Was George Washington president?

ponderingturtle said:
The number of proposed witnesses does not validate the story, as none of those witnesses independantly recorded the event.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly tell me that none of the witnesses recorded the event? You may not have read them or know about them so that means it never happened? Some of you are very good at making these leaps of "faith" we haven't seen it so it does not exist, or never happened!
 
jesus_freak said:
How can you possibly tell me that none of the witnesses recorded the event? You may not have read them or know about them so that means it never happened? Some of you are very good at making these leaps of "faith" we haven't seen it so it does not exist, or never happened!
Click to expand...

So where are those records?

Do you believe in the equaly witnessed war between the Nephites and the Lamanites?
 
This is an ancient fundie argument line. Basically it is a false analogy fallacy, but what merit it has lies in the different value we gove to evidence. The Christian values Biblical evidence highly, whereas the skeptic does not (or does so to a lesser degree).

The Christian (here represented by JF) then retorts by saying "then I also dismiss your evidence for George Washington (or some other past celebrity)!"

Well, there are really two things to say to that. One is "Fine! Suit yourself."
The other is that such a weighting is not logically consistent. As some have already mentioned, evidence that GW existed comes from numerous independent sources, Biblical evidence does not.

Lately, JF mentioned some accounts that were supposed to have multiple witnesses. Fine then. Please provide some independent (meaning not in the Bible) accounts from some of them. You know, name, occupation, age, relation to the event, and a short account of what they saw.

Hans
 
jesus_freak said:
How can you possibly tell me that none of the witnesses recorded the event? You may not have read them or know about them so that means it never happened? Some of you are very good at making these leaps of "faith" we haven't seen it so it does not exist, or never happened!
Click to expand...

On Sunday night I witnessed the 50th Birthday part of my Pub Landlord, there were of course lots of other witnesses, and as most of us were in differing influence levels of Alcohol and respective vantage points we will all have slightly differing views,

However any collective group of statements from Man will be about another Man, we are not proposing that Steve is god or that he speaks for god, we are reporting Facts about a Human doing Human things, nothing else, most people would not question the validity of any collective corrobrative evidence given from those that were there or even those of a passing acquaintance with steve doing those actions, if however we started stating that he then healed the sick or Turned Water in into Nick Staffords Nightmare Stout then we would have our credibility called very much into question. (and not to mention HMRC would probably want a word with him as well)
 
jesus_freak said:
Some of you are very good at making these leaps of "faith" we haven't seen it so it does not exist, or never happened!
Click to expand...
Lacking evidence of it's happening, is it really a leap of faith to say it probably didn't happen?

Is there a qualitative difference between not having evidence and evidence existing but no one has seen it?
 
Last edited:
Jesus_Freak,

Please read the following two parallel arguments (one in red, one in blue) and tell me why they aren't completely identical:

I have no reason to doubt that Jesus existed, it does me no harm to make this assumption.

I have no reason to doubt that Achilles existed, it does me no harm to make this assumption.

I know that philosophers exist and preached ways to live to make ourselves better.

I know that soldiers exist, some of whom did mirraculous actions of bravery and self-sacrifice and would be considered heros.

It seems reasonable to think that there was such a person known as Jesus who taught progressive ways to live that would improve and enrich people's lives.

It seems reasonable to think that there was a person known as Achilles who was a soldier and did brave heroic actions and was a fierce leader in battle.

I know that stories upon retelling can be exaggerated.
I know that stories about real people can be fabricated to add a sense of goodness about them. To illustrate ideals by which we are to live by. George Washington and the Cherry tree is perfect example of this.

There is no evidence out side the bible(the story of jesus) which supports his divinity.

There is no evidence outside of mythology to give support to Achilles' near-invincibility.

As such, it seems perfectly reasonable that the stories of Jesus' divinty are greatly exaggerated or fabricated to give support or power to the teachings he made.

As such, it seems perfectly reasonable that the stories of Achilles being dipped in the river styx and being invincible are greatly exaggerated or fabricated to make even more impressive the actions he did.

This doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't real or that his teachings aren't valuable.

This doesn't mean that Achilles wasn't real or that his heroics weren't impressive.

Simply that I have no reason to believe Jesus was the son of god.

Simply that I have no reason to believe Achilles was a near-invincible warrior with a flaw in the heal of his devine armor.
 
Last edited:
I must apologize for the atrocious orange Spanish subtitle in the video I posted, but it was the only one that contained the set-up for the joke as well.
 
Actually, there is an interesting point here about history and historical knowledge. Look at it from the other direction: who was Woodrow Wilson's vice-president? We have reams and reams of documentary evidence about the man and his life. There may be people still alive who met the man. Yet, I venture that the number of people, randomly selected from the entire U.S. population, who could tell you his name is vanishingly small. And he lived and held office less than 100 years ago.

And yet this other fellow, who presumably wrote nothing and left no other known contemporaneous record, is easily the most famous person in the history of the world.

Fascinatingly odd.
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
Actually, there is an interesting point here about history and historical knowledge. Look at it from the other direction: who was Woodrow Wilson's vice-president? We have reams and reams of documentary evidence about the man and his life. There may be people still alive who met the man. Yet, I venture that the number of people, randomly selected from the entire U.S. population, who could tell you his name is vanishingly small. And he lived and held office less than 100 years ago.

And yet this other fellow, who presumably wrote nothing and left no other known contemporaneous record, is easily the most famous person in the history of the world.

Fascinatingly odd.
Click to expand...
Not all that suprising though

Who was the speaker of the house in 1843?

Who was Tom Sawyer's Friend?
 
Stone Island said:
Actually, there is an interesting point here about history and historical knowledge. Look at it from the other direction: who was Woodrow Wilson's vice-president? We have reams and reams of documentary evidence about the man and his life. There may be people still alive who met the man. Yet, I venture that the number of people, randomly selected from the entire U.S. population, who could tell you his name is vanishingly small. And he lived and held office less than 100 years ago.

And yet this other fellow, who presumably wrote nothing and left no other known contemporaneous record, is easily the most famous person in the history of the world.

Fascinatingly odd.
Click to expand...

Socrates didn't write anything, either.

And how much do you know about Benjamin Harrison? A person of more importance than Thomas Marshall, I would think. But the point is made, either way.

The same argument could be made substituting in King Arthur or Robin Hood.
 
m_huber said:
Socrates didn't write anything, either.
Click to expand...

Sorry for being pedantic, but Socrates did have three independent and contemporaneous chroniclers: Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. Of course, the question becomes, what did we know about them?

Historiography, ain't it grand?
 
Last edited:
Hey Jesus_freak. that's a rather interesting quote mine of FZ's in your sig.
I am wondering if you would appreciate if if someone did the same:
jesus_freak said:
And for the few who thought I wouldn't post again why? because I am scared of the big mean atheist
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Stone Island said:
Sorry for being pedantic, but Socrates did have three independent and contemporaneous chroniclers: Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. Of course, the question becomes, what did we know about them?

Historiography, ain't it grand?
Click to expand...

True enough, but at least part of what Plato wrote is commonly thought to be his own philosophy through the mouth of Socrates. I'm not as familiar with Xenophon and Aristophanes, though if I recall correctly, Aristophanes didn't write much on Socrates at all. But I haven't had philosophy in a long time :).
 
I'm not sure why Jesus Freak is so bitter. So many Christians try so hard to "prove" everything regarding their faith; but therein lies the contradiction, and I'm just not sure why all of these Christians don't see that. The frustration, the defense, the bad attitude- you will find in the Bible that these are all tale-tell signs of a Christian giving into their "flesh" instead of giving into their "spirit." Its as if a Christian takes the whole apologetic war on their own shoulders, baring a false burden; a burden (that the bible will also tell them) was carried by Jesus Christ.

there is no fight to fight, acording to the bible, so why do it? Why set yourself up for defeat after defeat. The bible is illogical, end of story- you can't argue it. I'm not even sure why the Christian Apologetic Movement is so invasive- its really biblically contrary at it's core. Faith and Reason, especially with Religion and/or Spirituality will always be a struggle to mix oil and water together. Even Saint Paul says that "it confounds the wise." If you're a Christian, relax, your faith is supposed to be stronger than any evidence. If you had enough evidence to prove the divinity of Christ, then faith wouldn't be necessary, and faith is the foundation of Christianity so let it go, buddy. I mean, does the snotty attitude that comes with your posts reflect the kind of witness you want to be? Because you're not going to win over any converts anytime soon with that.
 
Last edited:
m_huber said:
True enough, but at least part of what Plato wrote is commonly thought to be his own philosophy through the mouth of Socrates.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, makes me rather suspicious of Saint Paul.... and I wouldn't call his letters expoundments of Christ's teachings either...

A while ago I was curious why Christianity really wasn't called Paulianity: because that's the real MEAT of the New Testiment...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom