The Historical Jesus.

[Klondike93]

Originally posted by MACaver
The book of Genesis was written by Moses and passed to Joshua. According to beliefs God explained the "Big-Bang" to Moses and thus we have the accounting there of the origins.

So the Earth is really only a few thousand years old as the bible would have you believe? I can't buy that at all.

As for Mr. Hall, you read it the wrong, I should have used better wording I suppose. My meaning is that the guy has been brought up more than once in this thread so I took a better look through the link you provided. What I read was a guy who had decided to read the bible and "bang" got religion. If you read the first few paragraphs you see the guy had problems as a young man and it's no wonder that he "converted", it was inevetable in my opinion. That's what I meant by not impressed. As for the research you talk about, how much of it was done in the bible? Most in my opinion or else someone would have told us about where he got his info from, eh? Now whether Jesus was an actual person or not, I never really gave it much thought until this thread popped up. After reading both sides of the argument, I agree with Paul (I think he said it anyways), either you believe or you don't because no one can say for sure. Do I believe that he was real, I did. Do I think he was the son of God, I did but only because of the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Told". See I'm not nearly as educated as the rest of you here so I have to take what you have provided and read it and form my opinion from there.
I like the Nightingale statement because that's kind of how I look at it. The bible is a book, written by humans and could be true or could be good fiction. Thus the question of this thread in the first place, and the answer so far has been, "because the bible tells me so".

 

[MA-Caver]

KLONDIKE93 wrote: So the Earth is really only a few thousand years old as the bible would have you believe? I can't buy that at all.

No, I did not say I believe that. I was merely answering cdhalls' question of who authored Genesis.

I consider myself an creationist/evoluntionist...meaning I believe that God (the Father) created the earth and all things in/on it. Also believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.

The Bible speaks of the creation taking place in six days. But are they man's days or God's days? What may be a "day" to God may end up being a million or tens of millions of years to God. Moses was only writing down what he was told.
We don't know specifics. It doesn't matter. I've seen enough fossils in/under the ground to know that 65 million years ago there was prehistoric life. Fossil evidence sustains this unquestionably. Hiking around mountains and crawling in/out of caves support millions of years of existence of the planet.

FAITH sustains what I believe the Bible tells me. Faith and that I have my own interpersonal experiences that can only be attributed to God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.
If you do not have faith then you cannot possibly believe in a power greater than yourself.

 

[Cruentus]

I can understand not being impressed by Lee Strobel based on that interview. The article provides a nice little conversion story, but it doesn't even touch on the evidence provided in his book, and it does sound like the old "I believe because the Bible says so" arguement.

You gotta read the book, however. He interviews a lot of different scholars who attack the subject from different angles. I have read previously and looked into the background of some of these scholars, and their credentials are quite high. The book is credable in my opinion, and the evidence is pretty well laid out there. A lot of evidence is brought to the table well outside the just the scriptures themselves. Also, it is a very easy read.

Strobels book doesn't get highly in depth on all the evidence however, but if you were to pick up publications by some of the scholars that were interviewed you would find a wealth of scholarly proof.

Now, ultimatily, anything we believe does come down to faith. You don't have to believe I exist if you don't want to, despite the evidence of my incredably long posts.

But when people say "there is absolutely no evidence...." to support the Christian premise, I think this is completely arrogent and ignorant. It is like saying that all Christains are ignorant puppets, which is pretty close minded and insulting. There is plenty of evidence to support Christianity, and to support Jesus, both inside and outside the Bible. It comes down to whether or not you buy the evidence that is available. If one says, "I don't agree with the evidence..." or "I don't believe the evidence available fully supports the Christian premise..." then fine. I can understand and respect that opinion. What I can't respect is comments like, "there is absolutely NO evidence available...", because these are arrogent, ignorant, and outright insulting.

 

[Nightingale]

I never said there was no evidence...

merely that Christians tend to take the Bible as their ONLY evidence, which isn't very smart when trying to convince people. To believe what a book says simply because that same book says you ought to believe it is illogical.

-Nightingale

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Nightingale


I never said there was no evidence...

merely that Christians tend to take the Bible as their ONLY evidence, which isn't very smart when trying to convince people. To believe what a book says simply because that same book says you ought to believe it is illogical.

-Nightingale

Oh.....yea, I know. Niether you nor Klondike said there was "no evidence", but I was just addressing the issue because it is something that people often try to say.

And...I totally agree with you about the illogic of "I believe in this book because this book say's so," and the use of this illogic in evangalization.

I am not Mr. Evangalist here, but every now and again I'll get in a conversation with someone who is open to understanding my beliefs, and who really wants to get into the subject. When that occurs, I usually start with the philisophical standpoint first, then historical next. I can't just start talking about what Paul said to the Corinthians if they don't agree that the Bible is a valid source for anything. So I usually start with philisophical questions that are anthropomorphic by nature, such as "Does God exist?" I go through philisphical proofs, gradually leading up to the philosophical questions regarding christianity. Then I take a historical perspective regarding the bible, to show it's validity. It is then, and only If we are in agreement on the philisophical and historical side, that scripture will hold any validity to them.

:asian:

 

[Nightingale]

hmm...

cool.

 

[Klondike93]

Thanks for the great answers Paul and MACaver very well put.

And Paul per your recomendation I'll check the book out.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Klondike93
Thanks for the great answers Paul and MACaver very well put.

And Paul per your recomendation I'll check the book out.

Cool man! Actually I came accross Lee Strobels book through Don Bohrer here on MT. I had read a lot of other sources prior to this thread, but I found Strobels book to be a pretty concise way of going through the evidence, and a very easy read. Don was kind enough to send me a copy, and has given me permission to forward it to anyone interested in reading it.

So, if you promise to either send it back, or pass it along after you've read it, I would be happy to mail you the book. Just PM me your address!

 

[Klondike93]

Tried to PM you Paul, but your box is full.

 

[cdhall]

It will take me longer than I thought to get caught up on this thread and say something.

However, for what it is worth, in the Apologetics class I was taking they mentioned that the Bible is the Literal Word of God, but that does not mean that the Bible should be taken literally.

And example they used is that there is a passage that talks about the Mountains Singing. Our teacher said basically that God instructed/led the author to write that (so it is literally the word of God) but that does not mean that God meant for you to believe that the mountains would literally sing.

I think I got that right. I'll be back at some point I hope. Good job with the Case for Christ too Paul. My Pastor gave me a copy. There is a bookshelf full of them in the Church office.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Klondike93
Tried to PM you Paul, but your box is full.

Ah crap. I don't know why that is. I'll have to figure out how to clear my in box, and I'll let you know when my box is clear.

 

[Cruentus]

I figured it out...so my inbox is all clear!

Try sending me a PM now! This also goes for anyone who tried to PM me earlier, but couldn't.

Later man!

 

[heretic888]

Oy vey. Wotta mess....

I know I mentioned it several times, but here is an interview with Lee Strobel who wrote The Case for Christ [...] He should be a pretty credible source.

In regards to determining the "historicity" of Jesus Christ, I don't think any modern scholar is anymore "credible" than another.

The credibility is found in their arguments and purported evidence, not in themselves. You could have an individual with fairly laughable credentials that could still make an airtight case with solid logic and sound evidence. At the same time, you could have an individual with amazingly respectable credentials that spews absolute garbage at you with no real logical coherence or evidence, expecting to be well-received because he is an "expert" in the field.

This is why adhering to the scientific process in these matters is so important, and not just being wooed by "credentials".

Logical Fallacy #1: Argumentum Ad Nauseam - Basically, this is if you repeat yourself over and over again, and in this case, write incredibly LONG posts with MANY different assumptions, supposed facts, etc., people get tired of hearing about it, so they tend to shut down. It then appears as if you've won the argument, especially on the net, because people will stop responding so it will LOOK like no one can refute your argument. This usually isn't the case, the case usually is that you've overloaded the issue so badly, and you've repeated yourself over and over again so much, that people just don't want to get involved. But...of course just because people don't want to get involved, this doesn't mean that your argument is correct.

Upon looking backwards, BOTH Heretic and myself are guilty of this one. Now, my posts are long a lot, so I have to be careful of doing this. Although, when I do this, I am not doing it intentionally. I just have a lot to say. It becomes a more serious problem when this is done intentionally to try to deter anyone from taking part in the argument so that you look like the winner. I feel that in Heretic's case this was intentional at times. A perfect example is page 8 where he rattles off a slew of info (much of it not directly applying to the argument) and 19 different questions. It then seems that I either have to answer all 19 questions in detail, which could take pages, or I don't answer them all, and I am insulted for not addressing all his points. The fact is he didn't want any of these points addressed really, he just wanted to post up SO MUCH junk that it would deter the average person from wanting to respond, thus making him feel undisputed.

I feel I should speak up here, as paul has taken it upon himself to dictate to the world what my "intentions" were in my posts without any real psychological insight or evidence into the matter.

I often repeated myself because paul seemed to ignore large parts of my posts (which, by the way, were nowhere near as lengthy as his). The points in which he did provide "refutations" were often counter-refuted by me in later posts. He often seemed to ignore these counter-refutations, as well.

Now, I can't speak for what paul's intentions were (unlike what he has felt obliged to do to me). However, many times throughout the thread, I have been given the impression that paul attempted to place both our arguments on "even ground" by ignoring (whether intentionally or unintentionally) many of the points and issues I raised. I was given the impression that just because many of the points and issues I raised were not addressed that they somehow "went away" or their validity was somewhere destroyed. An example of this is my refutation of the "four facts" (external sources, transmission test, internal consistency, and external consistency) paul has brought forth in his arguments.

Thus, I felt the need to repeat points of mine that were not addressed or points whose refutations I counter-refuted. I did this more than once, and paul continually ignored both many of my original points and virtually all of my counter-refutations. Eventually, it seemed this "silent treatment" was not making the unaddressed issues go away (as I kept bringing them back up), so he seemed to resort to ridiculing me with a bevy of personal attacks to somehow invalidate my arguments and counterarguments.

Again, this is all the impression I received. I don't know what paul's real purposes were or, whether any of this was intentional or not.

Logical Fallacy #2: Argumentum Ad Logicam - it is when you make a conclusion based off of false evidence, but the evidence is not proven to be true. This is tough to deal with and very frustrating because IF the evidence was true then the conclusions might indeed be true; people easily lose sight of the fact that the evidence hasn't been proven, so they assume the evidence is true, thus giving the conclusion the appearance of truth.

This seems like circular logic to me. If the "evidence" has not been proven true, then it is not real evidence or data. It is pseudo-evidence.

- "And, also, even among those that do swear there was a historical 'Jesus' (even that name in its original form, Iesous, gives little credence to this claim) have absolutely no historical documentation or proof to back this up."

He expects us to conclude that there is NO historical documentation to back up his claim, but has yet to provide proof of "No historical documentation."

You want me to prove there is "no historical documentation"?? If you expect me to prove a negative, paul, then you can add another logical fallacy to your little list here.

What I meant is that, to date, there is no credible historical documentation of Jesus Christ that has been put forward. If you feel I am wrong on this, then prove me wrong. Put forward the documentation. Then, I will address it.

But, as is, I can't just address every little supposed claim of historical documentation concerning Jesus that has ever been proposed (many, if not all, of which are, to be frank, bunk). Nor can I "prove" the man never existed (which is not the position I have ever assumed on here, I have merely proposed that it is very unlikely he existed). If I attempted either of these, then the posts would just be too lengthy.

Perhaps in a later post I will submit a detailed explanation of my own position and the arguments and evidence I have to support it, as all I have done so far is provide refutations to others' positions. However, I can't just start this up in the middle of a post addressing other issues.

- "On the other hand, there are many many reasons to believe there was no historical Jesus, including the multitude of parallels between the Jesus story and various 'Pagan' myths"

Fails to prove that a pagan myth comparison disproves the historical Jesus in any way.

By itself, no. In fact, I never claimed the Pagan parallels by themselves somehow disprove the historical Jesus.

However, when we take into account that many (if not all) of the "biographical" details of Jesus Christ in the Gospel narratives are prefigured in various Pagan myths, and other proposed claims into account (the "silence" of the early Christian fathers on Jesus' life and teachings, the lack of external sources verifying Jesus' existence, the seemingly non-historical nature of the Gospels themselves, the proliferation of Gnosticism/Docetism as the most prominent form of early Christianity, etc.), then it does seem to point to some rather startling conclusions.

- "The 'Jesus references' among Josephus's works are largely discredited as forgeries of the 2nd and 3rd centuries"

Makes a claim that these are forgeries, with no proof to back the claim.

Well, to be blunt, you never asked.

Like I said before, I can't go into detail into every little issue that is brought up on this thread. If you want me to "prove" a claim, or go into detail on something, then just ask.

- "The 'Jesus references' among Josephus's works are largely discredited as forgeries of the 2nd and 3rd centuries"

Largely...by who. Who says they are correct? Obviously there are scholars who would disagree, but we are instead supposed to believe yet another conclusion based off evidence which has not been proven to be true.

Well, the "Testimonium Flavius" is almost universally recognized as a forgery (which is fairly obvious if you've ever read it). As I understand it, many scholars believe the actual author of the excerpt is Eusebius (320 CE), who was also the first individual to ever quote it.

The supposed reference to "James the Just" is debatable, but I also regard it to be a forgery. If you want me to give my reasons for this in detail, then ask.

I could go on and on, but this is just in the 1st post. Now I know it is difficult to cite everything, but I am not talking about just citing sources here. It goes beyond that. What I am talking about is listing unproven evidence to support a claim, but doing it SO MUCH and with SUCH AUTHORITY, that the audience either A. Believes it to be true, or B. falls into the trap of the above fallacy, where there is too much stuff to address, so they shut down. In either case, this is a major fallacy that is not conducive to a good discussion. Mainly because the person performing this fallacy (heretic in this case) entraps the opposing arguers into taking part in the fallacy. Either the opposing party addresses every little side issue (as I tried to do) which leads to ad nauseum, too much info, and extremely long posts, or the opposing party shuts down and ignores the issue, so it appears that the person performing the fallacy won the argument.

Your complaints here seem to have nothing to do with the "Argumentum Ad Logicam" you mentioned before. Your major problem seems to be with the tone used in the posts, not any supposed "lack of evidence".

Again, if you want me to clarify my "evidence", the ask. Not once did you ever do this (although, admittedly, I did go in some detail in later posts on how some of the supposed external are spurious).

#3: Argumentum Ad Hominum - or "argument against the man." Heretic has done this right from the start, and this is what caused me to get extremely pissed off.

Whatever personal attacks you believe I may have made against you are nothing compared to the blatant character assassination you have been involved in for quite some time (examples: "anyone reading this thread can tell you are a complete and total moron" and "you're delusional"). I suggest you calm down and take a good, long look in the mirror, paul.

"I suggest you study the history of the Hellenistic Roman Empire in more depth."

That's because you made a historically dubious claim (namely, that the Jews were somehow "religiously persecuted" in ancient Rome or that the Greco-Roman world did not "understand" monotheism). This claim was blatantly biased by your own personal religious beliefs and does not reflect any historical research into the subject (namely, the imperial operations and positions in Hellenistic Rome).

"*cough* Actually, if you reread my post..."

This is because, at the time, you misrepresented my position (something you've been doing a lot, actually), whether consciously or unconsciously. Thus, I asked you to reread my original post in more detail.

"*chuckles* That depends on how much weight you give to pseudo-science."

You made a claim that I believed had no scientific basis for it. Thus, the appelation "pseudo-science".

"Ahem. It's spelled 'empirical' and I can assure you it is a real word (look up 'empiricism' in the dictionary if you don't believe me)."

Yes. I overlooked this mispelling the first 7 times or so... but after you kept doing it over and over, and kept putting the word in quotation marks (which gave me the impression that I was somehow "making it up"), it just started to get too annoying.

All this stuff is an attempted attack on my character. There is a lot more, but you catch my drift. All this implies that I either haven't read enough on the subject, so my argument must be wrong.

Again, paul, don't try and assume the moral high ground here. None of my "attacks" on your character were blatant (and many of them were made jokingly), unlike yourself who felt justified in fabricating a pseudo-psychological evaluation of me (on the basis of less than 10 words I said) to somehow devalue my position. The projectionism you are engaging in here is so obvious its painful.

Or, I don't read thoroughly, or I have horrible spelling, implying that I am "stupid."

This is completely your own personal projections into what I actually said. I never once called you "stupid". In fact, not once have I ever given my standards on what I believe constitutes "intelligence" in the first place.

All I said was that you were constantly mispelling a certain word that you felt the need to place in quotation marks (which I found increasingly annoying), which was true, and that you misrepresented my position by not reading my post in greater detail, which was also true.

If you feel any of this constitutes "stupidity", then that is your value judgment. Not mine.

I have also been called "ignorant" by him as well, as well as "Liar".

Actually, you called yourself a "liar". I never called you that, nor did I call you "ignorant".

The truth, however, is that you fabricated an untrue "psychological history" of me in an attempt to devalue my position. When I called you on it, you denied it. Thus, you were lying.

I don't know what it is that you think constitutes a "liar" (lying just once doesn't pass the test for me), but the fact is that you were lying about me on the thread.

This was done as an attempt to win an argument through an attack to my character by implying that I am stupid, uneducated, and a liar. This is really low. Fallacy #1 and #2 was frustrating enough to have to deal with, but this put me over the edge.

If what I did put you over the edge, then you must really hate yourself. What I did was nothing compared to the blatant insults that have been hurled at me by you (example: "you're an idiot"). Still, you don't see me whining about it, or projecting my own personal wishes and anger onto others.

However, I did not attack his character in order to win an argument.

Actually.... yeah, you did. Or, at least you tried to.

Seriously, paul, what do you expect me to believe?? You ignore most of my arguments and counter-refutations and, after I repeat them and you still ignore them, you start ridiculing me and then attacking me (culminating in a fabricated "psychological history" of my personal beliefs). It gives me the impression that you started mud-slinging to "win" the argument and then later declare yourself the "winner" on very dubious logical grounds as if the argument is over.

So, yeah... from where I'm standing, if looked like you tried to use character assassination to "win".

I used evidence and logic to win the argument.

You never "won" the argument, as I have stated before. I once again provided a refutation to your claim that any "Joshua Messiah" in history somehow equals the "Jesus Christ" of Christianity, and you once again ignored this refutation (not even addressing it) and declared yourself the "winner" with even greater rigidity.

My "attacks" were my attempt to merely address what he had been doing to me all along on this thread, and how he had been acting.

No. You projected onto my posts what you have been doing all along. Some of your attacks were not projections but blatant attacks, also. I never made any "psychological history" of you or your beliefs.

I still shake my head in wonder and ponder why there are folks trying to prove that this ONE MAN never existed

It's very simple, macaver. Some of us are just interested in truth, no matter what form it may take. You seem to have some problem with that.

when millions believe that he did

Millions also believed the world was flat, and that slavery was justified. Popularity doesn't prove anything.

and millions more devote their whole lives to his teachings.

Purported teachings.

I mean, what is it that makes people want to say "he never existed" ? Jealousy? Envy? Fear? Shame? Bitterness from a bad experience related to beliefs? Something I tell ya. I dunno. But the alterior motive to try and DISPROVE one man's entire existence goes a lot deeper than one may want to admit.

Oh look... someone else is trying to use some dubious "psychobabble" to devalue the mythicist position. Big surprise.

The evidence lies in one book (two, if you're LDS); the Bible.

And where does that lead us if the Bible is found to be both internally and externally inconsistent?? And, if the Bible itself is not an eyewitness account of historical events, as many Christian proponents claim?? Hmmm...

Also funny/strange that no-one disputes the existence of anyone else mentioned in the bible, i.e. Moses, Noah, Adam, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, John, Peter, Mark, Luke, etc. etc. etc. etc.... Just Jesus.

Actually, many people do dispute some (perhaps all) of those other individuals. Each one must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in light of the evidence. This thread, however, is about Jesus.

I personally find it "funny/strange" that no one disputes the NON-existence of Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus, Heracles, Bacchus, Attis, or Adonis even though their lives are oftentimes very similar to Jesus' and there is just as much historical "evidence" to support their existence as Jesus'.

I was Awestruck that sitting in that literature class some 2500+ years after the "fact" that Aeneas was the most famous Greek to ever live. At least you could argue that he was. Seemed like a prophesy fullfilled to me. And then I learned later that Troy was actually found and the Trojan War quit being a pure myth.

Actually, it is still debatable whether the Trojan War actually happened or not.

So in a similar fashion I wonder how could Jesus not have existed but yet had this profound effect on World history, philosophy and religion?

Could all this have happened from a lie someone made up near a desert in a small province on the outskirts of the largest, most modern empire on Earth?

Yes. It's been done before, there is nothing extraordinary about it. Mithraism and Manicheism both became virtual world-religions, and the historicity of both of their respective founders is highly dubious. The historicity of Gautama Buddha is also highly questionable, but we see Buddhism all over the world.

The simple truth is that just because a lot of people start believing something doesn't make it true.

The most significant event in the history of the world was the life of Jesus Christ.

That's so debatable it's not even funny.

the United States was founded largely because of it

That is blatantly untrue. The United States (and democratic ideals as whole) was established as a rejection of traditional religion. Why do you think democracy as a whole only began to flourish when secular humanism developed, when people began to question and criticize traditional religious concepts?? When traditional religion was running the show, you didn't see a single democracy grow. Not one.

the World Trade Center was recently bombed because of it.

That is such a simplified and untrue generalization of what really happened that I don't even know where to begin. :uhoh:

Who told this to the author of Genesis? This should be an uncomfortable realization for anyone wanting to discredit the Bible as a reliable source of information I would think. I think I recall from a class I took at UT that the Greek mentioned "void" as being the beginning and this was the word for "nothing" which seems very close in my opinion to being the same thing as a expansive Universe (or Universes) being compressed to just a few millimeters across.

No, this is a logical fallacy and quite common among many modern apologetic authors. They basically try and read their own religion's doctrines into modern scientific discoveries.

Having Yahweh declare there to be light is not even close to what the Big Bang Theory posits. For, you see, a lotta stuff happened in Genesis before there was light. Apparently, there was water first (as God had to "divide the depths"), an obvious plagiarism of the Egyptian creation myth.

Don't you find it interesting that no Jew, Christian, or Muslim could enlighten us about this great Big Band until it was conveniently "discovered" by astronomers in the 20th century??

The book of Genesis was written by Moses and passed to Joshua. According to beliefs God explained the "Big-Bang" to Moses and thus we have the accounting there of the origins.

Actually, that's not a part of Jewish or Christian belief at all. Namely, because Judaism and Christianity didn't even know what the "Big Bang" was until the rest of the world did.

That account is something modern apologetics do when they try and read their own beliefs into scientific theories.

The Bible speaks of the creation taking place in six days. But are they man's days or God's days? What may be a "day" to God may end up being a million or tens of millions of years to God. Moses was only writing down what he was told.

Actually, macaver, a literal reading of Genesis is still refuted here. The "six thousand years old" bit comes from adding up all the accumulated years of all the Biblical figures that are in the Old Testament. The number comes down to Adam and Eve being "born" about 5,500 to 6,000 years ago. We have extensive fossil evidence, however, that Homo Sapiens Sapien is at least 8,000 years old.

But when people say "there is absolutely no evidence...." to support the Christian premise, I think this is completely arrogent and ignorant. It is like saying that all Christains are ignorant puppets, which is pretty close minded and insulting. There is plenty of evidence to support Christianity, and to support Jesus, both inside and outside the Bible. It comes down to whether or not you buy the evidence that is available. If one says, "I don't agree with the evidence..." or "I don't believe the evidence available fully supports the Christian premise..." then fine. I can understand and respect that opinion. What I can't respect is comments like, "there is absolutely NO evidence available...", because these are arrogent, ignorant, and outright insulting.

It's quite simple, paul.

If the "evidence" is refuted to be false or untrue, then it ceases to be "evidence". It is pseudo-evidence. When I said "there is absolutely no evidence..." I was referring to my position that the only evidence to support Jesus' historical existence is, in fact, pseudo-evidence.

You can "respect" that position or not. The decision's up to you. However, just as I don't consider the "evidence" that the world is flat (something many "experts" believed in the Middle Ages) to be true, I also don't consider the "evidence" that Jesus existed to be true. There is indeed a very real distinction between evidence and pseudo-evidence.

Anyways, everything said here is just my opinion on the subject.

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

Anyways, everything said here is just my opinion on the subject.

Fine...and I am going to refrain from answering you entire post to address one very important opinion, if that is O.K. I think this is the exact point in which we both differ, and where we both can't find a common ground for discussion.

If the "evidence" is refuted to be false or untrue, then it ceases to be "evidence".

This is the area I think we differ the most. If we can't get some sort of agreement on this, then we will not be able to find a common ground for a discussion.

You believe that because evidence was "refuted" that it ceases to be evidence. I don't think that this is the case, because what if these "refutations" are wrong? Then the evidence remains credable. What Christian apologists believe is that these refutations are incorrect, and they have counter proofs to support their arguements, therefore maintaining that their evidence is credable, and the refutations are not. And obviously opponents of Christianity believe that these refutations are credable, and they have arguements behind their claims.

So what it comes down too is faith....either in the evidence supporting Christianity, or the evidence supporting the refutations of Christianity. I understand this and am wholely comfortable with this...are you?

The major problem I have with your viewpoint is it seems that you think that your arguements are "empirical" fact, and anything that opposes your arguements are just poorly supported opinions. This is the part that I think can be arrogent, whether intentional or not. When you take on this attitude, it is nearly impossible to have a decent conversation where we are all on the same playing field. It is like saying that Christians are all ignorant because they accept poorly supported opinions to be true, rather then empirical fact. But the only "Fact" here is that the evidence refuting Christianity is no more "empirical" then the evidence supporting it. This is at the very least.

You see, I believe in the Christian premise. Yet, I don't believe that everyone who doesn't agree with me is ignorant or stupid. I may believe that they are wrong, but being wrong doesn't mean ignorant, stupid, or lesser then me. If it was true that the evidence refuting Christianity was empirical and fact, and everything else was bunk, then how could you think anything BUT Christians are ignorant and stupid? You can't.

To me, the issue seems very black and white. Either A. Christianity DOES have evidence to back it's claims (even if you disagree with the evidence) or B. Christianity has NO evidence, and therefore all it's followers stupid and ignorant for believing such nonsense with no evidence to support it. I don't think that there isn't much of an alternative here.

If we can agree that no one side is stupid or ignorant, and that there is evidence and arguements to support either side, and to agree with either side is a faith based decision based off the presented evidence, then I think we can really turn this into something productive.

So...if we can agree that at the very least, [to rephrase it] niether side is any more empirically correct then the other, and that to believe in either side is FAITH based on evidence, then I think we might be able to have a discussion on an even ground.

If you continue to insist that your BELIEFS are FACT, and everyone elses beliefs must be fiction based off evidence you consider empirical, then it will be impossible to have a productive conversation with you on the subject.

So....where do you stand? If we can find some agreement on this, then I have a great idea for a structured way we can debate on the internet, turning this mess into something productive. If we can't...then I don't see what the point would be, really.

 

[heretic888]

Fine...and I am going to refrain from answering you entire post to address one very important opinion, if that is O.K. I think this is the exact point in which we both differ, and where we both can't find a common ground for discussion.

If you want to start finding "common ground" then stick to the subject and discuss the attempted refutations (and counter-refutations) I presented against your "evidence". Or, present new "evidence".

This is the area I think we differ the most. If we can't get some sort of agreement on this, then we will not be able to find a common ground for a discussion.

Ok, if you say so.

You believe that because evidence was "refuted" that it ceases to be evidence. I don't think that this is the case, because what if these "refutations" are wrong? Then the evidence remains credable. What Christian apologists believe is that these refutations are incorrect, and they have counter proofs to support their arguements, therefore maintaining that their evidence is credable, and the refutations are not. And obviously opponents of Christianity believe that these refutations are credable, and they have arguements behind their claims.

Ok, allow me to rephrase then. I believe most (if not all) of "evidence" you have presented thus far is pseudo-evidence.

So what it comes down too is faith....either in the evidence supporting Christianity, or the evidence supporting the refutations of Christianity. I understand this and am wholely comfortable with this...are you?

No, I'm not. Sorry, but I don't do "faith".

There are scientific empirical standards to evaluate all this "evidence" under. I, of course, believe my position has the most empirical evidence in support of it. That is, naturally, just my opinion on the matter.

But to say it is my opinion is not to reduce everything here to the ethereal domains of "faith" (because, very simply, not all positions are of equal merit). This gives the mistaken impression that all positions are thus on some kind of "equal footing", which they are not.

I support the position that I feel has the most empirical evidence in support of it. If you feel otherwise, present your evidence or present your refutations of my evidence and we'll take it from there.

The major problem I have with your viewpoint is it seems that you think that your arguements are "empirical" fact, and anything that opposes your arguements are just poorly supported opinions. This is the part that I think can be arrogent, whether intentional or not. When you take on this attitude, it is nearly impossible to have a decent conversation where we are all on the same playing field.

Not once have I ever claimed that my position are unmalleable "facts". I do believe that, at present, my position has the most empirical evidence in support of it. That is, I feel my opinion is the most informed, one might say. However, not once have I ever said it was anything but my opinion.

It is like saying that Christians are all ignorant because they accept poorly supported opinions to be true, rather then empirical fact.

I don't recall characterizing "all Christians" in any way.

But the only "Fact" here is that the evidence refuting Christianity is no more "empirical" then the evidence supporting it. This is at the very least.

That is very, very debatable and a "fact" that I most certainly would contest with.

You see, I believe in the Christian premise. Yet, I don't believe that everyone who doesn't agree with me is ignorant or stupid. I may believe that they are wrong, but being wrong doesn't mean ignorant, stupid, or lesser then me. If it was true that the evidence refuting Christianity was empirical and fact, and everything else was bunk, then how could you think anything BUT Christians are ignorant and stupid? You can't.

That's you, paul. Not me. What you fail to realize is that just because you see the world a certain way does not mean everyone else does.

I, in fact, do not think anyone is "ignorant and stupid" nor do I believe anyone is inherently, absolutely "wrong" per se. Just because something is not empirically true does not mean it is "bunk" or "stupid". I see the nested value in everything.

Needless to say, I see and interpret the world in a quite different way then you do.

To me, the issue seems very black and white. Either A. Christianity DOES have evidence to back it's claims (even if you disagree with the evidence) or B. Christianity has NO evidence, and therefore all it's followers stupid and ignorant for believing such nonsense with no evidence to support it. I don't think that there isn't much of an alternative here.

There goes your first mistake, paul.... nothing in life is black and white.

If we can agree that no one side is stupid or ignorant, and that there is evidence and arguements to support either side, and to agree with either side is a faith based decision based off the presented evidence, then I think we can really turn this into something productive.

Ok, I'll address them one at a time:

1) I do not believe, nor have I ever claimed, that any side is "stupid" or "ignorant".
2) I agree that there is supposed evidence for both sides, which does not necessarily mean it is valid or true.
3) I do not agree that both sides are "faith-based" (at least not how this concept is typically used). I don't think that either side is simply "fact" or that either side is simply "wrong". However, I do feel that (for me, at least) the basis for the position is reliance on what is perceived to be greater evidence not some philosophical commitment (i.e., "faith").

So...if we can agree that at the very least, [to rephrase it] niether side is any more empirically correct then the other, and that to believe in either side is FAITH based on evidence, then I think we might be able to have a discussion on an even ground.

Apparently, your conception of putting this discussion on "even ground" is reducing both positions to an extreme non-objectivity, a premise I cannot subscribe to.

If you continue to insist that your BELIEFS are FACT, and everyone elses beliefs must be fiction based off evidence you consider empirical, then it will be impossible to have a productive conversation with you on the subject.

I think your problem, paul, is that you see things way too dualistically, too black and white. Either its fact or its bullsh*t. Either you're completely right or you're completely wrong. Either your informed or you're an idiot.

And then, in an attempt to alleviate this dilemma, you go in the opposite direction and try to assume this rigid relativistic stance in which every position is magically "equal" regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof) in support of it. Except, of course, for the position that all positions are equal, which is supposed to be superior than everything else.

I would propose a more holistic and balanced view of the situation in which no one is inherently "right" and no one is inherently "wrong", nor is everyone's position magically "equal". I would say that everyone is partially right (and thus partially wrong), but that some positions (partial as they are) are basically more "accurate" than other positions (which are still partially right in their own respect).

It's called a nested hierarchy, or holarchy. Interesting stuff.

So....where do you stand? If we can find some agreement on this, then I have a great idea for a structured way we can debate on the internet, turning this mess into something productive. If we can't...then I don't see what the point would be, really.

I think I've basically explained my position on this (which seemed to be more philosophical/epistemological than historical). Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

No, I'm not. Sorry, but I don't do "faith".

There are scientific empirical standards to evaluate all this "evidence" under. I, of course, believe my position has the most empirical evidence in support of it. That is, naturally, just my opinion on the matter.

But to say it is my opinion is not to reduce everything here to the ethereal domains of "faith" (because, very simply, not all positions are of equal merit). This gives the mistaken impression that all positions are thus on some kind of "equal footing", which they are not.

I support the position that I feel has the most empirical evidence in support of it. If you feel otherwise, present your evidence or present your refutations of my evidence and we'll take it from there.

I'm sorry, but you DO do faith. You may call it something else, a belief, or a theory perhaps. But, you are still relying on a belief that your theories and conjectures are true; and since it is indeed a "belief", then it is indeed faith.

When talking about the historacracy of ANYTHING over 1000 years ago, almost nothing is "empirical," despite what you want to BELIEVE. We are talking about issues with limited evidence on both sides. If we were arguing on whether or not bleach would turn your hair blonde, then we could have emperical evidence, because we could test it and watch the results. We can't do this with ANYTHING that happened over 1000 years ago.

Now, when I said faith, I am not trying to reduce your arguement or mine to "blind faith" with no educated evidence to support the belief. Both your beliefs and mine have evidence behind it, our beliefs are "educated."

And, yes, on the issue of "did Jesus exist as a real person," one of us is correct, and the other is not. One of us will have the evidence and ability to win the arguement, and one of us won't. We aren't on the same playing field in that sense.

However, we need to start there. We need to start on the same playing field. We need to realize that none of us has anything "empirical," and that we both have evidence that needs to be taken into consideration. Until you can realize that, you will continue to believe that your better/smarter then those who disagree with you, and nothing will get accomplished.

That's you, paul. Not me. What you fail to realize is that just because you see the world a certain way does not mean everyone else does.

I, in fact, do not think anyone is "ignorant and stupid" nor do I believe anyone is inherently, absolutely "wrong" per se. Just because something is not empirically true does not mean it is "bunk" or "stupid". I see the nested value in everything.

Ah...that wasn't condensending at all to point out what you think I have "failed to realize." I haven't failed to realize anything in that regard. But I did pose the question: HOW could you think anything other then my conclusion with your attitude? I asked HOW.

I'll also ask, what nested value do you see in Christianity, since you see the nested value in everything?

Also...to say that nothing in life is black in white is ironically a "black and white" statement and a contradiction...but whatever. I said that the issue SEEMED black and white. You explain how it is different if it is not.

If you want to start finding "common ground" then stick to the subject and discuss the attempted refutations (and counter-refutations) I presented against your "evidence". Or, present new "evidence".

I am addressing you first point last. It is useless to have a discussion where we are both talking at each other, and getting into contests to see how much evidence we can post, without having a common ground for discussion. The convesation goes no where, not even for outside readers. Simply "sticking to the subject" unfortunatily will not give us this common ground, as we have proven. What will is we can agree on what I first said regarding our evidence in this post.

Regardless, I have been talking to Kaith about getting a special forum together where we can have a structured debate on the subject. A little structure will keep things on track better then they have been, and we can see who really has the best evidence out of the 2 of us. Just be patient, though, for it might take a few weeks to get this together, if it goes through.

 

[heretic888]

I'm sorry, but you DO do faith. You may call it something else, a belief, or a theory perhaps. But, you are still relying on a belief that your theories and conjectures are true; and since it is indeed a "belief", then it is indeed faith.

Hmmm.... I think we're mixing up definitions here. I assumed (probably incorrectly on my part) you meant faith in the sense of "blind faith" as it is popularly used (especially in discussions such as these). This definition, to me, implies that I am just riding along on these theories without any evidence or proof to back them up.

If we are referring to this "blind faith" definition of faith, then I would strongly disagree with your conjectures here. If we are referring to the definition of faith as merely another word for confidence or conviction, then I would certainly agree with that.

When talking about the historacracy of ANYTHING over 1000 years ago, almost nothing is "empirical," despite what you want to BELIEVE. We are talking about issues with limited evidence on both sides. If we were arguing on whether or not bleach would turn your hair blonde, then we could have emperical evidence, because we could test it and watch the results. We can't do this with ANYTHING that happened over 1000 years ago.

Ummm.... no offense, paul, but I think you need to look up the definition of "empiricism".

Empirical information (following the dictates of the scientific process) refers to ANY information or data disclosed through an injunction, social practice, or paradigm of some kind (I am, of course, referring to Thomas Kuhn's definition of these various concepts). This data does not have to be limited to sensorimotor information such as those found in the so-called "hard sciences" (as you have mistakenly portrayed), but also includes non-physical data as found in sciences such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, cognitive science, semiotics, linguistics, and so forth. This includes historical research.

Furthermore, even the "hard sciences" make use of decidedly non-physical tools to study and observe their sensorimotor phenomena; tools such as mathematics, logic, and so forth. Thus, your characterization of empirical data as being only externally observable information is somewhat mistaken.

In addition, there is still much sensorimotor information that we do have access to concerning the time period. Contrary to the false historical generalization you have made in previous threads, the time and place in question was one of the most literate and well-recorded circumstances in human history (second only to modern and postmodern times). While it is true that much information has been lost (due in no small part to the "purges" of the Christian empire), we still have the writings of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of historians and commentators of the time. There is also a fair abundance of archaeological data as well, although this is typically less available than the historical writings.

So, I'm afraid your overall characterization of any lack of "empirical information" is not entirely accurate.

Now, when I said faith, I am not trying to reduce your arguement or mine to "blind faith" with no educated evidence to support the belief. Both your beliefs and mine have evidence behind it, our beliefs are "educated."

Alright. That's what I was trying to clear up.

And, yes, on the issue of "did Jesus exist as a real person," one of us is correct, and the other is not. One of us will have the evidence and ability to win the arguement, and one of us won't. We aren't on the same playing field in that sense.

Well.... not necessarily.

While it is true that one of us is more "correct" than the other in this particular issue, much of the above characterizations are dependent on definition. For example, by "historical Jesus" do we mean a specific individual that lived a life similar to those in the Gospels?? Or, do we mean any individual that the possibly mythopoetic Gospel accounts might have been based upon?? Does our "historical Jesus" have to have any direct relationship to Christianity?? Or, could he have simply been an "inspiration" for later generations??

I think to solve this issue, we have to establish some agreed upon definitions for exactly who and what we mean by a "historical Jesus". Only then can we ascertain whether this personage actually existed in a historical-literal sense or not.

However, we need to start there. We need to start on the same playing field. We need to realize that none of us has anything "empirical," and that we both have evidence that needs to be taken into consideration.

I agree with the part about starting on the same playing field, but I disagree on the comment concerning empirical information (my comments on empiricism are found above). I will agree, though, that we both what we respectively consider to be "evidence" than needs to be taken into consideration.

Until you can realize that, you will continue to believe that your better/smarter then those who disagree with you, and nothing will get accomplished.

I never claimed I was "better" or "smarter" than anyone. I have no idea where you keep getting these notions from.

But I did pose the question: HOW could you think anything other then my conclusion with your attitude? I asked HOW.

Very simply, paul, just because someone is empirically "incorrect" on a particular subject does not mean they are "stupid" or "inferior". That is not a position I hold, not have I ever claimed it was.

I'll also ask, what nested value do you see in Christianity, since you see the nested value in everything?

Hmm.... it depends which aspects of "Christianity" you are referring to.

Also...to say that nothing in life is black in white is ironically a "black and white" statement and a contradiction...but whatever.

I know. I did that intentionally.

I said that the issue SEEMED black and white. You explain how it is different if it is not.

Its fairly simple, paul. People are not inherently "right" or "wrong" in their views of things. Even if they are empirically incorrect in their truth-claims (such as "the world is flat"), this does not necessarily mean their position has no value or "truth" in it. The level of rational-formalism (from which we developed scientific empiricism) is merely one level in the development of human consciousness. The levels that preceded it (including the level of mythic-membership) is not necessarily "wrong" because the way the world is seen at that level, just like the way the world is seen at the rational-formalistic level, is indeed quite real to individuals at that "level". Yes, it is true that the higher "level" of rational-formalism is of a greater consciousness and "correctness" than the mythic-membership (which can be an atheistic or secular membership as well), but it itself is only a partial truth and will eventually be superseded by an even greater "level".

Thus, I would say reality is composed of increasingly higher levels of nested, partial truths (by the way, I must add I am borrowing heavily from the writings of Ken Wilber in these conceptualizations).

I am addressing you first point last. It is useless to have a discussion where we are both talking at each other, and getting into contests to see how much evidence we can post, without having a common ground for discussion. The convesation goes no where, not even for outside readers. Simply "sticking to the subject" unfortunatily will not give us this common ground, as we have proven. What will is we can agree on what I first said regarding our evidence in this post.

Hmmm..... I suppose.

Regardless, I have been talking to Kaith about getting a special forum together where we can have a structured debate on the subject. A little structure will keep things on track better then they have been, and we can see who really has the best evidence out of the 2 of us. Just be patient, though, for it might take a few weeks to get this together, if it goes through.

A few weeks??

Alright... whatever. Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by heretic888
Hmmm.... I think we're mixing up definitions here. I assumed (probably incorrectly on my part) you meant faith in the sense of "blind faith" as it is popularly used (especially in discussions such as these). This definition, to me, implies that I am just riding along on these theories without any evidence or proof to back them up.

If we are referring to this "blind faith" definition of faith, then I would strongly disagree with your conjectures here. If we are referring to the definition of faith as merely another word for confidence or conviction, then I would certainly agree with that.

I think we are in agreement here.

Ummm.... no offense, paul, but I think you need to look up the definition of "empiricism".

Empirical information (following the dictates of the scientific process) refers to ANY information or data disclosed through an injunction, social practice, or paradigm of some kind (I am, of course, referring to Thomas Kuhn's definition of these various concepts). This data does not have to be limited to sensorimotor information such as those found in the so-called "hard sciences" (as you have mistakenly portrayed), but also includes non-physical data as found in sciences such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, cognitive science, semiotics, linguistics, and so forth. This includes historical research.

Furthermore, even the "hard sciences" make use of decidedly non-physical tools to study and observe their sensorimotor phenomena; tools such as mathematics, logic, and so forth. Thus, your characterization of empirical data as being only externally observable information is somewhat mistaken.

No offense taken, and I looked up the word just to make sure. Here is the definition I have been going by taken from Websters dictionary: "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>"

This is a lot simpler then Kuhn's definition, and I am thinking that this is the generally excepted definition. Basically, through my understanding of the word, I have been taking it to mean that something that an Emperical fact can be observed, then proved or disproved. Much of what we are talking about can't really be observed to be proven or disproven. The events in question would have occured almost 2000 years ago. We are reduced to having to come up with conclusions from logical arguements and theories based off lean and erratic evidence. To me, if the evidence was Emperical, then there would be no arguement regarding this issue.

Now, if we go by Kuhn's definition, I can see how "Emperical" could encompass more then just the observable. I can see how either one of our conclusions could be based off Emperical evidence according to Kuhn's definition.

Since I now know what you mean by Emperical, and that you are not going by the same definition as Websters dictionary, I now understand what you mean, so I won't feel the need to argue over a definition.

Well.... not necessarily.

While it is true that one of us is more "correct" than the other in this particular issue, much of the above characterizations are dependent on definition. For example, by "historical Jesus" do we mean a specific individual that lived a life similar to those in the Gospels?? Or, do we mean any individual that the possibly mythopoetic Gospel accounts might have been based upon?? Does our "historical Jesus" have to have any direct relationship to Christianity?? Or, could he have simply been an "inspiration" for later generations??

I think to solve this issue, we have to establish some agreed upon definitions for exactly who and what we mean by a "historical Jesus". Only then can we ascertain whether this personage actually existed in a historical-literal sense or not.

I agree that establishing definitions here would be neccisary so we can be sure that we are arguing over the same thing.

I agree with the part about starting on the same playing field, but I disagree on the comment concerning empirical information (my comments on empiricism are found above). I will agree, though, that we both what we respectively consider to be "evidence" than needs to be taken into consideration.

I already explained the part about Empiricism, but I think we are in agreement here also.

I never claimed I was "better" or "smarter" than anyone. I have no idea where you keep getting these notions from.

To me, actions speak louder then words. I can say to someone, "No, I don't think your stupid." But if I then proceed to talk to them like they are stupid, then what am I really saying? I got these notions from your tone in a few of your posts on this thread. Perhaps I misread you, which would be easy to do during a somewhat 'heated' arguement. So, to prevent this, I think both you and I should be careful how we word things so we don't sound as if we are downtalking others.

I know. I did that intentionally.

lol. Good one. I am now beginning to understand your sense of humor.

Its fairly simple, paul. People are not inherently "right" or "wrong" in their views of things. Even if they are empirically incorrect in their truth-claims (such as "the world is flat"), this does not necessarily mean their position has no value or "truth" in it. The level of rational-formalism (from which we developed scientific empiricism) is merely one level in the development of human consciousness. The levels that preceded it (including the level of mythic-membership) is not necessarily "wrong" because the way the world is seen at that level, just like the way the world is seen at the rational-formalistic level, is indeed quite real to individuals at that "level". Yes, it is true that the higher "level" of rational-formalism is of a greater consciousness and "correctness" than the mythic-membership (which can be an atheistic or secular membership as well), but it itself is only a partial truth and will eventually be superseded by an even greater "level".

Thus, I would say reality is composed of increasingly higher levels of nested, partial truths (by the way, I must add I am borrowing heavily from the writings of Ken Wilber in these conceptualizations).

That is certianly one way of looking at things.

Hmmm..... I suppose.

Cool. I think we might have actually gotten somewhere with this.

A few weeks??

Alright... whatever. Laterz.

Yes...a few weeks. Let me explain. I have this sweet idea for a new forum, but it might take too much Moderation so I don't know how well it would fly. But basically it would be an extension of the study, and it would be called "The Debate section". The Debate section would be a place where people could have a structured debate on a given topic. I am working out the details, but here are some basics: a person who is starting a discussion would be "The Affirmative" and they would state a premise in one sentance that they would support. They would have 500 words to state their initial arguement. One other person would be designated as "The negative," and they would have 500 words to respond with there opener. There would be a total of 10 posts per affirmative and negative (20 total posts) limited to 500 words each. Each arguer has to post "in turn" and has to wait for the other to respond (3 day minimum, maybe) before posting again (causing the other to lose their turn if the wait is too long). During the arguement, no one but the 2 arguers could post, and posts would be deleted by anyone who breaks the rules, whether inside the arguement or not. After the arguement is over, the thread is closed, then moved over to a poll thread where MT readers can vote on who they think won the debate. People may post comments on the debate as well once it is over.

Anyways, I just bounced this off of Kaith the other day. It is a good idea, but it might take too much moderation to execute. If it does go through, I think this would be a great vehicle for people to debate in a structured fashion, whether it is about a martial art's issue, or a social, political, or religious issue. I think this would be a great vehicle for us to debate this subject as well, provided it goes through. It would give us more structure to post clear arguements, eliminating much of the problems we've been having on this thread.

If it doesn't go through, I would like to set up a thread with a similar structure that we can both agree upon, and then we can really have a good discussion, I think.

So...yes, I need a few weeks. I'll let you know how it's going then.

 

[heretic888]

I think we are in agreement here.

Sweet.

No offense taken, and I looked up the word just to make sure. Here is the definition I have been going by taken from Websters dictionary: "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>"

Even when we look at this definition, it does not contradict what I have stated (a la Thomas Kuhn). Scientific process is utilized in non-physical sciences such as anthropology and historical research, in which a form of "observation" and "experimentation" is drawn upon. This applies to both "hard" physical evidence, such as direct historical records, and subjective observation/evidence, such as the use of logic or linguistic threads to ascertain the authenticity of such records. It should be remembered however, that the injunctions used in historical research are different than the injunction used in chemistry or psychology, as they are basically observing different phenomena.

As many scientists have noted today, "empirical" evidence can refer to ANY raw data, whether sensorimotor or not.

This is a lot simpler then Kuhn's definition, and I am thinking that this is the generally excepted definition. Basically, through my understanding of the word, I have been taking it to mean that something that an Emperical fact can be observed, then proved or disproved.

This does not contradict Kuhn's definition of the concept. In any event, Kuhn's conceptualization of the scientific process involving injunction, datum, and falsification is one of the more generally accepted schemas among today's scientists.

Much of what we are talking about can't really be observed to be proven or disproven. The events in question would have occured almost 2000 years ago. We are reduced to having to come up with conclusions from logical arguements and theories based off lean and erratic evidence. To me, if the evidence was Emperical, then there would be no arguement regarding this issue.

This is not quite true. Even events with valid "hard" evidence (such as varying theories of "evolution") are heavily debated today. Likewise, some events with non-physical evidence (such as many mathematical concepts) are not argued.

In any event, according to the dictates of scientific process, nothing can be "proven" per se. Meaning, no theory can ever becaome a "fact". However, phenomena can easily be disproven.

Now, if we go by Kuhn's definition, I can see how "Emperical" could encompass more then just the observable. I can see how either one of our conclusions could be based off Emperical evidence according to Kuhn's definition.

Once again, all sciences include "observable" phenomena. Mathematics are observable, as are linguistics, they are just simply non-physical.

Since I now know what you mean by Emperical, and that you are not going by the same definition as Websters dictionary, I now understand what you mean, so I won't feel the need to argue over a definition.

Actually, I am going by both definitions. They do not contradict one another. In any event, I agree that the issue does not need to be discussed any further for the time being.

I agree that establishing definitions here would be neccisary so we can be sure that we are arguing over the same thing.

Right. So, the question now is: what do you mean when you say "historical Jesus", paul???

I already explained the part about Empiricism, but I think we are in agreement here also.

Double sweet.

To me, actions speak louder then words. I can say to someone, "No, I don't think your stupid." But if I then proceed to talk to them like they are stupid, then what am I really saying? I got these notions from your tone in a few of your posts on this thread. Perhaps I misread you, which would be easy to do during a somewhat 'heated' arguement. So, to prevent this, I think both you and I should be careful how we word things so we don't sound as if we are downtalking others.

*shrugs* I'm sorry that you got that impression, but that was never my intention. I do not believe that if someone disagrees with me on something, or even if they are empirically "incorrect", that that somehow makes them "stupid" or "ignorant" or "wrong". That's just my way of looking at the world.

lol. Good one. I am now beginning to understand your sense of humor.

Triple sweet.

That is certianly one way of looking at things.

A way that, I believe, has more than enough cross-cultural data and evidence to support. But, I think that's better-suited for another discussion.

Cool. I think we might have actually gotten somewhere with this.

Quadruple sweet.

So...yes, I need a few weeks. I'll let you know how it's going then.

Ok.

I looked over your idea in the preceding post and, while it seems interesting, I must admit that it is respectfully not something I'm particularly enthusiastic about. I personally prefer the free-ended discussion in threads like this one --- even though things can get a little out of hand at times. I'm not particularly fond of the word limitations, or the fact that popular consensus is supposed to determine who "won" (after all, many people may just vote "Jesus existed" because they're Christian or the opposite because they're atheist). And, again, I don't actually think anyone can "win" a debate like these at all. You just have present your evidence and theories, and have each individual come to their own personal conclusions.

This is, of course, just my opinion. Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

I looked over your idea in the preceding post and, while it seems interesting, I must admit that it is respectfully not something I'm particularly enthusiastic about. I personally prefer the free-ended discussion in threads like this one --- even though things can get a little out of hand at times. I'm not particularly fond of the word limitations, or the fact that popular consensus is supposed to determine who "won" (after all, many people may just vote "Jesus existed" because they're Christian or the opposite because they're atheist). And, again, I don't actually think anyone can "win" a debate like these at all. You just have present your evidence and theories, and have each individual come to their own personal conclusions.

Well, I agree that even if someone "wins" an arguement, by concensus or whatever, it doesn't mean they are right. And I also agree that some people might vote on any debate according to there beliefs rather then according to who argued the best, so who "won" might not be entirely accurate. I think it still would be fun, though, regardless of who "wins."

Also, I like the idea of word limitations. I did some debate/forensics in high school, and in a structured debate you have time limitations. I like time limits when speaking or word limits when debating orally because this forces myself and the other party to both stick to the subject, and to state clear and concise points so that the "judges" and audience can understand. I like an open talk forum like this too, but sometimes a problem occurs when the subject moves off on tangents, or gets too "big" for the audience to understand all of what is being said. A word limitation causes us to be nice and concise.

That's just what I think. I think it is an idea worth trying. It could turn out well, or it could totally flop. We'll have to see.