Originally posted by kingdanwaIt seems I've always thought he was shot in the head. But I have no proof. I believe it based on what I've read (and seen on TV)- second hand evidence. I don't have any first-hand experience or evidence. I've never really studied the testimony of the witnesses. Funny how I just take it on faith that he died the way most people say he did.
In our continued attempt to discover truth, and having resolved the of issue morality affecting the search for truth, let us consider a secular example before moving on to a more "spiritual" event.
How did JFK die?
My position is that he was killed in 1975 in Chicago by a crazed Native American who shot him with a bow and arrow.
Let's figure out how we can determine the nature of JFK's death (if in fact he actually died).
Originally posted by ColettiWhy do you continue to let him sucker you into innane debates?
It seems I've always thought he was shot in the head. But I have no proof. I believe it based on what I've read (and seen on TV)- second hand evidence. I don't have any first-hand experience or evidence. I've never really studied the testimony of the witnesses. Funny how I just take it on faith that he died the way most people say he did.
All he wants is to do an anthropological study here, he is no more
interested in the case in question than ID'ers are interested in
science.
Originally posted by kingdanwaI think he was killed by an Intelligently Designed bullet fired by a psychopath living in a nation of idiots
In our continued attempt to discover truth, and having resolved the of issue morality affecting the search for truth, let us consider a secular example before moving on to a more "spiritual" event.
How did JFK die?
My position is that he was killed in 1975 in Chicago by a crazed Native American who shot him with a bow and arrow.
Let's figure out how we can determine the nature of JFK's death (if in fact he actually died).
Originally posted by kingdanwaThese guys don't know the literature you are citing to recognize how
Modern scholarship.
Just a few months ago, the Kennedy Seminar casted different colored stones in an attempt to discover the truth. Some colors represented what certainly happened, but other stones represent what obviously didn't happen.
In a recent book, The Search For the Historical Kennedy, we find out that most of what we thought we knew about Kennedy is nothing but propaganda put forth by a cult of Kenne-deists.
truly funny your post is.
It even took me a second read!
LOL.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI apologize for my cumbersome method, but my hope for a common solution is completely genuine.
I disagree. He has a genuine point which is, actually, a good one.
However, I, too, find the methodology somewhat cumbersome.
Nemesio
I fear that prejeduces too often get in the way of spiritual debates. My attempt at secular analogies is my effort at promoting sincere discussion. My absurd claims often get in the way, but they too have a point. "Modern Scholarship" (I'm glad you got my jokes) often makes equally bold (ignorant) statements.
1 edit
Originally posted by kingdanwaGeeez Louise.......would I hate to be stuck in a room with you.
Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not saying we have no proof of anything. I'm calling for a standard way of examing the proof (evidence for and against) that we have.
Do
you
have
a
point
coming
anytime
soon?
Originally posted by kingdanwa
I apologize for my cumbersome method, but my hope for a common solution is completely genuine.
If you are anything like your brother, I have no reason to doubt
the sincerity of your statement. (But, am I evaluating unfairly?!)
I fear that prejeduces too often get in the way of spiritual debates. My attempt at secular analogies is my effort at promoting sincere discussion. My absurd claims often get in the way, but they too have a point. "Modern Scholarship" (I'm glad you got my jokes) often makes equally bold (ignorant) statements.
These prejudices, of course, work both ways and, since most people
are entrenched in their positions, they have little interest in pursuing
what they view to be a protracted means of establishing a point (but,
then again, often they have no interest either in having that point
established in a direct fashion, either).
They forget your buddy, Ann Rand's, statement that in an argument,
you might win, I might win, but in finding the truth, we both profit.
(Paraphrase, with apologies)
I'm working on a reply to your statement presently...
Nemesio
Originally posted by kingdanwaIn all seriousness (now that I can see, having wiped tears of laughter
Modern scholarship.
Just a few months ago, the Kennedy Seminar casted different colored stones in an attempt to discover the truth. Some colors represented what certainly happened, but other stones represent what obviously didn't happen.
In a recent book, The Search For the Historical Kennedy, we find out that most of what we thought we knew about Kennedy is nothing but propaganda put forth by a cult of Kenne-deists.
out of my eyes), let's summarize for the class.
Let us make a few observations so that people can appreciate what
you are doing and let us see if your analogy holds. For the sake of
simplicity, let us accept that Jesus, the historical figure, existed (which
I firmly believe to be true).
In the case of both Jesus and Kennedy, we have what we might call
testimonies about the nature in which these people died (or, more
accurately, were assassinated). Interestingly enough, both accounts
have some minor conflicts of fact.
Why do we accept the Kennedy account as largely representative of
the factual history of events, while many question the Jesus account
as largely fictional?
There are several reasons. First, Kennedy made no supernatural
claims: he didn't come back to life, he didn't prophesy his death, he
didn't do healings. I think that, it is fair to say, that we should
approach any claims like these with suspicion.
If I claim that I eat breakfast today, you have good reason to believe
that I did so. If I claim I raised my friend's dead sister back to life,
you would do well to disbelieve that claim. Why? Because one claim
is far more probable than the other. One entails ordinary, simple,
every-day actions, the other extraordinary, complex, miraculous actions.
Because none of us were there for either my breakfast eating or my
raising and thus can neither repeat and test these claims for ourselves
(like we can scientific claims) nor can we contemplate the assumptions
and conclusions drawn from them (as we can with moral claims), we
have to resort to probability. What is the likelihood that I did the
former, as I claimed I did? Because it is ordinary and simple, I'd say
that the claim has a good probability of being true. What are the odds
that my raising took place, as I claimed it did? Because it was
extraordinary and complex, I'd say people would be wise to disbelieve
such a claim.
What about a more 'in-the-middle' kind of claim? What if I said
something like, 'Today I was attacked by a grizzly bear and I
managed to kill it with sheer luck using a tree branch and a rock?'
Such a claim is not utterly far-fetched (like the raising), but certainly
is unlikely. We need a methodology for examining this claim. We
might ask, where do I live (Pittsburgh). Hmm, that is a strike against
me...not many bears in Pittsburgh. We might ask, how big is Nemesio?
Hmm...only 5'7", 120lb? That is a strike against me. We might ask
has Nemesio made unprovable, outlandish claims about his killing of
wild beasts before? Hmm...nope, so that's a plus for me. We might
ask is Nemesio skilled in martial arts? Nope...that counts against me.
And so forth.
Now, tying this back to Kennedy.
The reports for the Kennedy assassination were immediate. That
counts *for* the claim. They were made by many independent
witnesses. That counts *for* the claim. Nothing magical/extraordinary
happened within the context of those observations. That counts *for*
the claim. The people making the claims didn't stand to benefit or
lose by lying. That counts *for* the claim.
The reports for the Jesus Crucifixion were 35-70 years after the event.
That counts *against* the claim. They were made by inter-related
witnesses (Two-Source theory). That counts *against* the claim. The
events after the Crucifixion (i.e., the Resurrection) are magical and
extraordinary. This counts *against* the claim. The people making
the claims standed to profit by their being true, and lose by their being
false. That counts *against* the claim.
We cannot speak about absolute truths in either situation. We can
only speak about probablility. Given the evidence (ignoring film and
photographic evidence, in order to keep the analogy close), we would
do well to believe the Kennedy claim. And, normatively speaking, we
would do well to disbelieve the Jesus claim.
If we were to argue that we should believe the Jesus claim, then I
would propose a counter-claim: If we believe that the various events in
the Christian Scriptures are historically true, then why would we
disbelieve that the events in the Mormon Scriptures or in Greek
Mythology (e.g.) were false? What gives the Bible greater credibility
than Smith or Homer?
Keep in mind that the various redactive techniques which are accepted
without quesiton in the discussion of Greek Mythology are applied to
Biblical Scholarship. If we choose to disbelieve the techniques for
Christian Scripture, then we also must ignore their impact on Greek
Mythology (thus undermining lines of oral and written transmission and
giving 'divine' status to the odes of Homer and the like).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioBecause they contradict each other. We can not believe both Christian scriptures and Greek mythology (or Mormon scriptures) where they contradict.
....
If we were to argue that we should believe the Jesus claim, then I
would propose a counter-claim: If we believe that the various events in
the Christian Scriptures are historically true, then why would we
disbelieve that the events in the Mormon Scriptures or in Greek
Mythology (e.g.) were false? What gives the Bible greater credibility
than Smith or Homer?
...
Nemesio
(BTW. Kudos for seeing where this was all going.)
Originally posted by ColettiThe point is not that we must believe the the historical reality of Christ, but that believing the the historical reality of Christ is not unreasonable.
Because they contradict each other. We can not believe both Christian scriptures and Greek mythology (or Mormon scriptures) where they contradict.
(BTW. Kudos for seeing where this was all going.)
The specific claims of Christ are another issue all together. If Kennedy claimed to be a god, that would not mean we should disbelieve his was assassinated in Texas.
Originally posted by NemesioKennedy made no supernatural
In all seriousness (now that I can see, having wiped tears of laughter
out of my eyes), let's summarize for the class.
Let us make a few observations so that people can appreciate what
you are doing and let us see if your analogy holds. For the sake of
simplicity, let us accept that Jesus, the historical figure, existed (which
I firmly believe to be ...[text shortened]... ritten transmission and
giving 'divine' status to the odes of Homer and the like).
Nemesio
claims: he didn't come back to life, he didn't prophesy his death, he
didn't do healings. I think that, it is fair to say, that we should
approach any claims like these with suspicion.
i think herein lies the crux of the problem with the king's analogy.
Originally posted by NemesioI agree that it is fair to say that we approach supernatural claims with suspicion (we may yet have to define supernatural), and if we are honest, both Theist and Atheist alike, we will admit that we do so on a regular basis. However, once we have seen a supernatural event it would be lunacy to deny its occurence. There may be a difference between seeing and hearing about it, but it cannot be written off completely simply because we do not have first hand experience.
There are several reasons. First, Kennedy made no supernatural
claims: he didn't come back to life, he didn't prophesy his death, he
didn't do healings. I think that, it is fair to say, that we should
approach any claims like these with suspicion.
Allow me this example which you may have heard before:
"Every day Farmer Brown opens the door to the chicken coup, enters and feeds the chickens. He then gathers up their eggs and leaves. The next day he does the same, and the next day. In fact, this is all these chickens have ever known. They go about their lives in the chicken coup and week after week, month after month, year after year, this is their universal experience.
Then one day Farmer Brown comes into the coup walks up to Betty and chops off her head. Universal experience for the chickens states that this never happens. And yet her head is on the ground as her body wriggle around for the next few minutes."
It is a strange connection, but if you reference the highest secular authority on miracles, David Hume, you will see the point against unmovable skepticism.
Originally posted by poopsiecuionce we have seen a supernatural event it would be lunacy to deny its occurence
I agree that it is fair to say that we approach supernatural claims with suspicion (we may yet have to define supernatural), and if we are honest, both Theist and Atheist alike, we will admit that we do so on a regular basis. However, once we have seen a supernatural event it would be lunacy to deny its occurence. There may be a difference between seein ...[text shortened]... secular authority on miracles, David Hume, you will see the point against unmovable skepticism.
i have never seen such an event, so this is a bridge yet to be crossed.
it cannot be written off completely simply because we do not have first hand experience
i would say this is true. but this doesn't help your case anymore than simply saying 'well, i must be right because you cannot prove me wrong.' all of the king's cry wolf threads suffer from this same triviality. a case is not strengthened by the lack of evidence against it, but by the existence of compelling evidence for it. although, to his credit, the king claims to be looking for common standards, to which he is certainly entitled.
the analogies also suffer because they do not adequately address the alleged supernatural attributes of jesus, which for many constitute the whole basis of a lack of belief.