• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yay, Doc's back to making up statistics again!
 
Every time I get tired of talking with bigfooters in circles filled with logical fallacies, and I get to thinking, "No one could argue in a way more idiotic than this," I come to the religion threads.

I've yet to see what Doc is on about. What's up Doc? Got any theory that isn't circular, fallacious, or just plain silly?

The, 'you just don't understand what I'm saying' defense never gains much credence when you've been on it for more than one page. Eleven people dying because they believed that Josh rose from the dead is in no way a historical fact. Even if it were shown to be a fact, it would still not constitute evidence what they believed to be true was true. It is that simple. You're wrong on (at least) two levels.
 
[X] said:
I figured that much.

That's why I specified here.
Click to expand...


I think he honestly has no idea what he has stumbled upon. Those arguments probably worked so well on him and those he knows in real life, he just cannot comprehend how people can possibly think otherwise (hence his constant arguments from incredulity).
 
Hokulele said:
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.
Click to expand...

He also seems to think that lots of different little fallacies add up to one big truth.
 
Mashuna said:
He also seems to think that lots of different little fallacies add up to one big truth.
Click to expand...


You must be kidding! There are millions of people who realize that two wrongs do make a right. Only some kind of loony whack-job would make that type of argument. My mother, who just happens to have a PhD in Organic Chemistry, told me you are wrong. Nyah.
 
I think these arguments based on negative qualities of disciples, negative reactions to jesus, and the demanding nature of some of Jesus's sayings are all based on a pretty naive view of writing.

Here's how they imagine a fake bible may have looked.
Jesus, walks down the street, everyone spontaeneously high-fives him and tells him how cool he is. Then the disciples come by, ALMOST as cool as the J man, pretty awesome! He turns to them and says "Hey, always eat cake on Friday!"

In fact, almost every religion with a written account portrays their leaders as flawed humans and makes difficult demands. It would be a pretty poor and uncompelling document if it didn't.
 
Hokulele said:
You must be kidding! There are millions of people who realize that two wrongs do make a right. Only some kind of loony whack-job would make that type of argument. My mother, who just happens to have a PhD in Organic Chemistry, told me you are wrong. Nyah.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Hokulele said:
This is only a guess, but I think DOC truly doesn't understand that it {argumentum-ad-populum} is a fallacy and why, despite numerous attempts to educate him. He really does believe it is reasonable justification.
Click to expand...

Argumentum-ad-populum might be a fallacy for concepts but not for History. And that by the way is what we are talking about -- Biblical history. The more manuscripts found, the merrier when it comes to history. The more sources, the merrier, when it comes to history. Of course you still have to then analyze those sources, but more is always better than less. The fact that there are at least 10 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ within 150 years of his death is much better than if there were 5 non-Christian sources.
 
DOC said:
Argumentum-ad-populum might be a fallacy for concepts but not for History.

And that by the way is what we are talking about -- Biblical history. The more manuscripts found, the merrier when it comes to history. The more sources, the merrier, when it comes to history. Of course you still have to then analyze those sources, but more is always better than less. The fact that there are at least 10 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ within 150 years of his death is much better than if there were 5 non-Christian sources.
Click to expand...


Great. So what sources, other than the bible, describe Jesus rising from the dead.

*Waits*
 
DOC said:
Argumentum-ad-populum might be a fallacy for concepts but not for History. And that by the way is what we are talking about -- Biblical history. The more manuscripts found, the merrier when it comes to history. The more sources, the merrier, when it comes to history. Of course you still have to then analyze those sources, but more is always better than less. The fact that there are at least 10 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ within 150 years of his death is much better than if there were 5 non-Christian sources.
Click to expand...

No, you are confusing argumentum ad populum with written sources. This is like when you claimed that the bible is the best selling book ever (it isn't, it is the most produced, and only if you count the sundry versions of it as one product which clearly they are not).

History does rely on sources, and many people writing about something can lead credence to the idea, but that doesn't mean it is factual by any means. There are many people throughout the ages who have written about Zeus having sex with a cow. Does that mean it too is historical?

Most people will agree, that the evidence that someone named Joshua really existed, and claimed to be the son of God. However, that doesn't make the bible account historic. Just because the bible gets the names right, doesn't mean it is accurate on activities, dates, outcomes, or anything else.

People repeating the claim makes the claim historic, not the truth of the claim.
 
DOC said:
Maybe you and others would understand it better if I said it increased the probability that it was true rather than increased the likelihood.
Click to expand...
No it does not; no matter how often you claim otherwise.

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.
Click to expand...
So? How does their belief attends the truth of the underlying science?

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.
Click to expand...
Who are these "same people" you are talking about? Ooops, sorry it was a lame attempt at an Ad Hominem, nevermind.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
DOC said:
Argumentum-ad-populum might be a fallacy for concepts but not for History. And that by the way is what we are talking about -- Biblical history. The more manuscripts found, the merrier when it comes to history. The more sources, the merrier, when it comes to history. Of course you still have to then analyze those sources, but more is always better than less. The fact that there are at least 10 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ within 150 years of his death is much better than if there were 5 non-Christian sources.
Click to expand...

Great. What sources do you have? Give me your BEST 3 sources(I don't want a list dump).
Oh yeah DOC. Still waiting:
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?
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4137171&postcount=470
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Argumentum-ad-populum might be a fallacy for concepts but not for History. And that by the way is what we are talking about -- Biblical history. The more manuscripts found, the merrier when it comes to history. The more sources, the merrier, when it comes to history. Of course you still have to then analyze those sources, but more is always better than less. The fact that there are at least 10 non-Christian sources for the life of Christ within 150 years of his death is much better than if there were 5 non-Christian sources.
Click to expand...
Yes there is evidence there was someone, but like me you say you are not a bible literalist. While we believe there was Jesus some of the stories must be taken with a pinch of salt, for example; Jonah and the whale, Water into wine, resurrection, son of god, those bits really are preposterous.
 
Hokulele said:
Great. So what sources, other than the bible, describe Jesus rising from the dead.

*Waits*
Click to expand...

Why did you do that?

You do realize he will now go to some Christian website, find some huge list without checking its validity and dump the list on us.
 
six7s said:
And probably, quite probably, he won't :(
Click to expand...
To quote a great(in a retarded, crazy way) Philospher:
"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."
-DOC

Therefore...no...he won't

I have skipped a page or two... has DOC risen to paximperium's challenge to "post a single argument you have posted in this entire thread supporting your claim that isn't an inane logical fallacy"?
Click to expand...
Nope. Still waiting. isn't that kinda sad that he can't even find ONE non fallacious argument?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom