Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Reviving from Revival > The Ex-Christian Chatroom Go to subcategory:
Author Content
LifeIsNotARehearsal
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Date Posted:10/09/2008 1:52 PMCopy HTML

Hello fellow ex-GRCer's!

I saw this on Youtube and just had to share it.

Amazing how a few words of logic can cut through thousands of years of fairy tales.


Enjoy!!


 - Sean.



Here's the youtube link if you can't view the vid on this page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg

...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:10/09/2008 11:05 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Sean.

Amazing how a few words of logic can cut through thousands of years of fairy tales.

Hmmm. So you found that particular presentation convincing, huh? And "logical"? Might I ask the simple question, "why"?

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 7:46 AMCopy HTML

Didaktithon - I'm not surprised it makes no sense to you.

Not getting into a flame match with the resident troll.

Blessings. Haha... now that's funny.

...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 7:47 AMCopy HTML

Johnny, I've added a link to the original message.

Cheers,
Sean.
...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 7:54 AMCopy HTML

Hola, Sean.

Didaktithon - I'm not surprised it makes no sense to you.

I guess I prefer stuff which has a little more in the way of a basis in truth and some decent historical fact. But, meh, that's just me so each to his/her own.

Not getting into a flame match with the resident troll.

Why not? Concerned that your "truth" won't stand up to decent scrutiny? C'mon, I'm really keen to see your grasp of "logic" at work.

Blessings. Haha... now that's funny.

Yeah, almost as funny as would be watching you try to defend your views. But from the sounds of things, and given what you've shared of yourself and your life to date, you could sure use a few, anyway.

Blessings, again.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 10:03 AMCopy HTML

That's one brave comedian. Pretty funny Sean!! LOL

Cheers
"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 11:09 AMCopy HTML

Ok, I may reply just a little then (my replies in green, obviously)...

Didaktithon - I'm not surprised it makes no sense to you.

I guess I prefer stuff which has a little more in the way of a basis in truth and some decent historical fact. But, meh, that's just me so each to his/her own

I actually quite enjoyed the vid - that's why I posted it. Yes, it paraphrases the views of the dangerously intellectually challenged, but hey - they're an easy target. I hope that doesn't offend you.


Not getting into a flame match with the resident troll.

Why not? Concerned that your "truth" won't stand up to decent scrutiny? C'mon, I'm really keen to see your grasp of "logic" at work smiley9

Nope - just wanted to post this because I liked it, not to get into a debate. Happy to debate truth and logic in another thread if you think you're up to it, but not in this light-hearted thread. 


Blessings. Haha... now that's funny.

Yeah, almost as funny as would be watching you try to defend your views. But from the sounds of things, and given what you've shared of yourself and your life to date, you could sure use a few, anyway smiley17
Yes, in this forum I have shared quite personal details of my experiences of the abusive cult that I was brought up in. I hope they serve as some encouragement to those who need to see a success story or two. Glad you've taken the time to read them. Your point is? 




...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 11:10 AMCopy HTML

Reply to LifeIsNotARehearsal

Didaktithon - I'm not surprised it makes no sense to you.

Not getting into a flame match with the resident troll.

Blessings. Haha... now that's funny.


Which was the funny part? Methinks one needs to L2Comedy.

In this particular world of disjointed discussion, the one who doesn't further the topic one has started is the troll. (*edit*, Oh I see you are furthering it, but will debate in another thread. I hope you do. Is this going to be a Bible fairytale verses Bible fact debate? 'cause they're always fun).

And as far as funny Bible parody Youtubes go, this is my absolute favourite. Enjoy the Book of Job:


[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 11:25 AMCopy HTML

Hey, Moth - great post, loved it.

By the way, the definition of troll I was using was this:

"A troll is a user of a newsgroup, forum or message board that posts messages with the intent of inciting an argument or flame-war."
www.studiodog.com/web-jargon.html

...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 11:38 AMCopy HTML

Sean,

Nope - just wanted to post this because I liked it, not to get into a debate. Happy to debate truth and logic in another thread if you think you're up to it, but not in this light-hearted thread. Well now, why don't you humour me for a bit and see whether I am up to it?

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 11:46 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon
Sean,

Nope - just wanted to post this because I liked it, not to get into a debate. Happy to debate truth and logic in another thread if you think you're up to it, but not in this light-hearted thread.

Well now, why don't you humour me for a bit, and see whether I am up to it?

Blessings,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon on 11/09/2008 05:38:49)


Choose your topic.

...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 11:47 AMCopy HTML

 Hey Sean,

I am very familiar with the word 'troll' in relation to online discussion forums but I feel it's a word that often gets thrown about unjustly, just for the sake of unfounded name calling. Me calling you a troll was equally misplaced, but that's just petty tit for tat. Regular users of a forum are hardly trolls, and on this forum the real trolls are the Revivalists who only post here to get a rise out of ex-members etc. People like Ian are actually taking the time to respond to posts and get a reasonable conversation going - you might call it a flame-war but I think that's an unfair response.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 11:50 AMCopy HTML

That's cool. I don't have anything against Ian, and my use of the word troll was in context with the above definition.
...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 12:01 PMCopy HTML

Sean,

Let's start with your assertion that Christianity is a 2,000 year old fairytale?

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 12:04 PMCopy HTML

That's cool. I don't have anything against Ian, and my use of the word troll was in context with the above definition.

Yes, but in context with the definition, you're saying that anyone who tries to devolop a conversation is starting an agument or flame-war. I'm saying that 'trolls' are mean spirited people who try to incite rebuttle ony for their selfish amusement. Anyway, blah, and you don't need to invite Ian to 'choose' a topic. Let's just simply address some of the topics in the initial video you posted and branded logical.

Actually, I tell a lie, the Ricky Gervais piece on Creationism is my favourite youtube as far as comedy goes. This is really worth a listen. The symbols used in Genesis' Adam and Eve story are perfect fodder for a skilled comedian.


[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 12:19 PMCopy HTML

Ok, Ian. Let's go :)

Christianity - a 2000 year old fairy tale?

I will not assert that a smart, revolutionary bloke called Jesus existed about 2000 years ago. It's quite probable that he actually existed. Christianity per se is not a fairy tale, as he has developed quite a following over the years.

My assertion is this:

He is dead. He was no more supernatural than you, I or the Carlton football club. Your beliefs require that he is still alive and is watching over you in some metaphysical form. This is the fairytale (it seems) upon which you base your life.



Over to you, Ian.

 
...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 3:11 PMCopy HTML

Reply to LifeIsNotARehearsal

Christianity - a 2000 year old fairy tale? I will not assert that a smart, revolutionary bloke called Jesus existed about 2000 years ago. It's quite probable that he actually existed. Christianity per se is not a fairy tale, as he has developed quite a following over the years.

My assertion is this: He is dead. He was no more supernatural than you, I or the Carlton football club. Your beliefs require that he is still alive and is watching over you in some metaphysical form. This is the fairytale (it seems) upon which you base your life.
 

Actually that's quite succinct, honest... and funny. Fairly broad topic eh? I think it would be difficult to prove that the Christianity origin isn't a myth. The burdon of proof would have to lie with those making the claim, if proof is necessary either way. Is evidence is the best way to discover truth? This may seem like a cryptic question, but it's one to think about. Is faith the best way to discover truth? This is the sort of stuff that keeps me up as late as this!

I always strip it back to the fundamental question that I ask, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" I find it nearly as believable to imagine that matter has existed forever as much as 'god' has existed forever. You start going through the process of creating worlds and all the consequences that go with it until eventually you end up having to kill your only child to make it happen. I get stuck at that point and wonder 'how' and 'why' Jesus suffered a momentary death for an eternal purpose.

Is the whole Bible theme and all the stories within it fairytales? Maybe not all. It is, afterall, a wholly remarkable book with a very interesting, albeit confusing, storyline.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/09/2008 11:18 PMCopy HTML

Methinks this is going to be embarassing to watch.

Eg, Sean claims *one* assertion, but he actually makes multiple assertions as far as I see, viz

1) Jesus is dead
2) Jesus was no more supernatural than you, I or the Carlton football club.
3) Ian's beliefs require that Jesus is still alive
4) Ian's beliefs require that Jesus is watching over you in some metaphysical form.
5) This [what exactly?] is the fairytale upon which Ian seems to base his life

 

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:12/09/2008 12:27 AMCopy HTML

Good morning, Sean.

I thought I would start this conversation by refreshing your memory a little, and by establishing the basis of your assertion; a little prolegomena, if you will.

Amazing how a few words of logic can cut through thousands of years of fairy tales. In the above comment, you very clearly used the word "logic" to describe the philosophical position and argumentation that underpinned the "YouTube" clip. But further, that the "logic" of said clip somehow successfully undermined the historical basis and fabric of the Christian faith.

Interesting. Very interesting indeed.

According to the Macquarie Dictionary (rev 3rd ed.), which is and remains the national standard for Australia, "logic" is defined thus:

noun: the science which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference ... the system or principles applicable to any branch of knowledge or study ... reasons for sound sense, as in utterances or actions ... convincing force: the irresistible logic of facts.

I trust that you noted several key qualifiers to whether a matter is "logical": correctreliablesound. In other words if a matter can be demonstrated not to be "correct", or "reliable", or "sound", then it can't be claimed to be logical. Would you agree with this preliminary assessment?

But to move forwards:

Happy to debate truth and logic in another thread if you think you're up to it, but not in this light-hearted thread. I've already provided the definition of "logic", now we should probably turn to the proper meaning of the word "truth"; and again such is drawn from the above-mentioned scholarly reference:

noun: that which is true; the true or actual facts of a case ... conformity with fact or reality ... a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle ... genuineness, reality ... agreement with a standard rule, or the like.

Again I trust that you noted the key qualifiers as to whether a matter is "true": facts, reality, verified, genuineness. Again, if a matter can't be established according to such criteria, then it can't be claimed to being "true".

I will not assert that a smart, revolutionary bloke called Jesus existed about 2000 years ago. It's quite probable that he actually existed. Christianity per se is not a fairy tale, as he has developed quite a following over the years. And such was very wise of you. Were you to make an assertion to the contrary, well, the debate would have ended before you had the opportunity to "warm up".

My assertion is this: He is dead. He was no more supernatural than you, I or the Carlton football club. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you would commence by "leading with the chin". But anyway, such is indeed an assertion, but what we need to do is critically assess whether or not it fits the criteria that you saw fit to introduce above: that is, that it is both "logical" and "true".

Your beliefs require that he is still alive and is watching over you in some metaphysical form. Indeed my beliefs do require that he is alive, and is watching over me. However, I strongly suggest that you review what is intended by the technical term, "metaphysical". In any case, the boundaries of this debate aren't centered on what I might believe, but on the "truthfulness" and "logic" of your assertion, above.

This is the fairytale (it seems) upon which you base your life. I suppose it might be a little premature to be assuming the matter to consist of "fairytale" at this point. Let's wait and see, shall we?

Now, Sean, does my prolegomena satisfactorily establish the "facts" of the case?

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:12/09/2008 2:52 AMCopy HTML

Here’s a quick re-cap of the debate so far:

 

Me: Choose your topic

Ian: Let's start with your assertion that Christianity is a 2,000 year old fairytale?

Me: Well Christianity is not a fairytale per se, however your version of it is.

Ian: Ducks, weaves, quotes the dictionary and fails to even attempt a rebuttal to my assertion that a bloke who died 2000 years ago is still dead.

 

 

No – your prolegomena has failed to impress.

So did you want to debate the question?

...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:12/09/2008 4:06 AMCopy HTML

Reply to LifeIsNotARehearsal

Here’s a quick re-cap of the debate so far:

 

Me: Choose your topic

Ian: Let's start with your assertion that Christianity is a 2,000 year old fairytale?

Me: Well Christianity is not a fairytale per se, however your version of it is.

Ian: Ducks, weaves, quotes the dictionary and fails to even attempt a rebuttal to my assertion that a bloke who died 2000 years ago is still dead.

 

 

No – your prolegomena has failed to impress.

So did you want to debate the question?

LINAR,

may I ask; Why do you say it is a fairytale? There is more biblical evidence to the contrary than what you could put forward.

brolga
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:12/09/2008 4:10 AMCopy HTML

Sean,

As an observer ... you're killing me.
 
Are you really so thick that you don't understand the idea of establishing ground-rules? Eg are you wanting to argue on the basis of "truth and logic" or high-school "debating rules"? Logic (your initial proposal),as I understand it, tests propositions, but now you're talking about debating questions.

It seems you've rejected Ian's understanding of "the facts of the case". The ball's now in your court to get beyond "waffle" (or to use your terminology - ducking and weaving).

C'mon man, what specifically is your proposition, proposal or question? What ground-rules are you suggesting?

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:12/09/2008 4:34 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Sean.

Here’s a quick re-cap of the debate so far:

Me: Choose your topic

Ian: Let's start with your assertion that Christianity is a 2,000 year old fairytale?

Me: Well Christianity is not a fairytale per se, however your version of it is.

Ian: Ducks, weaves, quotes the dictionary and fails to even attempt a rebuttal to my assertion that a bloke who died 2000 years ago is still dead. 

No – your prolegomena has failed to impress.

So did you want to debate the question?

Ha, ha, ha. You haven't very much experience in the conduct of debates, have you?

C'mon, bloke. Surely even you can understand that the very first thing to do in order to avoid any sort of "confusion" (read: to cut off the possibility of you attempting to change your story/approach/perspective part way through the shebang), is to establish the bases on which the topic of debate turns?

So I naturally, and very properly, attempted to establish as much by providing the necessary prolegomena to our discussion. If you take the trouble to browse through this site a bit, you'll soon discover that I've engaged in discussions of this sort many times before. Consequently, at least one of us knows what he's doing.

Now, Sean; do you or do you not agree that what I've presented as prolegomena adequately describes what you've proposed to date?

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:12/09/2008 7:07 AMCopy HTML

I don’t actually have any formal debating experience as such, so I may have just walked into an ambush. My aim was just to say hi and post a funny video – now we’ve got formal debating rules, a ‘national standard dictionary’ and heckling from the audience.

 

Very well – I can play along.

 

But first, you’ve taken words I’d written before there was any indication that international debating rules were about to be introduced, and then applied dictionary definitions, effectively removing these words from their original context. Not quite fair play, but that’s ok – as long as these words are used in their original intended context.


Here are the words you singled out, and the context in which they were meant:
Logic in this case was used in the colloquial sense – ie. something that makes sense.

Truth – the actual facts of a case

Fairy tales – stories having no or little basis in truth

Metaphysical – above and beyond physical reality, supernatural
 

One more point - the topic that you suggested and that I agreed to debate you on is this: that Christianity is a 2,000 year old fairytale. This is not and never was a debate about the video.

Cheers,
Sean.

...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:12/09/2008 7:37 AMCopy HTML

Hello, Sean.

I don’t actually have any formal debating experience as such, so I may have just walked into an ambush. Ya think? I'm confident it will become very clear, and rather early in the piece too, that you have no formal experience in logic either. But as for your quip about being "ambushed"; well, consider me to be representative of the "Indians", with yourself representing "Custer and his calvary" :)

My aim was just to say hi and post a funny video – now we’ve got formal debating rules, a ‘national standard dictionary’ and heckling from the audience. Whatever your aim may have been, the fact remains that you made sundry claims which you now need to be in a position to defend. Those in the audience who've found your start to this debate rather unauspicious, have likely concluded that you might be something of a "hollow vessel". Of course, it remains fully within your power to demonstrate otherwise.

But first, you’ve taken words I’d written before there was any indication that international debating rules were about to be introduced, and then applied dictionary definitions, effectively removing these words from their original context. Au contraire, my friend. The context of your statements remain perfectly intact.

Here are the words you singled out, and the context in which they were meant: Logic in this case was used in the colloquial sense – ie. something that makes sense.

Truth – the actual facts of a case

Fairy tales – stories having no or little basis in truth

Metaphysical – above and beyond physical reality, supernatural
 
I think you'll find that I use words a little more precisely. And probably so should you, after all, you've decide to go head-to-head with someone who teaches theology and logic at university level.

One more point - the topic that you suggested and that I agreed to debate you on is this: that Christianity is a 2,000 year old fairytale. This is not and never was a debate about the video. Well, I'd suggest that you should, perhaps, review your original comment. The same words appear there: "logic", and "fairytales".

Now, do you agree that what I posted previously accurately reflects your statements, or not?

Blessings,

Ian

 

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:12/09/2008 7:46 AMCopy HTML

Sean,

My comments were based on your apparent confidence in your logic skills when posting - "..if your up to it ..", you're apparent confidence in another thread when you told us of your belief in atheism and your apparent belief that you were winning the debate so far "Ian: Ducks, weaves, quotes the dictionary and fails to even attempt a rebuttal to my assertion that a bloke who died 2000 years ago is still dead."

I'll now butt out.
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:12/09/2008 4:21 PMCopy HTML

Ian, I've had a quick look at your past debates, and you are obviously:
1. Very good at debating
2. Very knowledgable about your preferred subject of debate
3. Probably going to win this one.

I do not have the theological and philosophical training that you have (in fact, as you stated, you teach it at university level), and as such, I considered handing this one to you without any further discussion. After all - I just wanted to post (along with my opinions) an interesting video.

However, perhaps I can learn something from you (about debating) in the process of this (probably short-lived) debate.

So here we go :) Let's return to the original topic for debate - that of Christianity (in the metaphysical sense) being a fairytale. And yes, if you agree to use the correct context of my above statements as mentioned earlier, I am happy to proceed.


So, back to the fairytale at hand.

I contend that Christianity is a fairytale. There is no proof that a God exists or that Jesus Christ lived past his execution, and as such, to base one's life on these fairytales is irrational.

...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:13/09/2008 5:10 AMCopy HTML

Hello, Sean.

Ian, I've had a quick look at your past debates, and you are obviously:
1. Very good at debating
2. Very knowledgable about your preferred subject of debate
3. Probably going to win this one.

'Yes', probably :)

I do not have the theological and philosophical training that you have (in fact, as you stated, you teach it at university level), and as such, I considered handing this one to you without any further discussion. After all - I just wanted to post (along with my opinions) an interesting video. Sure, and the very fact that you aren't particularly well informed on the subject matter limits the value/worth of your opinion. But the issue is that, in spite of this, you decided to throw out a challenge to me when you smirked, "Happy to debate truth and logic in another thread if you think you're up to it". Given the relative (which are significant) differences in our respective educations, understanding, and backgrounds concerning the topic, that was probably a poorly executed tactical blunder on your part (I have a professional interest in tactics too, by the way). Consequently, here we now are.

However, perhaps I can learn something from you (about debating) in the process of this (probably short-lived) debate. I hope so. I expect that you'll learn a little more than just the technical aspects of debating, though. At the very least you will be confronted by the logical consistency of the Christian faith, and through comparison, you should leave with a bit of an idea about just how tenuous your current perspective, vis. Christianity, actually is.

So here we go. Let's return to the original topic for debate - that of Christianity (in the metaphysical sense) being a fairytale. And yes, if you agree to use the correct context of my above statements as mentioned earlier, I am happy to proceed. Well now. I don't think this latest statement of yours accurately reflects the original topic that was open for debate between us at all. But given that I'm in such a jolly good mood today, I'll deign to humour your contraryness. Now, as I pointed out previously, the context of your earlier discussions wasn't in doubt; your understanding of some simple English terms was. You've since taken the opportunity to express what you believed such terms meant, and I've explained for you their actual meanings. We can now move forwards.

So, back to the fairytale at hand. I suppose we shall see who is the one believing in fairytales, shan't we?

I contend that Christianity is a fairytale. There is no proof that a God exists or that Jesus Christ lived past his execution, and as such, to base one's life on these fairytales is irrational. So you actually have four propositions that you wish to address? First, that Christianity is a fairytale (notably in the metaphysical sense, as you've indicated above). Second, that there is no proof that God exists. Third, that there is no proof that Jesus Christ lived past his execution. Fourth and finally, that as a consequence of the preceding three, it's irrational to base one's life on the aforementioned (and supposed) "fairytales".

Let's begin, as is only proper, with the definitions of the key terms (again using Macquarie):

1. Fairytale. noun: a tale, usually involving fairies and folklore, as told to children ... a statement or account of something imaginary or incredible ... a lie; fabrication.

2. Proof. noun: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth ... anything serving as such evidence ... a logical presentation of the way in which given assumptions imply a certain result.

3. Irrational. adjective: without the faculty of, or not endowed with, reason ... without, or deprived of, sound judgment ... not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical.

4. Metaphysical. adjective: concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, truth, etc ... concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, substance.

Having established the bases by way of prolegomena, we are now in a position to assess the veracity/validity of your claims. I shall limit myself to addressing each claim, in turn, until the matter has been thoroughly exhausted and  a "victor" clearly established.


CLAIM 1: that Christianity is a fairytale.

Clearly the Christian faith brooks no belief in, and seeks no linkage with, the subject of fairies (unless one wishes to contend that angels should be so considered). Therefore we might discount this aspect to the current line of enquiry immediately. But as to whether or not the Christian faith involves folklore, well, that is another matter. Macquarie defines "folklore" as "...the lore of the common people; the traditional beliefs, legends, customs, etc, of a people". When assessed in this respect the term "folklore" isn't perjorative. It exists simply a statement of fact. When considered thus, Christianity clearly does include and involve aspects of folklore, but notably in the non-perjorative sense. However, the primary definition of "fairytale" provided by Macquarie above, uses the conjuction "and" copulatively: it enjoins the subject of fairies with, and to, the notion of folklore. In effect, then, the construction of the primary definition for "fairytale" describes "tales invoking a common belief in fairies", and then "as told to children". This, of course, is decidedly not applicable to the Christian faith.

But what of the secondary definition, "a statement of something imaginary or incredible"? To be "imaginary" is to "exist only in the imagination"; it is to be divorced from history and reality. Christianity, however, isn't divorced from history or reality. It's a real religion that is historical, and importantly, is verifiable historically. Further, the truth-claims of Christianity are, themselves, based in (and on) historical events: those surrounding the life, death and resurrection of an historical figure: Jesus Christ. Consequently, there is nothing "imaginary" about Christianity, per se.

Next, the particle "or" was used by Macquarie to separate "imaginary" from "incredible". Macquarie defines the latter as "seeming too extraordinary to be possible ... not credible; that cannot be believed." In one respect, the claims of Christianity are, indeed, seemingly "too extraordinary to be possible". But only when the person considering them limits what can be conceived of as being "possible" to begin with; narrowly defining "possibility" within the contraints of the artifically imposed principle of analogy. When one does not approach the subject after this fashion, then Christianity altogether ceases to be "too extraordinary to be possible". And, of course, the fact remains that over a billion people do conceive of Christianity as being "credible, and capable of being believed". Ipso facto, the first aspect to the claim fails the logic test due to the thoroughly subjective assessment criterion that is applied: reality is what you or I determine it to be, rather than what is.

And what of the third definition? "A lie; fabrication"? Macquarie defines "lie" as: "a false statement made with intent to deceive; an intentional untruth ... something intended or serving to convey a false impression." What is crucial to the fact of a lie, then, is the issue of intent. We, however, are in no position to be judging the intent of a large group of people who departed this life almost 2,000 years ago. What we are capable of, however, is applying the same objective assessment principles used by secular historians: witness credibility, and consequence of witness testimony. According to records that are available to us (both pro and con with respect to disposition towards Christianity), a group of at least 500 people were direct and immediate eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus Christ. They spanned a range of occupations, socio-economic groups, and consisted of both genders. Many were persecuted for their testimony, some were even executed for it. Importantly, however, these very same eyewitnesses were held to be so credible by their contemporaries, that thousands revoked previous, long-held and ethno-socially defining religious commitments within a space of weeks, to embrace the Christian faith. And, of course, all of these events took place within five kilometres of the sites involving the execution, burial and resurrection of the religion's founding figure. Further, they took place within the public sphere, being part of the public record.

Based on the aforementioned considerations, I contend that the term "fairytale" is completely inappropriate to describe Christianity.

I now await your rejoinder.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:13/09/2008 1:06 PMCopy HTML

Hello again, Sean.

Earlier today we considered your first proposition against the validity of Christianity, that is, that it constitutes a "fairytale", and I established sufficient doubt thus far to suggest that it isn't. Not in any accepted sense of the meaning of the word, "fairytale", at any rate. Consequently, we're now in a position to consider the relative merits of your second proposition, to whit, that "...there is no proof that God exists". This, of course, should have been your primary argument given that all of your propositions logically derive from the existence (or otherwise) of the concept-being, "God". In any case, it's my belief that you've "bitten off" far more than you could possibly "chew" in attempting to tackle this thorny issue. Quite simply, it is, and has been, the subject of considerable enquiry for the past two thousand years, and is replete with published material of, and about, which you would likely be wholly ignorant. Further, in framing the statement in the way that you have, you've provided clear indication that you don't properly understand the semantic meaning (and implications) of the English word, "proof".


CLAIM 2: there is no proof that God exists

By way of review, according to Macquaries Dictionary the semantic range of the word "proof" is:

Noun
: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth ... anything serving as such evidence ... a logical presentation of the way in which given assumptions imply a certain result.

Over the course of this debate I will conslusively demonstrate that there exists a wide range of evidences that "proves" the reasonableness of the Christian claim that God, in fact, "is". And I will begin tonight by considering the matter philosophically, via the medium of logic.

According to one of Aristotle's more famous dicta, God must exist because his thesis of an infinite regress of causes ends with what Aristotle referred to as the "Unmoved Mover" (Plato's "First Cause"). In simple terms, when one reasons backwards from effect to cause, one eventually is confronted with the logical necessity of a "First Cause", an agent which does not move of itself, but which creates "movement" thereby setting "expansion" in motion. Incidentally, this theory also underpins, more-or-less, the modern "Big Bang" theory. To quote Steven Hawking: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a Creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning or end: it would simply be" (A Brief History of Time). In other words, the logic of the "Unmoved Mover/First Cause" is so compelling, that the universe itself is substituted for God for thinkers such as Hawking. Unfortunately for the famous physicist, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (also called the Law of Entropy) pours a little cold water on his theory. Consider, the First Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of the Conservation of Energy) assures us that the amount of actual energy existing within the universe changes form, yet remains constant.  As energy changes to less usable forms of energy, the "closed" system of the universe ("...having no boundary or edge...") is running down; everything tends towards disorder.  If the overall amount of energy stays the same, but the universe is running out of usable energy, then the universe began with a finite amount of energy. Logically, this means that the universe couldn't have existed forever in the past. If the universe is getting more and more disordered, it can't be eternal, otherwise it would be totally disordered by now (which it clearly isn't). And so we find the circle returning again to Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover"/"First Cause". Or, to put this another way, to "God".

I submit this as "proof" number one (and a non-religious "proof" no less) that God does, in fact, exist. And my "proof" fully complies with the requirements for Macquarie's definition, above: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true ... a logical presentation of the way in which given assumptions imply a certain result".

Obviously one needs only one "proof" to disprove your proposition that there is "...no proof". But given that this is so entertaining, I think I'll add a couple more.

Again, through strictly logical reasoning, one might postulate the following:

(1) Something exists, and (2) it owes its existence to either nothing or to something. (3) Nothing cannnot cause something. (4) There is, then, a something, which is either one or many. (5) If many, the beings would be mutually dependent for their own existence or dependent on another. (6) They cannot be mutually dependent for their existence. Something cannot exist through a being on which it confers existence. (7) Therefore, there must be one being through which all other beings exist. (8) This being must exist through itself. (9) Whatever exists through itself, exists in the highest degree of all. (10) Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists in the highest degree. The net result? God "is".

I submit this as "proof" number two (again a non-religious "proof") that God does, in fact, exist. Once again my "proof" fully complies with the requirements for Macquarie's definition, above: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true ... a logical presentation of the way in which given assumptions imply a certain result".

But if the preceding two examples weren't sufficient, then I'd ask you to consider the result of the following, further piece of propositional logic:

(1) There are beings that begin to exist and cease to exist (i.e. "possible" beings). (2) But not all beings can be possible beings, because what comes to exist does so only through what already exists, nothing can't cause something. (3) Therefore, there must be a being whose existence is "necessary" (i.e. one that never came into being and will never cease to be). (4) There can't be an infinite regress of necessary beings, each of which has its necessity dependent on another because a necessary being can't be a dependent being. (5) Therefore, there must be a first being that is necessary in itself, and isn't dependent on another for its existence. Net result? God "is".

I submit this as "proof" number three (again a non-religious "proof") that God does, in fact, exist. It goes without saying that this "proof" also complies with the requirements for Macquarie's definition, above: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true ... a logical presentation of the way in which given assumptions imply a certain result".

There you have it. I've submitted three "proofs" for the existence of God, none of which requires any sort of religious a priori assumptions; all which can be reached through the use of very simple, very foundational logical reasoning.

Your turn.

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. Pity the emoticons aren't working tonight.

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:14/09/2008 4:08 AMCopy HTML

Sean, good afternoon.

We have considered the first two of your propositions thus far: first, that "Christianity is a fairytale"; second, that "there is no proof that God exists". I have presented several rejoinders to both propositions for you to consider and rebut. And for your rebuttals to be valid, you must attack the logical consistency of each and every argument that I have introduced, otherwise you acknowledge tacit acceptance of the validity of my postulations. Welcome to the world of debate!.

What I intend to consider, now, is your third proposal. To whit: "that there is no proof that Jesus Christ lived past his execution". To refresh your memory, the Macquarie Dictionary defines "proof", thus:

Noun: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth ... anything serving as such evidence ... a logical presentation of the way in which given assumptions imply a certain result.

I will contend for the historic Christian position: that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the capstone "proof" that Jesus was who he claimed to be, God present in human form. And given the nature of the claim to resurrection, that is, that it's a past (or historical) event, it's necessary to employ the assessment standards routinely applied to the inquiry of all past/historical events: eyewitness testimony. But given my penchant for logical deliberation, I'll throw in a little applied logic as well, just for kicks.


CLAIM 3: there is no proof that Jesus Christ lived past his execution.

To adequately cover all the bases relating to this charge, it's probably best that I divide the "proofs" for the resurrection of Jesus Christ into two categories: (1) direct evidence, and (2) indirect evidence.

Direct evidence

To begin with, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ logically depends on the fact of his death. You've not contested this crucial point, Sean, so I intend using it as the point of departure for my argument.

We have two principle written records that discuss the death of the man Jesus as an historical fact, one Christian, the other Jewish. The Christian records are to be found largely, but by no means exclusively, in that body of literature referred to as the New Testament. Similarly, the Jewish records relating to the historical death of Jesus are to be found in a very few tractates of the Mishna, itself a part of the binding Jewish religious and theological commentary known as the Talmud. Given that you've accepted the fact of the death of Jesus, Sean, in that you've stated, "...there is no proof that Jesus lived past his execution", it's logical for me to conclude that you accept the veracity/validity of the aforementioned records with respect to what they record. In other words, that they are credible and reliable.

The various direct evidence, or "proofs", for the fact of Jesus continuing to exist bodily and truly post his death on the Roman cross are twofold: (1) eyewitness testimony, and (2) the fact of his empty tomb. With respect to the former, the NT is replete with unambiguous testimony that Jesus Christ was seen, touched, and engaged with in conversation by a very large and diverse group of people in the days immediately following his death and burial. Logically this allows for only one of two options. First, that he wasn't dead beforehand; second, that he was resurrected to a state of life from a state of death. You've clearly discounted the first option; logically then, we're left with the second. When faced with this, the second option, we must seriously reflect on the credibility of the eyewitness testimony. A single eyewitness may be either credible or not credible. However, when the number of eyewitnesses to an event (or in this case, a series of events) increases, so too does the implicit level of credibility. It simply won't do to dismiss their testimony on a priori assumptions. Next we must briefly consider the fact of the empty tomb. The first point to note is that the tomb was empty, a position agreed to by both the Christians and the Jews of the day. Logically there exists only two options to explain this curiosity: Jesus walked out under his own steam, or he was carried out by others. If he walked out then he clearly was alive. But what of the second option? That his body was secretly removed from the tomb? If his body was removed, the obvious question is, "by whom"? Who stood to gain from the fact? His followers? The authorities? The Jews? That his followers stood to gain by such a deception is without warrant: "why" would they gain from it? And "how" would they gain from it? (Never mind considering how they would pull the feat off to begin with) Did the authorities stand to gain from the deception? The response must be, "hardly"! They, perhaps more than any other group, stood the most to lose. Consider: there had been a long-standing Jewish expectation in a Messiah figure, a supra-natural being who would throw off the shackles of Roman dominion. If Jesus was this Messiah, if his body went missing from a tomb sealed with a Roman seal and guarded by a Roman guard, then the Roman authorities faced quite a bit of trouble, starting with immediate and widespread civil revolt! Finally we need to consider if the Jews stood to gain from such a deception. Again, and as with Jesus' followers, one must ask "why"? and "how"? It simply isn't plausible. To be blunt, and to use legal jargon, where was the "motive" for stealing away the beaten and crucified body of just another Jewish rabble-rowser?

So I submit for your consideration the following two direct "proofs" for the resurrection of Jesus: "proof" number one, extensive and, therefore, credible eyewitness testimony. "Proof" number two, the very empty tomb.


Indirect evidence

In addition to the direct evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, there are lines of corroboration. These include the immediate transformation of the men who became the apostles; the reaction of those who rejected Christ; the conversion of thousands of staunchly Jewish men and women to Christianity in the weeks that followed; and the very fact of the Christian Church. I won't touch on the first point, as I believe it to be self-evident. However, the second point is rather curious. The Jewish authorities of the day resisted rather than refuted the disciples' claim that Jesus Christ had been bodily resurrected. Further, the Jewish Mishna often uses a quite specific Hebrew word to describe Jesus and it translates as: "sorcerer". This particular word implies that Jesus used magical means to gain power, even over life and death itself. As for the third point, I addressed this previously in my first post, when refuting your first proposition. All of the events surrounding Jesus trial, death, burial and resurrection took place within the public sphere. Further, thousands of Jewish men and women embraced the resurrected Jesus as the Christ in the weeks that followed. To close with the fourth point, the Christian Church exists, itself, as "proof" of the resurrection. Almost three billion people have found the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus compelling enough to become disciples and followers of his over the past two thousand years.

So I submit for your consideration the above-listed four "proofs" of corroborative testimony, leaving us with six in total.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:16/09/2008 7:54 AMCopy HTML

Good evening, Sean.

I'm just wondering how you're getting along. Would it be possible for you to post a quick word to let me know roughly when you intend to start the rebuttal process, so I don't have to keep checking this thread?

Thanks, and God bless.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:19/09/2008 12:42 AMCopy HTML

Hi Sean,

Without getting into all the theological issues of your youtube post, I did find it extremly funny.

anyway I sent you a PM,

smiley32
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:19/09/2008 4:58 AMCopy HTML

Sean,

Are you there?

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:21/09/2008 4:07 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Sean.

It's been a week now. A FULL seven days, and I was hoping for a little engagement by now. What's up?

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:21/09/2008 12:28 PMCopy HTML

Hi ho Iano
Bordering on harrassment there Ian, ya think? lol... hmm.
Blood from a stony ground? Move along folks, there's nothing to see here. Clearly, one would be a fool to take you on in a debate on anything religious as far as Chrsitianity goes and expect to come out even a little bit ahead... or any other topic as far as I have seen. Sean is clearly not a fool in this regard for the most part. I, on the other hand, clearly am, so here's my rambling response to the deep thoughts debated thus far.
Is Jesus dead? Hearsay and some extremely old chapters of a book say, "Yes, he died for a while but was revived back as good as new shortly afterwards". Paraphrasing, of course. I do find it strange that he still had the hand holes to prove himself to Thomas but was sans all the other major wounds. Is Elvis dead? Many witness say yes and some books do too. The stories of a reanimated Jesus are quite akin to ghost stories and urban legend and I've never seen any evidence to prove that Jesus' corpes was given new lease of life posthumously.
Jesus is no more supernatural than the Carlton football club. Insofar as the club actually exists at all is supernatural enough an event for many people to conclude that they and the universe they reside in must have been a creation of something and therefore the product of a creator. The universe is perhaps not so much a creation as it is a 'happening'. But I've always felt that if there is no god, then why does anything exist? Why is there not just an empty unfathomable void? I must say I find it easier to believe that there is some kind of force beyond my comprehension than to believe we sprang up out of nothing (nothing being a concept I find equally difficult to fathom).
... I think I just got really bored and I haven't even got to claim 1 yet. maybe tomorrow. Christianity is a fairytale? A fable? A made up story? It certainly sounds like one. Boy meets girl. Girl is impregnated by God. Girl gives birth to God. God dies to get humanity out of a bad contract. God raises God from dead. Those who believe the story live happily ever after.
More on this later maybe... maybe not.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:22/09/2008 12:58 PMCopy HTML

Hey, Pete.

Nice try fella, but you're a worse debater than I've got Sean pegged as being ;)

Blessings (and chuckles),

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:07/10/2008 1:36 PMCopy HTML

Ian, sorry about the delay in responding.

I had exams to study for - all completed now (until my next lot in December). The last thing I needed during the last couple of weeks of exam preparation was the distraction of a debate.

But anyway, here's my response to your arguments...
...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #37
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:07/10/2008 1:49 PMCopy HTML

Claim 1. That Christianity is a fairytale.

 

Firstly, I’ll have to dispute your reading of the Macquarie’s definition of fairytale. I’m using the online version (www.macquariedictionary.com.au), and the definition reads:

 

noun 1. a traditional story, usually involving magical happenings, as told to children.
2. a statement or account of something imaginary or incredible.
3. a lie; fabrication.
--adjective 4. relating to or likely to occur in a fairytale; unreal.

 

Let’s go with the first definition, “a traditional story, usually involving magical happenings, as told to children

 

Using the same reference, let’s define magical: “9. of, relating to, or due to magic”, and likewise, defining magic: “noun 1. the art of producing effects claimed to be beyond the natural human power and arrived at by means of supernatural agencies or through command of occult forces in nature.”

 

Further, it can be argued that definitions 2 and 3 of fairytale also apply.

Christianity is a fairytale. It is a traditional story (it includes many traditional stories, actually). It involves magical happenings, as its premise presupposes the existence of “effects claimed to be beyond the natural human power and arrived at by means of supernatural agencies”. It is also told to children (and adults too of course).

 

Case closed.

 

 

Ok, let’s move on to…

 

Claim 2.  There is no proof that God exists.

 

Note the uppercase “G”, for which the definition is:

 

3. (upper case) (according to Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and certain other theologies) the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe: in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

The context of this entire thread (and the context of your following discussion as to the validity of Christianity) specifically relates to the above definition of God, so I will not waste my time discussing ‘first cause(s)’. The origins of the universe are not the subject of this debate. I will also leave your out-of-context quote from Hawking alone. Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is no proof of God. I almost choked on my coffee reading that one.

 

Further, your arguments from propositional logic reduce down to ‘stuff exists, therefore God exists’, and does no justice to the question of the proof of God.

 

While your arguments against Claim 2 do not provide any proof for the existence of God, if your argument for Claim 3 proves conclusive, I am willing to accept that, for the purposes of this debate, as proof also for Claim 2.

 

So let’s move on to…

 

Claim 3. There is no proof that Jesus Christ lived past his execution.

Ian, just to re-state your four arguments for proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

  1. Eyewitness testimony
  2. The ‘fact’ of his empty tomb
  3. Indirect evidence – corroboration by others
  4. Indirect evidence – three billion Christians

 

The critical problem with your first three items submitted as evidence is that they rely on the historical accuracy of the Bible – including, and especially, that a dead bloke rose up and walked around, hanging out with his astonished mates for three days.

 

As your proofs of Jesus’ resurrection, your first three points draw on elements from the four Gospels. Specifically, these elements are:

 

1. Eyewitness testimony of Jesus hanging out with his mates after being resurrected from the dead

2. Eyewitness testimony of an empty tomb

3. Corroborating ‘evidence’ of aspects of 1 and 2, attested to in these very same manuscripts (again, eyewitness testimony)

 

So in a nutshell, your first three proofs rest on the reliability of the four Gospels as eyewitness testimony.

 

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These four anonymous manuscripts are your eyewitness testimony? You’ve mentioned that you do not refer to these exclusively, but you do say, “The Christian records are to be found largely…in the New Testament”, and so by extension, ruling the Gospels out as reliable eyewitness testimony would render your arguments ‘largely’ empty.

 

So what of these anonymous gospels and their unknown authors?

 

Here’s what we do know:

 

  1. We do know that we don’t know who wrote them. So much for eyewitness testimony.
  2. We do know that they were probably written between 70 and 95AD. So much for eyewitness testimony of events around 30AD.
  3. The Gospels were written during a time of much evangelism in the early Christian church. Does evangelistically motivated propaganda qualify as eyewitness testimony?
  4. Much of the teachings till that time had been by oral tradition. Does 40 – 60 years of evangelically motivated Chinese Whispers qualify as eyewitness testimony? What’s the bet the stories in question got better with each telling before our apostles got pen to paper? Or perhaps this was the first and only time in history that oral tradition and story telling suffered absolutely no embellishment by the teller?

 

As you said, “We must seriously reflect on the credibility of the eyewitness testimony”. Unfortunately for your arguments, serious reflection shows your eyewitness testimony to be evangelically motivated hearsay – at best.

 

And lastly we turn to your final ‘proof’ that Jesus rose from the dead:

 

Other people reckon it’s true.

 

The strength of your conviction does not make it so, Ian. Nor does the conviction of any number of people make a story true – no matter how comforting the story sounds. Oh to live forever…. What a promise! Of course it became popular. And if you’re not convinced by the promise of eternal life, perhaps punishment by torture and death as a heretic will convince you (or your surviving relatives)? Or a violent crusade or two for good measure? How about centuries of good old fashioned colonialism to teach the natives about our loving Father, while we claim your land (and its gold and other resources) for God and country?

 

Ian, if you were born an Indonesian, you would in all probability have been just as fervent about Mohammad as you are now about Jesus, wouldn’t you?

 

 

Ian, you have not proven the resurrection of Jesus. You have provided no proof for the existence of his Father (God), and you have done nothing to prove that your beliefs are based on anything more than a collection of traditional stories involving magical happenings – ie. a fairy tale.

 

Over to you.

 

...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #38
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:07/10/2008 11:01 PMCopy HTML

I said I was going to butt out, but I think I should corroborate Ian's "reading of the Macquarie’s definition of fairytale". My hardcopy Macquarie dictionary uses precisely the definition for "fariytale" that Ian quotes.

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #39
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:08/10/2008 1:00 AMCopy HTML

Talmid - thanks for the clarification. I thought this might be the case.
The last printed version of the Macquarie is the 4th edition, published in 2005. I don't have a copy actually, I've got the Oxford at home. For the purposes of this debate, I subscribed to the online Macquarie dictionary.
According to their website, the online version is updated daily as required, so we can take this to mean that it is the current version. I don't think Ian will have any issues using the current version of the dictionary that he suggested.

Cheers,
Sean.
...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #40
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:08/10/2008 4:56 AMCopy HTML

Good afternoon, Sean.

Ian, sorry about the delay in responding. Okay. But I'm confident that you would have noted my requests (plural) for some sort of an indication as to when you would respond during your browsing of this site over the past month. Yet you didn't so much as pen me a quick note outlining your circumstances. That's a bit rude, don't you think?

I had exams to study for - all completed now (until my next lot in December). The last thing I needed during the last couple of weeks of exam preparation was the distraction of a debate. Yes, and yet you knew of the pending exams when you agreed to debate me.

But anyway, here's my response to your arguments... Yes. I've briefly reviewed your response, and am saddened to say that I'm both underwhelmed and disappointed at the result. In effect, you've let me wait an entire month for piffle, much of which is based on pure speculation and supposition, rather than on logic. And remember, it was you who quipped that to believe as Christians do runs contrary to logic.

Anyway ...

I believe I will repay the courtesy afforded me by you, and respond when the "mood" takes me.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #41
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:08/10/2008 5:18 AMCopy HTML

I believe I will repay the courtesy afforded me by you, and respond when the "mood" takes me.

Fair call. I'll wait till you're ready.

Regards,
Sean.
...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #42
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:08/10/2008 11:07 AMCopy HTML

Didaktikon: Not very impressed with Sean's surrejoinder in the so-called "Great Debate" :cry: I was hoping for a more active attempt at actual rebuttal; something that would advance the discussion whilst challenging my skills at critical thinking and logic. Clearly such was too much to hope for :nervous: Ian

moth: I think that's a tad unfair. I thought there were some valid points. Perhaps you need to lower your expectations? lol - I'm sure you already have, but I dig you've little interest in humouring non-Revival issues. I'm confused as to why you're so impatient as to the tardiness of his replies. Is that an intimidation tactic?

Didaktikon: Moth. Unfair? Valid points? Were we reading the SAME response?! :/ Anyway, as for my supposed lack of "patience" with young Sean, more the case of not being particularly "happy" at his paying/blowing me off for a month :roll: Ian

moth: Yeah, I thought they were valid points in relation to the topics. Blowing you off? I hadn't thought you to be that sensitive... heh.

Didaktikon: Moth. Enlighten me, which points of Sean's did you find "reasonable"? I'm quite interested in learning better how YOU assess evidence, now :quizzical: Ian

moth: Well... okay, all in good time though. Remembering, of course, that I'm already pegged as an even worse debater than you thought Sean was - *snicker*. I'm really not sure there's any concrete evidence to assess, but I'll let you know which of Sean's points I thought reasonable.


Reply to Ian and Sean:

I'm not entirely sure whether the following amounts to any sort of debate worth replying to. There seems to be a high 'quality' and punctuality criteria set that may be difficult for some to attain to. That coupled with my last attempt to offer input to the topic which was only greeted with laughter (and admittedly that was part of the intention) even though I thought it had some reasonable points, as does Sean's recent post.

Personally, I would enjoy being convinced that the bible is a wholly factual book written under inspiration by God to [H]is creation (Why a pronoun demands a Capital letter is beyond me). I would still have trouble reconciling this new reality to everything my mind and body tells me is normal. The universe seems to be unfair either way, but meh, we all know I am unusual and can have 'trouble' with logical processes and 'deep' thinking - such is me.

Claim 1. That Christianity is a fairytale.


I'm not sure if it's worth arguing whether the term 'fairytale' is the most apt word for it - fable? Mythology? Fantasy? I'm sure we can all acknowledge (or at least I do) that the argument is about whether the New Testament gospel stories are either a compilation of made-up stories, an exaggeration of historical events, or a blow by blow factual account of universally important events. The Bible is either fact or it's fiction. I think I can deal with the idea that the various contradictions between the gospels are due to human error and don't dismantle the overall storyline, but they do make me wonder how inspired the text actually is.

Claim 2.  There is no proof that God exists.

3. (upper case) (according to Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and certain other theologies) the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe: in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Is the Old Testament a fairytale? Yep, that's an argument for another thread. I'm not familiar and simply can't grasp the concept of 'thermodynamics' and all the various types of it to really include them into my equation. To side with any scientific view would be a leap of faith in the light of such ignorance, and it's suffice to say I simply don't know how, when, or why the universe exists or that 'why' is even a valid question for it. 

Further, your arguments from propositional logic reduce down to ‘stuff exists, therefore God exists’, and does no justice to the question of the proof of God.

If the Universe is a 'creation' then it would beg for the fact of a creator, but given the underestimated enormity of the universe in question, I wonder if our speck of spiraling dust isn't a product of chance rather than design.

Claim 3. There is no proof that Jesus Christ lived past his execution.

Eyewitness testimony, The ‘fact’ of his empty tomb, Indirect evidence – corroboration by others, Indirect evidence – three billion Christians.

I think it's reasonable to question these extremely old and unverifiable witnesses of extraordinarily miraculous events. The accounts were written by unknown authors and not by the actual story characters themselves. It's a narrative written virtually in third person format and many details therein about the actual 'hero' are hazy.
 
 As your proofs of Jesus’ resurrection, your first three points draw on elements from the four Gospels. Specifically, these elements are:

1. Eyewitness testimony of Jesus hanging out with his mates after being resurrected from the dead. 2. Eyewitness testimony of an empty tomb. 3. Corroborating ‘evidence’ of aspects of 1 and 2, attested to in these very same manuscripts (again, eyewitness testimony). So in a nutshell, your first three proofs rest on the reliability of the four Gospels as eyewitness testimony.

I stated that I can accept some discrepancies between gospels but I will point out that the four accounts do have 'differences' such as where Jesus first appeared; who saw Jesus first, how the women reacted to the empty tomb, how Jesus behaved after the resurrection, the doubt his disciples reacted with, and many of the details surrounding the ascension.

So what of these anonymous gospels and their unknown authors? Here’s what we do know: Much of the teachings till that time had been by oral tradition. Does 40 – 60 years of evangelically motivated Chinese Whispers qualify as eyewitness testimony? What’s the bet the stories in question got better with each telling before our apostles got pen to paper? Or perhaps this was the first and only time in history that oral tradition and story telling suffered absolutely no embellishment by the teller?

I think this is a valid point. In 'faith', Christians believe the 'whispers' held fast throughout their passing, but the known contradictions hint that at least some of the facts were blurred during transit. The bible accounts are believed through faith and I don't think that they can stand as 'evidence'. I used to hold them to be absolutes because of bible numerics, but they may be as much a fabrication as the story itself.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These four anonymous manuscripts are your eyewitness testimony? You’ve mentioned that you do not refer to these exclusively, but you do say, “The Christian records are to be found largely…in the New Testament”, and so by extension, ruling the Gospels out as reliable eyewitness testimony would render your arguments ‘largely’ empty.

Non-Christian documents: In regard to written evidence outside of the Bible, I don't see how the Talmud, written 400 years after Jesus, can be used as evidence for Jesus, as the Yeshu it refers to is said to depict religious disciple who lived a century before Jesus was born. Josephus was born 'after' the events of the gospels and his writings mention Jesus but are very possibly the results of passed on rumours (the dreaded hearsay...!!?). Pliny the Younger was born in 62 CE and got his information from the Christian believers, and again, NOT an eyewitness of any events. Tacitus was born in 64 CE and his minimal references to Christus can unfortunately, again, and although it's a repetitive term, can only be regarded as hearsay.

As far as I can see, and admittedly it's not much more than a handfull of biased websites I get my information from, the bible is a whole big bunch of words (excuse the use of overly comlicated language here) that may have been written by people wanting to sell the religion of something passed on to them. The ethics weren't altogether a new idea and the story has roots in mytholigies that seemingly already existed. The miracles written in the books are unverifialbe stories from 20 centuries ago, and the scant mentions in the non-christian texts are questionable. The miracles that modern Christian testify to can also only be seen as hearsay and unfortunately 'God doesn't heal amputees'.

Does it all amount to faith, personal revelation and/or experience?
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #43
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:08/10/2008 12:25 PMCopy HTML

Hiya, Pete.

I'm going to deal with your concerns very briefly at this stage, as I intend responding to Sean's arguments in far greater detail, later. I am hoping; however, that what I present by way of overview, here, will be enough to whet your appetite for decent scholarly research and argumentation, and will disabuse you of some rather naive presuppositions you clearly hold to.

Personally, I would enjoy being convinced that the bible is a wholly factual book written under inspiration by God to [H]is creation (Why a pro-noun demands a Capital letter is beyond me). I would still have trouble reconciling this new reality to everything my mind and body tells me is normal. The universe seems to be unfair either way, but meh, we all know I am unusual and may have 'trouble' with logical processes and 'deep' thinking - such is me. Indeed. By the way informed people don't "capitalise" standard pronouns when used for deity any longer. They haven't for quite a few years (the KJV crowd excepted). In any case, who is to say that our ability to grasp a matter intuitively is any reasonable indication of the actual truth of the thing? Eh?

I'm not sure if it's worth arguing whether the term 'fairytale' is the most apt. Fable? Mythology? Fantasy? I'm sure we can all acknowledge (or at least I do) that the argument is about whether the New Testament gospel stories are either a compilation of made-up stories, an exaggeration of historical events, or a blow by blow factual account of universally important events. The Bible is either fact or it's fiction. I think I can deal with the idea that the various contradictions between the gospels are due to human error and they don't dismantle the overall storyline, but they make me wonder how inspired the text actually is. Let me begin by suggesting that you must hold to a pretty weird doctrine of "inspiration" then, given that what you seem to be arguing for is some sort of plenary "preservation". Different things, amigo. Further, I think you best reconsider what is properly intended by the terms "fact" and "fiction". Then, having done so, try to extend your capacities a wee bit further to considering the impact that the various historical genre (such as the Greco-Roman bios) have on how the message itself was was crafted by a given author, and how it was intended to be received by the audience for whom it was orginally written. Oh, of course, to do this adequately you'll need to divest yourself of certain time-and-culture-bound biases first. They skew the results otherwise.

If the Universe is a 'creation' then it would beg for the fact of a creator, but given the underestimated enormity of the universe in question, I wonder if our speck of spiraling dust isn't a product of chance rather than design. Sure. But could you please explain for me, scientifically, how "something" happens from "nothing"?

I think it's reasonable to question these extremely old and unverifiable witnesses of extraordinarily miraculous events. The accounts were written by unknown authors and not by the actual story characters written virtually in third person format. "Unverifiable"? By what or whose standard? "Unknown authors"? Again, according to whom? "Not participants in the matters they record"? Says who? You?

Although I stated that I can accept some discrepancies between gospels but I will point out that the four accounts do have 'differences' such as where Jesus first appeared; who saw Jesus first, how the women reacted to the empty tomb, how Jesus behaved after the resurrection, the doubt his disciples reacted with, and many of the details surrounding the ascension. Indeed. Have you ever had opportunity to sit down and chat with a police prosecutor or a criminal solicitor about how they go about assessing/evaluating the trustworthiness of multiple eyewitness testimony? If you ever get the chance, take it. If you do I think you'll discover that complete agreement generally (almost universally) is taken to equal collusion in the eyes of the justice system. The fact is that different people will view the same event, but will invariably walk away with different perspectives of what actually took place. We all of us filter objective sensory information in different and subjective ways. Note, of course, the hoary old "chestnut" about the blind men encountering the elephant!

As far as I can see, and admittedly it's not much more than a handfull of biased websites I get my information from, the bible is a whole big bunch of words (excuse the use of overly comlicated language here) that may have been written by people wanting to sell the religion of something passed on to them. The ethics weren't altogether a new idea and the story has roots in mytholigies that seemingly already existed. The miracles written in the books are unverifialbe stories from 20 centuries ago, and the scant mentions in the non-christian texts are questionable. The miracles that modern Christian testify to can also only be seen as hearsay and unfortunately 'God doesn't heal amputees'. I think, given the above, you would need to make some adjustments in order to become a good researcher, never mind and adequate historian! But could you please explain for me two things? First, why is it that you seek to apply canons of "proof" to evaluating the historicity of the NT writings that are far more stringent than what are required for profane literature from the same cultural millieu? And second, how is it that your evaluation should be considered appropriate and valid, when it's based on nothing more substantial (never mind tendentious) than 20th century Western presuppositions as to what constitutes "valid historical record" to begin with? You do understand, don't you, that the NT wasn't written in the 20th/21st centuries (but in the 1st)? And further, that it wasn't written in accordance with Western considerations as to how historiography is to be undertaken (but from a pre-modern, largely Eastern perspective)? 

Finally, if you were alluding, above, to the recent "Zeitgeist" You-Tube nonsense, then please don't get me started on deconstructing that piece of unhistorical rubbish just yet!

I think this is a valid point. In 'faith', Christian believe the 'whispers' held fast but the known contradictions hint that at least some of the facts were blurred. The bible accounts are believed through faith and I don't think that they can stand as 'evidence. I used to hold them to be absolutes because of bible numerics, but they may be as much a fabrication as the story itself. Please excuse me for stating the blindingly obvious, but this explanation of yours is nought but uninformed supposition. The gospels are neither anonymous nor as late in date as Sean stated. Further, I'd suggest that you, raised as you were in a fully literate culture, don't go discounting the strengths of historical memory that occurs in aural cultures, and then for want of understanding. For example, I personally know of Christians in other parts of the world who can quote the entire NT, word-for-word, from memory. Such, of course, was more common a skill among Jews of the 1st through 3rd centuries; those who were trained and raised to be able to do precisely that when it came to God's Word, and the Rabbinic traditions. And, of course, there is the point to consider that what you might judge to be "contradiction", may just end up being anything but.

Non-Christian documents: I don't see how the Talmud, written 400 years after Jesus, can be used as evidence for Jesus, as the Yeshu it refers to is said to depict religious disciple who lived a century before Jesus was born. Really? Ya think? You really do need to become far more discerning in assessing your chosen sources, Moth. The Mishna was largely complete by the mid 2nd century, and quotes the writings of the most revered of the Rabbis (the "Tannaites"), and who recorded their thoughts during the 1st and early 2nd centuries. It's the other sections of the Talmud (e.g. the Gemara) that date from later. Further, I think you've well-and-truly accepted a cock-and-bull story concerning the identity of, and the references to, Jesus therein. Out of interest's sake, have you ever read the actual tractates that discuss Jesus in the Talmud Babli, Pete? I have, but then again, I'm something of a stickler for basing my views on the primary sources rather than simply parroting the throughts/beliefs/writings of others, sight-unseen!

Josephus was born 'after' the events of the gospels and his writings mention Jesus but are very possibly the results of passed on rumours (the dreaded hearsay...!!?). Pliny the Younger was born in 62 CE and got his information from the Christian believers, and again, NOT an eyewitness of any events. Tacitus was born in 64 CE and his minimal references to Christus can unfortunately, again, and although it's a repetitave term, can only be regarded as hearsay. Josephus was born in the mid 30s, and he had completed his "Histories" by the time John was putting the final polish on his Revelation. So we're discussing events that took place within "living" memory. Second, you might care to check up on what both Pliny and Tacitus actually had to say. They too wrote of events that were known, and again, that occurred within the period of "living" memory.

In short, Pete, I reckon you need to have a bit of a "re-think" of what you believe to be true concerning this stuff, and more importantly, why?
Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #44
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:08/10/2008 12:55 PMCopy HTML

Thanks again Ian. I appreciate the brief, yet satisfactory response.

More and more I'm finding I'm able to respect your beliefs and question my own.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #45
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:08/10/2008 10:38 PMCopy HTML

This in my view is an excellent site. Lot's of info to back up the existance of God and resurrection of Jesus and more.

http://www.allaboutgod.com

brolga
Never too Late Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #46
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5370
  • Posts:246
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/06/2007 2:26 PM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:13/10/2008 2:15 AMCopy HTML

Some great posts under this topic ! !  Love the wit and humour..
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #47
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:04/11/2008 7:04 AMCopy HTML

Ian, that's 4 weeks now... are we back on soon?
...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #48
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:04/11/2008 7:20 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Sean.

Ian, that's 4 weeks now... are we back on soon?

Who knows? A number of other topics have piqued my interest of late. When I'm done with them, I'll probably return to this thread.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
SiwashRock Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #49
  • Rank:Lurking
  • Score:60
  • Posts:3
  • From:Canada
  • Register:10/11/2008 12:12 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:10/11/2008 12:45 AMCopy HTML




George Carlin


I don't know how to post the tube to the site so please go to it. Thank you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o


A man cannot become an atheist merely by wishing it. Napoleon Bonaparte All religions have been made by men. Napoleon Bonaparte If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god. Napoleon Bonaparte All religions have been made by men. Napoleon Bonaparte If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god. Napoleon Bonaparte Religion is what keeps the poor man from murdering the rich. Napoleon Bonaparte Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Napoleon Bonaparte
LifeIsNotARehearsal Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #50
  • Rank:Member I
  • Score:1150
  • Posts:53
  • From:Australia
  • Register:09/09/2006 11:27 AM

Re:A (very funny) few words of logic... Enjoy.

Date Posted:11/11/2008 12:37 PMCopy HTML

Reply to SiwashRock (09/11/2008 18:45:57)




George Carlin


I don't know how to post the tube to the site so please go to it. Thank you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o






Here he is... gotta love George Carlin.
...and on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.