historian -- perhaps you've heard of him;
Pericles -- but six years dead when 'The Clouds' first appeared;
Cleon, a populist leader and a general in the war with Sparta,
mentioned in or appearing as a character in several plays; the poet of
tragedies, Euripides, alive when 'The Clouds' was staged and appearing
in three other plays .......... I could go on, but I shall not.
Permit me to mention in passing however, one Ameipsias -- another
writer of Attic comedies and a rival of Aristophanes. He presented
the prize-winning play at the festival of 423 B.C.E., when 'The
Clouds' first appeared. Ameipsias' play was titled 'Connus,' and guess
who is the butt of many of its jokes?
Best if I tell you, since you haven't shown much skill at guessing.
Ameipsias lampoons Socrates.
Perhaps it was a conspiracy -- two playwrights poking fun at some
invented philosopher they both called 'Socrates' in two different
plays at the same festival?
Plato you rejected as probably having invented the ideas with which he
credited Socrates, and because his dialogues were written well after
the date of Socrates' trial and death. Therefore, by your shifting
standards, they were not 'contemporary' -- although, also by your
standards, Josephus' 'Antiquities' counted as contemporary.
The writings of Xenophon -- which, IIRC, were unknown to you until I
mentioned them -- you rejected because Xenophon was 'pals' with
Aristophanes and Plato, which somehow made any mention he made of
Socrates some sort of continuing collusion in a fiction rather than
corroborative evidence!
When those objections didn't silence your adversaries you started
objecting that none of the surviving writings of Aristophanes, Plato
or Xenophon existed as _original_ manuscripts: they were merely
copies, made at some later date, and therefore untrustworthy.
Tell me again that you didn't warp the definition of 'contemporary,'
Mavis dear. I could use a laugh right about now.
>Yo arjaty then arrived and claimed on Josephus :
> "that the Testimonium
>Flavianum itself has been suspect for roughly three hundred years and
>has now been overwhelmingly judged to be a forgery"
>
>But you ignored the OTHER Johephus "james the brother of jesus" Josephus
>piece!
We've been through this before, Mavis dear.
I was responding to another notorious Roman Catholic troll, one who
posts as 'Patrick' but is always addressed by me as 'slug' for reasons
he well understands.
It is his habit to grab any reference he can find to counter anything
at all that a non-Catholic may post in alt.recovery.catholicism. It
doesn't matter, to slug, whether his interjection actually supports
his opposing position or whether, on closer examination, it actually
undermines the point he apparently thinks he is making.
And the slug made no -- I'll say that again, a bit louder -- NO --
argument based on that "other" Joesphus reference beyond quoting the
part of the Wikipedia page on Flavius J's writings which acknowledges
that "Jesus is mentioned twice." The slug took two excerpts from two
of Ford's posts from two different dates, waited a few days, combined
the two Ford references and belched forth his reference to Josephus --
quoting _only_ the Wikipedia reproduction of the crucial chunk of the
Testimonium Flavianum.
The slug's entire case rested on that excerpt being accepted as wholly
genuine.
The slug made no further mention of the "OTHER" Josephus reference, so
why on earth should I have done so?
>You even stated:
> The excerpt from the writings
>attributed to Flavius Josephus which was under discussion was the
>so-called Testimonium Flavianum, and nothing else.
Precisely, Mavis dear. How is that not clear to you? The slug built
his interjection on the Testimonium Flavianum alone.
>And in spite the TF being vchanged scholars agree ti referred to a man
>(Jesus) but was changed to reflect a King or superman or God ( Christ)
>The whole thing was not made up just that the persoan crusified during
>pilates time was The Christ.
Yup. It did refer to a man. But we don't know where Josephus got his
information, do we?
Now, Mavis dear, show me how anything from Josephus can be said to
have been written by a _contemporary_ of the man in question -- given
that Josephus was born in the year 37 C.E. and the storied Crucifixion
could not possibly have occurred later than 36 C.E.? (Tiberius,
traditionally Caesar of Rome at the time, died in the year of
Josephus' birth. But Pontius Pilatus relinquished his position as
Prefect of Judea in 36 C.E.)
ar...@hobbiton.net
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:41:42 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:03:39 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>> Works for them. Mavis in imposing rules that don't allow atheists to
>>>> use the same methods as zealots. And we shouldn't -or we become just
>>>> like them.
>>>
>>>even if you claim it is three and abundant contemporaneous written
>>>evidence
>>>for Alexander still doesnt exist even if you claim it does.
>>
>> But no one does, Mavis dear. No one but you ever placed that string
>> of qualifiers -- "abundant contemporaneous written" -- before the word
>> "evidence" when referring to Alexander.
>> You can't demand others support a claim they never made.
>
>From: Puck Greenman <dubh_gh...@hotmail.com>
>Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:58:20 +0000
>Local: Thurs, Nov 12 2009 7:58 pm
>Subject: Re: God created a weight so heavy that not even He could lift it
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.107.208.14
>X-Trace: newsfe30.ams2 1258055911 81.107.208.14 (Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:58:31
>UTC)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:58:31 UTC
>Organization: virginmedia.com
>[ME]Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
>
>
>[Puck in reply]There is an abundance of contemporaneous third party
>be convincing.
>
>There is none, about your Jesus.
>
>I CAN and DO demand people support a claim they made!
Then report the claim accurately, Mavis dear. Don't twist it, as you
do below.
This is a strange sort of behaviour from someone who grew incensed
when that same Puck Greenman used the expression "if the cap fits" on
once occasion and "if the hat fits" on the next.
IIRC you called him a liar -- in great, loud, screaming caps -- for
not quoting himself verbatim.
Moreover you reject any claim if the writings were not produced during
the lifetime of the individual in question, while making a very
special plea for your so-called 'contemporaneous' writings about your
Jesus.
Where did you get your license for special pleading, Mavis?
Explain how Xenophon, who was alive during the time of Socrates, is
unacceptable as a witness while Josephus (who was born at least a
year after the last possible date for the storied Crucifixion) is
acceptable?
>do you deny a claim of abundant contemporaneouds writings for Alexander and
>Socrates and none for Jesus was made?
I deny it was made in the form you choose to use.
You always leave out "third party" and the words "to be convincing."
Where is your _convincing_ contemporaneous evidence for Jesus as a
man?
It's a simple question. Name a contemporary source. Then name
another, if you can, for we are speaking of an abundance -- aren't we?
Mavisbeacon
Exactly! The result is the same
The SAME effect could have DIFFERENT causes
If you know for a fact that a cause will result in a certaion effect
and you then go and witness that effect
You can NOT conclude that the cause is certain because iot could be a
different cause.
concluding that it is a certain cause is called "affirming the consequent"
Look it up under logical fallacy.
>and there is no reason to suppose that merely
> allowing a disaster, offers any more evidence of caring, than
> deliberately causing it does.
Exactly! Based on the statements made in the premise and the observations
there is no reason to conclude that it proves God certainly does care and
ther is no reason to conclude that God certainly doews not care. But I am
NOT CLAIMING God cares it is holman who is claiming that it proves God does
not care!
Aha! now THAT is the OTHER logical fallacy to which I pointed
So far we have had "sffirming the consequent " and "bifurcation"
Now you are suggesting "shifting the burden"
As I just pointed out it isnt up to me to prove a counter claim like "God
cares" it is for those claiming God does not care to prove it.
And as I also pointed out it is not necessary to provide more than one
counter example.
If you claim "all swans are white" I can say "well maybe ther are other
couloured swans"
It is sufficient to show one black swan . It is not necessary to provide
yellow and pink swans also.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. several gods working sometimes against and sometimes for a common
>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are multiple gods?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the Pagans were right all along.
>>>>
>>>>Could be it is another possibility.
>>>
>>> But not according to the bible, and it is the god of the bible which
>>> is being discussed.
>>
>>No
>
> Yes
It is between you and me but the original statement was broader and I was
attacked for taking one narrow example of Christianity.
>
>> I only brought it in an ONE example of the many other possibilities not
>>dealt with in "either God is not omnipotent or God does not care"
>>But im quite happy to limit the discussion to the Christian God if you
>>want.
>>In which case you can also rule out the "not omnipotent" bi and it just
>>reduces to "God does not care"
>>
>>>>>> 4. gods of limited powers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kinda like the Norse pantheon.
>>>>
>>>>Could be
>>>>Or Roman or Greek or Celtic depending on the limits. They alll had
>>>>limited
>>>>Gods and had demigods.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But not according to the bible,
>>
>>Which was not mentioned in the original example.
>
> In the original argument, I believe that God, was capitalised, written
> as a noun, a proper name.
> How many other gods are known by the name "God"?
In the original example I was castigated for bringing Christianity in as a
suggestion.
AS I stated we can assume just the Christian god for the purposes of this
argument.
>
>> But Im happy to take the
>>mainstream Christian view if you want.
>>It considerably cuts down a lot of other diiscussions.
>>
>>> and it is the god of the bible which
>>> is being discussed.
>>
>>Well the "God of the Bible" could be the Jewish or even Islamic or Coptic
>>or
>>Jehovas Witness one so why not just go with "mainstream christianity" ?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 5. even more other reasons
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep going, we are listening.........
>>>>
>>>>It is sufficient to show ONE counter example to show your logical
>>>>conclusion
>>>>is affirming the consequent.
>>>
>>> So produce your counter example.
>>
>>I did above. Take for example the Christian God which cares but does not
>>act. In fact in this case god does not act BECAUSE God cares.
>>Probably one of the worst things that could happen is the crusifiction of
>>Christ
>
> No it wasn't
>
> Between three and six hours on a cross?
I am not debatinf whether there are worse tortures but that in the christian
example the idea of God himself being totally innocent and being beaten
tortured forced to carry his own cros and then crusified is one of the worst
things that humans could do on anyone in terms of injustice let alone on a
God capable of stopping it happening.
>
> Others spent days on them before they died.
Apparently the romans in Judea did not have this practice because they made
sure the victim died.
And again I was not referring to the duration but the injustice against
someone capable of stopping the event.
>
>> but
>>as mainstream Christians would view it God des not stop this because God
>>cares.
>>
>
> Then why did the church persecute the Jews for so long, if that is
> what they believe?
The Jews were persecuted long before the Church existed.
But the persecution of Jews is not the issue here.
The issue is about whether someone decent who is capable of acting can
refrain for doing so and allow somethng which causes harm to happen.
They can.
Whether or not the church did bad things is a different issue.
Certainly they did do bad things but relatively a tiny number of people died
compared to the hundreds of millions slaughterd because of atheistic regimes
for example. If anything the Church East and West brought order to the
world.
Mavisbeacon
<ar...@hobbiton.net> wrote in message
news:etkdi5h0pl8ms6tp5...@4ax.com...
It is VERBATUM above!
>
> This is a strange sort of behaviour from someone who grew incensed
> when that same Puck Greenman used the expression "if the cap fits" on
> once occasion and "if the hat fits" on the next.
And why? Go back and look! It was because Puck was personally attacking my
use of English!
I just made him aware of his own coloquial useage.
> IIRC you called him a liar -- in great, loud, screaming caps -- for
> not quoting himself verbatim.
Where ? REproduce the tract verbatum then would you and we can see how and
why it arose!
Then tell us all what point you are making and how you claim the exchange
proves that point would you?
There is nothing strange in responding in kind when someone deigns to
correct ones use of language.
And if i should correct someone and say "you used the word "hat""
(considering the use of CAPS being relevant)
and they insist "cap" and I show then they used "hat" then they are lying if
they insist "cap"
>
> Moreover you reject any claim if the writings were not produced during
> the lifetime of the individual in question,
No i dont! Im quiotte open to whatever standard of evidence is presented. I
am just asking that the SAME standard of evidence is applied to Jesus in
history!
If they claim one can not use any writings form anyone who did not see Jesus
but lived when Jesus did (as they do in the case of Paul of Tarsus) then
that Applies to Plato in the case of Socrates etc.
>while making a very
> special plea for your so-called 'contemporaneous' writings about your
> Jesus.
No! I am just asking what standard applies. If the standard is - "Plato (or
anyone else) wrote about socrates after Socrates was dead biut the stories
he wrote were written in a time when people who knew Socrates still lived -
then the SAME STANDARD applies to Jesus. Aristotle for example was born
after Socrates died but he know Plato who in turn told him first hand
accounts about Socrates. jusat as ante Nicean writers had accounts of Jesus
or the Earliuest original gospel writers.
>
> Where did you get your license for special pleading, Mavis?
> Explain how Xenophon, who was alive during the time of Socrates, is
> unacceptable as a witness
I NEVER claimed they were unacceptable. I claimed that "abundant
contemporaneous writings" as claimed do not exist!
They just DONT! Scant writings exist and no original copies from the time
they were written.
In the case of Alexander the Great NO writingS exist. One single writing on
a stone not mentioning Alexander at all is the ONLY single source from his
time!
Not ABUNDANT is it?
What "abundant writings" did Xenophon write about Socrates when socrates was
alive?
What is the earliest copy of such writing in existance today?
>while Josephus (who was born at least a
> year after the last possible date for the storied Crucifixion) is
> acceptable
Josephus was a historian of the first century.
As for being informative historical sources about Socrates, Xenophon's
Symposium and his Oeconomicus are regarded by most scholars today as
practically worthless
reference = p. 57, T. Brickhouse & N. Smith, "Socrates", in C. Shields, The
Blackwell Guide to Ancient Philosophy, Blackwell 2003.
grom The Wikepidia article on Xenophon
>
>>do you deny a claim of abundant contemporaneouds writings for Alexander
>>and
>>Socrates and none for Jesus was made?
>
> I deny it was made in the form you choose to use.
> You always leave out "third party" and the words "to be convincing."
Ill give you a tip.
I leave it ourt so when i search using a usenet search I only have to put in
the "3rd partie" reference to find the original
Where are the convincing abundant 3rd party contemporaneous writings on
Socrates and Alexander?
do you thing convincing means " informative historical sources" or "
practically worthless"?
Anyway wher are they? the ABUNDANCE of them?
> Where is your _convincing_ contemporaneous evidence for Jesus as a
> man?
i listed the non New Testament evidebnce for Jesus and suggested the same
type of standard be applied to others.
>
> It's a simple question. Name a contemporary source. Then name
> another, if you can, for we are speaking of an abundance -- aren't we?
Where ANYWHERE did a claim "abundant contemporaneous written sources" for
Jesus?
Why are you asking me to support a claim i didnt make when you refuse to
support a claim your side DID make?
walksalone
news:a6idi51lkjsc2k766...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:54:01 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
snip,because of siz & not becuase of content.
>>And in spite the TF being vchanged scholars agree ti referred to a man
>>(Jesus) but was changed to reflect a King or superman or God ( Christ)
>>The whole thing was not made up just that the persoan crusified during
>>pilates time was The Christ.
>
> Yup. It did refer to a man. But we don't know where Josephus got his
> information, do we?
> Now, Mavis dear, show me how anything from Josephus can be said to
> have been written by a _contemporary_ of the man in question -- given
> that Josephus was born in the year 37 C.E. and the storied Crucifixion
> could not possibly have occurred later than 36 C.E.? (Tiberius,
> traditionally Caesar of Rome at the time, died in the year of
> Josephus' birth. But Pontius Pilatus relinquished his position as
> Prefect of Judea in 36 C.E.)
Well done that man. Or as they say stateside, bad dog, here is a bucket
of biscuits.
walksalone who actually paid attention, & learned there is no eason to
doubt Socrate existed. Now if we could only do the same for Confucius.
Losing your faith is a lot like losing your virginity you
don't realise how irritating it was 'til it's gone.
duke
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:52:30 -0600, duke wrote:
>
>> 1+1=2 forevermore.
>
>OCT 31 = DEC 25
>
>This sort of ambiguity occurs in every counting system except binary.
Regardless of counting system, 1+1=2 forevermore.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mavisbeacon
"walksalone" <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote in message
news:hg7r4f$tpi$1...@news.datemas.de...
> ar...@hobbiton.net wrote in
> news:a6idi51lkjsc2k766...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:54:01 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
> snip,because of siz & not becuase of content.
>
>>>And in spite the TF being vchanged scholars agree ti referred to a man
>>>(Jesus) but was changed to reflect a King or superman or God ( Christ)
>>>The whole thing was not made up just that the persoan crusified during
>>>pilates time was The Christ.
>>
>> Yup. It did refer to a man. But we don't know where Josephus got his
>> information, do we?
>> Now, Mavis dear, show me how anything from Josephus can be said to
>> have been written by a _contemporary_ of the man in question -- given
>> that Josephus was born in the year 37 C.E. and the storied Crucifixion
>> could not possibly have occurred later than 36 C.E.?
Where did I say Josephus was alive when Jesus was?
And now you are arguing about dates?
The point is that for Alexander you have no writingS and for Socrates hardly
any written when they were alive.
For Socrates you hjave Xenophon who refers to a fictional socrates as a
charachter in a play.
The idea that this is a historical reference could be equated to the idea
that the Superman in DC comics is an accurate depiction of a REAL superman.
Now Superman is no doubt based on someone but the fictional representation
is not necessarily really like the actual real person
In fact maybe superman and "socrates" the charachter in Xenophons play were
besed on several people of the time?
The main point here though is that historians accept writings about
Alexandser and Socraetes as evidence for them. Just as they accept writings
about Jesus. But the ones about Jesus can found in books written within the
lifetime of perple who were children when Jesus was alive and could have
talked to josephus or other writers at the time. Or could havew written the
original gospels.
>> (Tiberius,
>> traditionally Caesar of Rome at the time, died in the year of
>> Josephus' birth. But Pontius Pilatus relinquished his position as
>> Prefect of Judea in 36 C.E.)
So what? If you only go by writings written by people who were around when
the claimed persoan was around then you have no writings about alexander and
one by Xenophon about Socrates ( as a fictional character above).
So there are not "abundant" writings for them no more than there are
abundant writings written about jesus when Jesus was alive.
ar...@hobbiton.net
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>ar...@hobbiton.net wrote in
>news:a6idi51lkjsc2k766...@4ax.com:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:54:01 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>snip,because of siz & not becuase of content.
Yes, the post was something of a monster.
But I make no apologies -- except, perhaps, to any interested party
still on dial-up.
Sometimes a very large net is needed to contain a very small fish.
>>>And in spite the TF being vchanged scholars agree ti referred to a man
>>>(Jesus) but was changed to reflect a King or superman or God ( Christ)
>>>The whole thing was not made up just that the persoan crusified during
>>>pilates time was The Christ.
>>
>> Yup. It did refer to a man. But we don't know where Josephus got his
>> information, do we?
>> Now, Mavis dear, show me how anything from Josephus can be said to
>> have been written by a _contemporary_ of the man in question -- given
>> that Josephus was born in the year 37 C.E. and the storied Crucifixion
>> could not possibly have occurred later than 36 C.E.? (Tiberius,
>> traditionally Caesar of Rome at the time, died in the year of
>> Josephus' birth. But Pontius Pilatus relinquished his position as
>> Prefect of Judea in 36 C.E.)
>
>Well done that man. Or as they say stateside, bad dog, here is a bucket
>of biscuits.
Thank you, sir. I've had respect for your posts for at least a
decade, so your attaboy is as welcome as gravy on those biscuits.
>walksalone who actually paid attention, & learned there is no eason to
>doubt Socrate existed. Now if we could only do the same for Confucius.
Alas, fortune cookies don't carry the same evidentiary weight as
written references from contemporaries.
ar...@hobbiton.net
<Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>"walksalone" <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote in message
>news:hg7r4f$tpi$1...@news.datemas.de...
>> ar...@hobbiton.net wrote in
>> news:a6idi51lkjsc2k766...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:54:01 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>> snip,because of siz & not becuase of content.
>>
>>>>And in spite the TF being vchanged scholars agree ti referred to a man
>>>>(Jesus) but was changed to reflect a King or superman or God ( Christ)
>>>>The whole thing was not made up just that the persoan crusified during
>>>>pilates time was The Christ.
>>>
>>> Yup. It did refer to a man. But we don't know where Josephus got his
>>> information, do we?
>>> Now, Mavis dear, show me how anything from Josephus can be said to
>>> have been written by a _contemporary_ of the man in question -- given
>>> that Josephus was born in the year 37 C.E. and the storied Crucifixion
>>> could not possibly have occurred later than 36 C.E.?
>
>Where did I say Josephus was alive when Jesus was?
>And now you are arguing about dates?
Too lazy to tackle the main post, Mavis dear? Or too daunted?
As to what you did find the courage to write -- you have no concept of
contemporaneity ... do you?
>The point is that for Alexander you have no writingS
None surviving (as complete works) among the originals, no. But we
have fragments of them, Mavis dear. Bits and pieces have come down to
us from Callistenes, whose portrayal of Alexander is not flattering
and who died after being imprisoned by Alexander; from Nearchus and
Ptolemy, two of Alexander's generals (the latter being also the
founder of a dynasty of Egyptian Pharaohs); and the lesser-known
Aristobulus of Cassandreia, whose account of Alexander's journey of
conquest was one of the sources later used by Plutarch.
>and for Socrates hardly any written when they were alive.
You have no concept of the form, structure or content of Greek Old
Comedy, do you? Characters in such plays were always based on readily
recognizable figures from legend (deities, the poet Homer), recent
history (Pericles, after his death) or Athenian society members
_living when the plays were written_. The plays were roughly
equivalent to political caricatures in today's satires and to
editorial cartoons in today's newspapers.
Socrates got himself into plays by no fewer than _five_ dramatists (in
addition to Aristophanes -- still with me? that makes six playwrights
in all). Are you going to claim that six different writers of social
and political satire colluded to invent the same character?
>For Socrates you hjave Xenophon who refers to a fictional socrates as a
>charachter in a play.
Clearly your ignorance of Xenophon's written output is as profound as
the Marianas Trench.
Xenophon wrote no plays.
>The idea that this is a historical reference could be equated to the idea
>that the Superman in DC comics is an accurate depiction of a REAL superman.
>Now Superman is no doubt based on someone
Some two, actually.
One for Superman, another for Clark Kent. Both were Hollywood film
stars from the silent era.
For your equation to work, Mavis dear, your DC Comics Superman would
have to appear in accounts by two separate contemporaries, written at
different times and in different locations.
>but the fictional representation
>is not necessarily really like the actual real person
Oh, but Joe Shuster tried hard to echo the public perceptions of his
two models. Trouble is it didn't last -- for one thing, Shuster and
Siegel's original Superman couldn't fly.
>In fact maybe superman and "socrates" the charachter in Xenophons play were
>besed on several people of the time?
Xenophon wrote no plays!
But he did write three (3) accounts of incidents in Socrates' life --
including an eye-witness report on the famous trial.
>The main point here though is that historians accept writings about
>Alexandser and Socraetes as evidence for them.
All historians accept them as evidence, Mavis dear. It helps that we
have surviving fragments of many of those writings.
>Just as they accept writings about Jesus.
No, not all historians accept such "sources."
>But the ones about Jesus can found in books written within the
>lifetime of perple who were children when Jesus was alive and could have
>talked to josephus or other writers at the time. Or could havew written the
>original gospels.
Could have ... could have ... show me something whose foundation is
not conjectural, and we'll talk.
>>> (Tiberius,
>>> traditionally Caesar of Rome at the time, died in the year of
>>> Josephus' birth. But Pontius Pilatus relinquished his position as
>>> Prefect of Judea in 36 C.E.)
>
>
>So what? If you only go by writings written by people who were around when
>the claimed persoan was around then you have no writings about alexander and
>one by Xenophon about Socrates ( as a fictional character above).
In this matter, Mavis dear, you have shown yourself to possess the
attention span of a gnat.
Once again -- Xenephon wrote no plays. None at all.
But six (6) Athenian playwrights, all contemporaries of Socrates,
included him in their plays.
>So there are not "abundant" writings for them no more than there are
>abundant writings written about jesus when Jesus was alive.
Just give me one, single, verifiable contemporary source for your
Jesus ... only one, Mavis dear. A lone, solitary example of something
known to have been written even on the now familiar as-told-to basis
of ghosted biographies. Tell us the name of the author/scribe, and
the name of the source. I won't insist that the original manuscript
still survives. I'll accept copies, lovingly passed down and
preserved through the intervening centuries.
One last thing:
In Message-ID: <14d11$4af856e5$bc8d1d47$23...@news.upc.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:52:37 +0100
you claimed more artifacts for "a carpenters Son two
thousand years ago" than for Alexander the Great.
Where are those artifacts? In what museum? How are they linked to
your carpenter's son?
Is one of them a great city, surviving still, built on the direct
orders of your carpenter's son, within boundaries he personally marked
on the ground itself, with the names of both the architect and the
city's engineer of waterworks well recorded, and the city built during
your man's lifetime?
No such place on any map? Pity.