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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Let's not forget the annoying fact that the sun was created AFTER the day.
Click to expand...
The first day was the afterglow of God's Big Bong. Eventually He remembered the need for a more reliable light source and created the sun. Gospel according to Fat Freddy, can't remember the verse numbers ;)
 
So, to summarize:
1.) None of the OP arguments represent evidence that the bible writers told the truth. At most, it represents that the bible writers THOUGHT they were telling the truth. At least, it represents that the bible writers knew good story telling.

2.) None of the additional arguments made represent proof of the bible's validity. Being right about some points doesn't mean being right about others.

3.) Quotemining is dishonest and people who do it are dishonest. It is quote mining to remove qualifiers from a person's statement. IF you are going to refer to a person's comment that Luke is a fine historian, it is dishonest to remove the line that states that the bible is a highly biased propaganda piece. By removing that statement you make it seem that the person you are quoting validates the reliability of the bible.

4.) You can't point to genesis and claim science validates it while simultaneously ignoring other genesis statements that fly in the face of science/logic/reason. This is dishonest and intentionally misleading.

5.) There is NOTHING in the New testament that shows Jesus as disaproving of slavery. Jesus is supposed to be god. IF Jesus condones slavery, so does god. That makes god amoral.
 
zooterkin said:
When there's been enough posts that the questions addressed to DOC are no longer on the last page, and he can post and pretend he never saw them?
Click to expand...

You're neglecting the DOC started a new thread factor. That means that he generally ignores past threads until such time as he runs into trouble there and thinks that most have forgotten what has gone before on the old thread.
 
kmortis said:
You're neglecting the DOC started a new thread factor. That means that he generally ignores past threads until such time as he runs into trouble there and thinks that most have forgotten what has gone before on the old thread.
Click to expand...
Generally, DOC operates on the principle that if you wait long enough, fallacies reset.
 
DOC said:
Actually it's not an argument from incredulity when you compare "two" points of view. If one argument seems more absurd than another, then it is logical to believe that the less absurd sounding point of view is more likely to be correct than the more absurd one.
Click to expand...

Hokulele said:
No, it is an argument from incredulity because you are saying since you can't believe it, it must not be true. There is no evidence that you even understand what it is you are discussing, and there is hard evidence that you refuse to learn (when volatile offered to purchase you books on the subject, you made excuses and other waffle).
Click to expand...

Strawman, to the point I made about comparing 2 points of view.

And I would estimate at least 99% of the world's population do not understand how the current scientific theory that the 10 billion trillion stars in the universe (which I saw on one show today is more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world) all came from a singularity smaller than one atom. And not only this but all the "space" in the universe also came from this same singularity. You can't tell me you can explain that in a way that any normal person can understand. If you can, explain it right here.
 
DOC said:
Strawman, to the point I made about comparing 2 points of view.
Click to expand...
You continue to have no idea what a strawman is.
And I would estimate at least 99% of the world's population...
Click to expand...
Did you pull number that out of your rear again?
...do not understand how the current scientific theory that the 10 billion trillion stars in the universe (which I saw on one show today is more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world) all came from a singularity smaller than one atom.
Click to expand...
That is called an Argument from Popularity(or ignorance in this situation)So what? Most do not understand why we have the seasons.
And not only this but all the "space" in the universe also came from this same singularity. You can't tell me you can explain that in a way that any normal person can understand. If you can, explain it right here.
Click to expand...
Here are a couple of children sites, just for you.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/cosmology.php
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Space-Astronomy-Kids-3252/Big-Bang.htm
http://www.esa.int/esaKIDSen/SEMSZ5WJD1E_OurUniverse_0.html
http://www.historyforkids.org/scienceforkids/physics/space/bigbang.htm

PS: You may want to click on the Mickey Mouse links. Great deals on cartoons going on.
 
DOC said:
Strawman, to the point I made about comparing 2 points of view.
Click to expand...


You still have no idea what a strawman is, do you?

And I would estimate at least 99% of the world's population do not understand how the current scientific theory that the 10 billion trillion stars in the universe (which I saw on one show today is more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world) all came from a singularity smaller than one atom. And not only this but all the "space" in the universe also came from this same singularity. You can't tell me you can explain that in a way that any normal person can understand. If you can, explain it right here.
Click to expand...


I can, but I normally charge $1500 per day for consulting. Send me a PO and I'll start typing. Otherwise, I would once again recommend Simon Singh's Big Bang. In fact, my offer for a challenge still stands. I will read and comment on a work of your choice if you read and comment on this book. Any local library will carry or order it if you do not wish to purchase it.
 
DOC said:
You continue not to explain your reasoning for your general comments.
Click to expand...
Strawman!!!Argument ad Anus.

No. You claim it is a strawman but YOU can't show why it is so. Just claiming is does not magic away someone's argument. So it is YOUR perogative to prove your claim that Hokulele's statement is a strawman.
 
Hokulele said:
You still have no idea what a strawman is, do you?
Click to expand...

Another non-explained comment. You and Pax are masters at making negative comments about me and my posts without explaining anything.

Your post was a strawman because you did not respond directly to the point I made about how it is logical to believe the less absurd of two belief systems. Nowhere in your response do you address my point about comparing two belief systems. This can be seen in post 4289
 
DOC said:
Your post was a strawman because you did not respond directly to the point I made about how it is logical to believe the less absurd of two belief systems. Nowhere in your response do you address my point about comparing two belief systems. This can be seen in post 4289
Click to expand...
And that continues to be an Argument from Incredulity and Ignorance. She addressed it, you are too dumb or dishonest to understand the explanation.

Just because you are too ignorant and dumb to understand something, does not in any way mean it is absurd. I and many others understand it. The problem is YOU, not the theory you are too dumb and purposefully ignorant to understand.
 
zooterkin said:
Because to most people they are self-explanatory.
Click to expand...

Well people have to realize that if you're going to say something negative about me or my posts there is a good chance I'm going to make you explain yourself so you might as well do it the first time and save everyone, including yourself, a lot of time.
 
DOC said:
Your post was a strawman because you did not respond directly to the point I made about how it is logical to believe the less absurd of two belief systems. Nowhere in your response do you address my point about comparing two belief systems. This can be seen in post 4289
Click to expand...


That is not what a strawman means.
 
DOC said:
Hokulele said:
You still have no idea what a strawman is, do you?
Click to expand...
Another non-explained comment. You and Pax are masters at making negative comments about me and my posts without explaining anything.

Your post was a strawman because you did not respond directly to the point I made about how it is logical to believe the less absurd of two belief systems. Nowhere in your response do you address my point about comparing two belief systems. This can be seen in post 4289
Click to expand...

You clearly still do not understand the strawman argument.
A strawman argument would be to rephrase your argument into a simpler, easier to defeat form and then argue against that.

She didn't do that. In fact she argued directly against your argument:
Hokulele said:
No, it is an argument from incredulity because you are saying since you can't believe it, it must not be true. There is no evidence that you even understand what it is you are discussing, and there is hard evidence that you refuse to learn (when volatile offered to purchase you books on the subject, you made excuses and other waffle).
Click to expand...
IT doesn't matter that you are comparing two ideas or a million. An argument from incredulity is still logically invalid. She properly identified your argument, and destroyed it in the process.


Now, I was going to give you an example of a strawman for your argument, but I seriously can't. I honestly can't think of an argument that would be easier to defeat than the one you presented.
 
paximperium said:
And that continues to be an Argument from Incredulity and Ignorance. She addressed it, you are too dumb or dishonest to understand the explanation.

Just because you are too ignorant and dumb to understand something, does not in any way mean it is absurd. I and many others understand it. The problem is YOU, not the theory you are too dumb and purposefully ignorant to understand.
Click to expand...

And I repeat no matter how many Randi rule violating words you use nowhere does she address my point that it is logical to believe the less absurd of two belief sytems. I ask Hokulele is it logical or not logical to believe the less absurd of two belief systems? If she really addressed the point I made, I wouldn't have to ask that question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom