Argumentum ad populum

Originally posted by Agerg
Yet still this farce continues. Oh and you overlooked the all important [b]"(at least in the divine or supernatural sense)"...never forget that one! (Ie I'm referring to magic Son of God Jesus born of a virgin as opposed to some character, human and non-divine as the rest of us possibly named Jesus (or possibly invented) - that type of Jesus is not Bible Jesus (since no magic properties))[/b]

=============================
you overlooked the all important "(at least in the divine or supernatural sense)"...never forget that one!
=============================

That is right. I did overlook that part.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
you overlooked the all important "(at least in the divine or supernatural sense)"...never forget that one!
=============================

That is right. I did overlook that part.[/b]

Well it's an important oversight!

Given that a number of theists fail to separate the notion of divine, supernatural, Son of God, born of a virgin, sent by god to pay for the sins of mankind Jesus who performed miracles from that of a wholly non-supernatural character (who may or may not have existed) I was careful to reference the aspect of "Jesus" which is the source of my contention. (similarly I usually prefix God with "your" to reference a particular deity you (or whoever I'm talking to) believe is true).

The argument you have provided seeks to establish that divine Jesus (you do not seem to differentiate between the two notions above btw) is more plausible than Thor by appealing to the masses. It was faulty reasoning.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well it's an important oversight!

Given that a number of theists fail to separate the notion of divine, supernatural, Son of God, born of a virgin, sent by god to pay for the sins of mankind Jesus who performed miracles from that of a wholly non-supernatural character (who may or may not have existed) I was careful to reference the aspect of "Jesus" which ns above) is more plausible than Thor by appealing to the masses. It was faulty reasoning.

============================
Well it's an important oversight!

Given that a number of theists fail to separate the notion of divine, supernatural, Son of God, born of a virgin, sent by god to pay for the sins of mankind Jesus who performed miracles from that of a wholly non-supernatural character (who may or may not have existed) I was careful to reference the aspect of "Jesus" which is the source of my contention. (similarly I usually prefix God with "your" to reference a particular deity you (or whoever I'm talking to) believe is true).

The argument you have provided seeks to establish that divine Jesus (you do not seem to differentiate between the two notions above) is more plausible than Thor by appealing to the masses. It was faulty reasoning.
========================================

If you do not want me to quote the Bible then you are not willing to examine your interpretations of it for verification or analysis.

So you want to teach me what it teaches but you do not want me to analyze your concepts by comparison to the words of the Bible.

You also do not want to be challenged as to faulty or non-faulty reasoning from the Bible, if you do not want it to be quoted in support of ideas.

Since you don't want me to deal with its words, I feel no obligation to accept your interpretation of what is taught and said there. If I am asked not to compare your interpretations with actual words its a rather pointless discussion unfairly stacked in your skeptical favor as you TELL me what the Bible teaches and forbid me to closely analyze that with what I read.

Originally posted by jaywill
============================
Well it's an important oversight!

Given that a number of theists fail to separate the notion of divine, supernatural, Son of God, born of a virgin, sent by god to pay for the sins of mankind Jesus who performed miracles from that of a wholly non-supernatural character (who may or may not have existed) I was careful ou TELL me what the Bible teaches and forbid me to closely analyze that with what I read.

The elasticity of my patience is reaching fail point.

It doesn't matter to me the particularities of magic that enshrouds your notion of Jesus for this discussion. I simply don't believe in magic, I have no way to test for magic, neither have you, nor any other human. There is no valid evidence for magic. There is no way to validly conclude that one magical thing is more plausible than any other.
Your Bible quotes would serve only an anecdotal purpose as far as I'm concerned.

So again, magic (divine or supernatural) Jesus is no more plausible to me than Thor; and you cannot soundly argue against this by appealing to the masses.

Originally posted by Agerg
The elasticity of my patience is reaching fail point.

It doesn't matter to me the particularities of magic that enshrouds your notion of Jesus. I simply don't believe in magic, I have no way to test for magic, neither have you, nor any other human. There is no valid evidence for magic. There is no way to conclude that one magical thing is more plausible tha y favour it was you who decided to take me on. It was your idea to challenge my position.[/b]

The first words of the Bible are "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

This is not magic. This is an indication that the Ultimate Governor of this universe has the authority and power to call into being that which does not exist.

If it serves His purposes, He will perform a miracle.

You've got a David Hume argument going there. And I think David Hume's philosophy of the anti-supernatural has been refuted by other careful philosophers who poked holes in his arguments.

Originally posted by jaywill
The first words of the Bible are [b]"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

This is not magic. This is an indication that the Ultimate Governor of this universe has the authority and power to call into being that which does not exist.

If it serves His purposes, He will perform a miracle.

You've got a David Hume argument goi upernatural has been refuted by other careful philosophers who poked holes in his arguments.[/b]

I see...so magic places like heaven can be created without magic??? (rhetorical question)
What you call miracles I call magic. I have nothing more to say to you about this at present.

I'll say again, magic (divine or supernatural) Jesus is no more plausible to me than Thor; and you cannot soundly argue against this by appealing to the masses.

I will keep bringing this up in my responses to you until either you acknowledge your error, and then put it behind us to discuss other things, or you finally *go away*.

Originally posted by Agerg
I see...so magic places like heaven can be created without magic??? (rhetorical question)
What you call miracles I call magic. I have nothing more to say to you about this at present.

I'll say again, magic (divine or supernatural) Jesus is no more plausible to me than Thor; and you cannot soundly argue against this by appealing to the masses.

I will kee ...[text shortened]... wledge your error, and then put it behind us to discuss other things, or you finally *go away*.

Repeating your argument an infinite number of times is not convincing.

In fact it is itself a form of appeal to numbers.

Where did the universe come from ? Did it pop into existence uncaused ?

I may go away from your thread out of boredom.

Bill Craig on Atheism Undermining Science:

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by jaywill
Repeating your argument an infinite number of times is not convincing.

In fact it is itself a form of appeal to numbers.

Where did the universe come from ? Did it pop into existence uncaused ?

I may go away from [b]your thread out of boredom.[/b]

I may go away from your thread out of boredom.
That's fine by me...off you pop, cheerio, ta-ta, ciao!

I showed, in detail, where you were wrong. You admitted you made an oversight yet you fail to acknowledge your argumentum ad populum was fallacious. I've been heckled and hassled by yourself and Freaky (who will continue to champion your cause (inspite of it's futility) because he simply doesn't know any better) for a debacle that was entirely of your own making.
You now seek to cover this up and draw me into a completely new discussion for which I have nothing to gain.

Bill Craig on "What justification do you have for being closed to the possibility of miracles ?"

YouTube

Originally posted by Agerg
[b] I may go away from your thread out of boredom.
That's fine by me...off you pop, cheerio, ta-ta, ciao!

I showed, in detail, where you were wrong. You admitted you made an oversight yet you fail to acknowledge your argumentum ad populum was fallacious. I've been heckled and hassled by yourself and Freaky (who will continue to champion your cause (ins ...[text shortened]... cover this up and draw me into a completely new discussion for which I have nothing to gain.[/b]

Dude, you got p'owned by jaywill--- and by your own illogical convolutions. Revealed as a bag of hot air with nothing but cliché insults to rest upon. Keep up the good fight, though.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So, the truth comes out. You made an allegation regarding the frequent use of the argumentum ad populum by Christians in their desperate attempts to bolster their oh-so-shaky confidence. You even resort to using a form of it yourself when you say [b]I have heard it before, other atheists have heard it before--- and yet you are wholly unable to ...[text shortened]... one Christian!

If that wasn't enough, you end with a parting attack on the person. Classic![/b]

I too have heard the argument before and I too do not have the motivation to go trawling the boards to find it. It is an unsubstantiated claim. Take it or leave it.

Originally posted by jaywill
Bill Craig on "What justification do you have for being closed to the possibility of miracles ?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuJ6_l-0Etc

My justification is that they are incoherent by definition. (No I haven't watched the youtube clip because here in South Africa we have to pay per megabyte for our internet usage.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My justification is that they are incoherent by definition.

Agree.

We know that it's not possible to divide by zero. So when someone tries, 'succeed', and proposes a proof that it really can be done, we can safely tell him that there is something wrong with the proof, without even have to see it. It if was possible, it would be a true miracle.

Same goes for the Perpetuum Mobile. Many are those 'inventors' that says they have 'invented' such a thing. If they state that they can overrun the laws of thermodynamics, then they would be credible, but noone has. It if was possible, it would be a true miracle.

If miracles really were possible, then the laws of nature and physics would be violated. To believe in miracles, division by zero, or Perpetuum Mobile it takes religion. In religion everything is possible. In the real world only things obeying the laws of nature and physics is possible.

Miracles is within the domain of religion, not the domain of science. Try to prove the existance of miracles, then you are using science to prove religion. It cannot be done.

Religion and science cannot be mixed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I too have heard the argument before and I too do not have the motivation to go trawling the boards to find it. It is an unsubstantiated claim. Take it or leave it.

Since you're unable to support it--- and I have never heard it employed, seriously or otherwise--- I will therefore "leave it." That someone thought it merited a thread is peculiar. Perhaps the thread should have been entitled "Strawman Against Christians." That certainly would have been closer to the mark on this one.