Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Lothian]

Having your members crucified and fed to the lions would have a tendency to slow down the growth of any organization.

Who was crucified and fed to the lions?

I understood Christians being fed to the lions was a myth.

 

[joobz]

Sure, it was in the post of yours I quoted when I made that statement regarding you being wrong (which you still are, by the way).

DOC believes that debating the difference between "proof" and evidence improves his position. I say it makes no difference. Lets all concede the point of proof, and only speak of evidence.

As you had clearly pointed out, the number of deaths For or against christianity provides NO EVIDENCE in support or opposition to christianity.

 

[DOC]

No.

So you're not going to take up that challenge that you show even ONE argument you have posted that is not based on a logical fallacy?

I said I would if you would agree to apologize for making the very derogatory statement about me with a false statement.

 

[DOC]

Sure, it was in the post of yours I quoted when I made that statement regarding you being wrong (which you still are, by the way).




It doesn't any weight to this at all. None. Nada. Zip. Rien. ゼロ.

As I have explained to you repeatedly, being willing to die for a concept does nothing to improve the chances that the concept is in any way true.

I'm not talking about concepts I'm talking about actual historical events. Are you saying that the historical event of 11 of 12 apostles being martryed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

for their belief that Christ rose from the dead does not "increase the likelihood" that the historical event of Christ rising from the dead happened. I contend it is just common sense to believe it increases the "likelihood" that the resurrection occurred.

 

[Dubious Dick]

Doc, heal thyself!

Of your hallucinations of evidence.

Take one hardbound bible and wack yourself on the head a few times. It's called impact engineering and may work. More than what's between the covers anyway!

 

[X]

I'm not talking about concepts I'm talking about actual historical events. Are you saying that the historical event of 11 of 12 apostles being martyred

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

for their belief that Christ rose from the dead does not "increase the likelihood" that the historical event of Christ rising from the dead happened.

That is exactly what we are saying.
It no more "increases the likelihood" that Jesus was resurrected than the deaths of the Heaven's Gate cult members "increases the likelihood" that there was a spaceship hiding behind Comet Hale-Bopp.

Belief does not necessarily reality. Even belief strong enough to die for.

I contend it is just common sense to believe it increases the "likelihood" that the resurrection occurred.

It does no such thing. If I commit suicide tomorrow because I believe zombies are about to take over the world, my death will not lend any credence to the idea that zombies are going to take over the world.
No matter how strongly I believe it!


This line of reasoning is stupid, DOC. You'd do well to drop it.

 

[Hokulele]

I'm not talking about concepts I'm talking about actual historical events. Are you saying that the historical event of 11 of 12 apostles being martryed <snipped link> for their belief that Christ rose from the dead does not "increase the likelihood" that the historical event of Christ rising from the dead happened.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

I contend it is just common sense to believe it increases the "likelihood" that the resurrection occurred.

Then why do you reject the actions of Heaven's Gate members as evidence of the truth of their beliefs?

 

[cyborg]

Are you saying that the historical event of 11 of 12 apostles being martryed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

for their belief that Christ rose from the dead does not "increase the likelihood" that the historical event of Christ rising from the dead happened.

To reiterate one more time:

YES.

This is a logical fallacy. Dying for, or not dying for, a belief won't affect the truth of that belief. It's pretty simple.

I contend it is just common sense to believe it increases the "likelihood" that the resurrection occurred.

Then by common sense it must be the case that the path to truth is through genocide.

 

[joobz]

Are you saying that the historical event of 11 of 12 apostles being martryed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

for their belief that Christ rose from the dead does not "increase the likelihood" that the historical event of Christ rising from the dead happened.

Yes, this is exactly what everyone here is saying.

I contend it is just common sense to believe it increases the "likelihood" that the resurrection occurred.

Your "common sense" is wrong.

 

[paximperium]

I said I would if you would agree to apologize for making the very derogatory statement about me with a false statement.

I've already said this:

Sure. I'll be happy to amend it to "MOST of DOCs arguments involved jumping from inane logical fallacies to the next logical fallacy."

which you followed up with:

Name 3 logical fallacies I've stated in my 80+ posts and which posts they came from.

and now you're backtracking on your original agreement to this challenge? Come on DOC, is it soooooo difficult to find even ONE of your arguments in this entire thread that pertains to this topic that isn't a logical fallacy?

Just one.

 

[paximperium]

I'm not talking about concepts I'm talking about actual historical events. Are you saying that the historical event of 11 of 12 apostles being martryed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs

for their belief that Christ rose from the dead does not "increase the likelihood" that the historical event of Christ rising from the dead happened.

Yes. It does not increase the likelihood anymore than Muslim martyrs, Heaven's Gate martyr or any martyrs. Not one bit. Zip, zilch, nada etc. to infinity.

I contend it is just common sense to believe it increases the "likelihood" that the resurrection occurred.

Then you are completely and utterly wrong. Stop using common sense and actually study probability which you don't even understand.

 

[Hokulele]

Oh what the heck, I will put back in the bit I edited out earlier.

... the historical event of Christ rising from the dead happened. ...

DOC, you do realize that you have not offered any evidence that this was an historical event as opposed to merely a concept held important by most Christian denominations?

I am not talking about the existence or non of someone who might have been named Yeshua existing around the time of interest, but the supposed fact he rose from the dead.

 

[calebprime]

Then you are completely and utterly wrong. Stop using common sense and actually study probability which you don't even understand.

Few laymen understand probability. I don't. But I do know that when a Christian apologist says "probability" he/she means something like "gut-level persuasion"--but "probability" sounds more impressive.

...or they really mean something like the legal idea of the preponderance of the evidence--not a mathematical concept, at all.

 

[paximperium]

Few laymen understand probability. I don't. But I do know that when a Christian apologist says "probability" he/she means something like "gut-level persuasion"--but "probability" sounds more impressive.

...or they really mean something like the legal idea of the preponderance of the evidence--not a mathematical concept, at all.

Modern scientific Probability Theory is mostly(there are a few others I believe) based on Bayes Theorem and Bayesian Inference created by the REVEREND Thomas Bayes. It is essentially an objective way of defining inductive reasoning. There are also scientific statistics as well but these require hard data and is more difficult to apply to something like these magic claims.

Basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayes

Super complicated:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/

 

[DOC]

That is exactly what we are saying.
It no more "increases the likelihood" that Jesus was resurrected than the deaths of the Heaven's Gate cult members "increases the likelihood" that there was a spaceship hiding behind Comet Hale-Bopp.

Belief does not necessarily reality. Even belief strong enough to die for.

Maybe you and others would understand it better if I said it increased the probability that it was true rather than increased the likelihood.

And I find it interesting that so many people believe in evolution simply because many scientists believe it is true. I contend the great majority of people haven't read one page of Darwin's books. The same goes for the theory of relativity. I would estimate at least 97% of people who believe it's true can't explain the math behind it . Most people simply believe it because many scientists think its true. And yet those same people will say that the "historical fact" that 11 of 12 apostles were martyred does not in anyway affect the probability the the resurrection might be true.

 

[Hokulele]

Maybe you and others would understand it better if I said it increased the probability that it was true rather than increased the likelihood.

We understand it just fine. Regardless of how you word it, you are wrong.

And I find it interesting that so many people believe in evolution simply because many scientists believe it is true.

Isn't that exactly what you are arguing for Christianity with all of your examples?

I contend the great majority of people haven't read one page of Darwin's books.

The number of people who have (or haven't) read On the Origin of Species is completely irrelevant to the accuracy of evolution by natural selection. You are trying a reverse argument by popularity, which is a logical fallacy either way.

The same goes for the theory of relativity. I would estimate at least 97% of people who believe it's true can't explain the math behind it . Most people simply believe it because many scientists think its true.

Ditto.

And yet those same people will say that the "historical fact" that 11 of 12 apostles were martyred does not in anyway affect the probability the the resurrection might be true.

Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, what do you, DOC, think is the major difference between the equations supporting relativity (general or special?) and the testimony of the apostles?

 

[DOC]

Few laymen understand probability. I don't. But I do know that when a Christian apologist says "probability" he/she means something like "gut-level persuasion"--but "probability" sounds more impressive.

...or they really mean something like the legal idea of the preponderance of the evidence--not a mathematical concept, at all.

I disagree, Preponderance means something is more likely than not.

If something has a higher than a 50% probability of happening then its chance of happening is more likely than not. Therefore probability and Preponderance of the evidence is related.

 

[X]

Maybe you and others would understand it better if I said it increased the probability that it was true rather than increased the likelihood.

No. Replacing one word with what is, in this case, a synonym, does not make your assertion any more accurate.

And I find it interesting that so many people believe in evolution simply because many scientists believe it is true. I contend the great majority of people haven't read one page of Darwin's books. The same goes for the theory of relativity. I would estimate at least 97% of people who believe it's true can't explain the math behind it . Most people simply believe it because many scientists think its true.

No, we don't simply believe what scientists think is true.

We accept the theories that have the evidence to back them up.

And yet those same people will say that the "historical fact" that 11 of 12 apostles were martyred does not in anyway affect the probability the the resurrection might be true.

And 11 people getting themselves killed for their beliefs does not mean that their beliefs are necessarily true!

Seriously, DOC, this is an idiotic argument. Give it up.

The deaths of the apostles only show how strongly they believed in their cause. But just believing strongly in something does not make it so.
Hence the repeated references to suicide cults and suicide bombers.


I can believe that an animal in the pet store is a male rabbit. I can believe it strongly enough to kill others or myself over the issue. My belief, however, has no sway on the sex of the rabbit, or the fact that it's actually a god-damned Chinchilla!

And yes, your argument is that stupid.


Out of curiosity: Given that argumentum-ad-populum has never worked for you here before, why do you keep trying it?

 

[Hokulele]

Out of curiosity: Given that argumentum-ad-populum has never worked for you here before, why do you keep trying it?

This is only a guess, but I think DOC truly doesn't understand that it is a fallacy and why, despite numerous attempts to educate him. He really does believe it is reasonable justification.

 

[X]

This is only a guess, but I think DOC truly doesn't understand that it is a fallacy and why, despite numerous attempts to educate him. He really does believe it is reasonable justification.

I figured that much.

That's why I specified here.