Originally posted by googlefudgeAre you so grammatically dense as this post makes you seem?
Apparently you don't.Being an atheist does not stop you from being an idiot [sadly].
Is what I said.
As AppleChess is clearly not an atheist, but is quoting one, it is contextually completely clear that
I am talking about the quote by the atheist and not AppleChess.
Replacing the word 'you' in that sentence with 'him' would make it gibberish.
Being an atheist does not stop you from being an idiot [sadly].This appears to be talking about (and to) the person you were conversing with. The word 'you' is a huge tip-off here. Substitute the word 'him'.
Being an atheist does not stop him from being an idiot [sadly].which is no doubt what you were meaning to say. 'Him' is the person he was quoting. 'You' speaks to the person you are speaking to.
Apparently, my English is better than an Englishman's.
Originally posted by googlefudgeDo you think this might be because most academicians are overwhelmingly atheist?
No [serious] historian is claiming [for academic purposes] that the theological son of god Jesus actually existed.
Of course, it's your own bias which tags any historian pushing the idea as "not serious". This one thing, no doubt, keeps theist historians from publishing theologically "controversial" papers. Peer bias.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd this is precisely why people tend to "poo-poo" the idea of "alien spacecraft" (UFOs).
Bayesian Theory tells us WHY extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.
Because extraordinary events have such low prior probabilities and thus require much
stronger compensatory evidence.
However you are making a mistake here.
No [serious] historian is claiming [for academic purposes] that the theological son of god Jesus
actually ...[text shortened]... mines WHY you shouldn't believe that either god, or
Jesus as the son of god, actually existed.
Until they see one.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneProve to me that anyone HAS seen an alien space craft.
And this is precisely why people tend to "poo-poo" the idea of "alien spacecraft" (UFOs).
Until they see one.
Prove to me that there ARE alien space craft for them to have seen.
I don't know what your point is supposed to be, but the way people form beliefs
about the existence of Alien Spacecraft as being the explanation for UFO's is
essentially identical to, and as flawed as, the way people form beliefs about gods.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Suzianne
Do you think this might be because most academicians are overwhelmingly atheist?
Of course, it's your own bias which tags any historian pushing the idea as "not serious". This one thing, no doubt, keeps theist historians from publishing theologically "controversial" papers. Peer bias.
Do you think this might be because most academicians are overwhelmingly atheist?
Nope. This is not the sciences where atheism is in the majority.
This is in the Humanities, specifically we are talking about historians specialising in the study of
Jesus and Christianity. Where the majority are/and have been Christians.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneOh good grief.
Are you so grammatically dense as this post makes you seem?Being an atheist does not stop you from being an idiot [sadly].This appears to be talking about (and to) the person you were conversing with. The word 'you' is a huge tip-off here. Substitute the word 'him'.
[quote]Being an atheist does not stop him from being an idiot [sadly ...[text shortened]... aks to the person you are speaking to.
Apparently, my English is better than an Englishman's.
"if you want to get ahead in life you need to..."
'You' not applying to a specific person
"Getting elected mayor will not make you rich"
'You' not applying to a specific person
"If you're the President you get to ride in Air Force One"
Do you need to be the president for this to make sense?
Unless this is some weird quirk of English that is not present in American English
[despite being used countless times in films and TV shows from the USA] then this
is perfectly good common use English language that I would expect any 9 year old to
understand.
"Being an atheist does not stop you from being an idiot [sadly]"
Means quite simply that being an atheist does not endow a person with special protection from
being an idiot. It doesn't use the word 'Him' because while it's applicable to, and referring to
the atheist that was quoted. It is a general point applicable to anyone and atheists are not all men.
Even if the one making the quote happened to be one.
Go back to school the lot of you.
3 edits
gf: "Bayesian analysis allows you to determine which of the two competing hypothesis is more probable given the currently available evidence."
Isn't it relevant that the religion would not have survived 2000 years unless people then, not only now, had had evidence which they regarded as sufficient--by whatever standards were then regarded as sufficient? Granted that we now think their standard to have been superseded.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by moonbusYou assume a number of things.
gf: "Bayesian analysis allows you to determine which of the two competing hypothesis is more probable given the currently available evidence."
Isn't it relevant that the religion would not have survived 2000 years unless people then, not only now, had had evidence which they regarded as sufficient--by whatever standards were then regarded as sufficient? Granted that we now think their standard to have been superseded.
One that people generally base their beliefs on any kind of rational analysis of the evidence.
Then or now.
Two, that people then thought the same way we do about how the world works and how to
determine what it's like.
If you watch the video twhitehead linked earlier, you will get an insight into the way people
thought about religion back then that is rather different from the way we think about things now.
It is simply not valid to assume 'modern' reasoning for people who lived before it had been invented
or before the value and knowledge of science of the modern world had been achieved.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI do not assume that people then thought as we do now. On the contrary, I assume the opposite. Perhaps "grounds" would have been a more fortuitous word than "evidence" to describe how or why people accepted religions in previous centuries. Certainly, the great mass of illiterate people in the middle ages were simply indoctrinated by their parents and society at large and it never occurred to them that anything else was even possible.
You assume a number of things.
One that people generally base their beliefs on any kind of rational analysis of the evidence.
Then or now.
Two, that people then thought the same way we do about how the world works and how to
determine what it's like.
If you watch the video twhitehead linked earlier, you will get an insight into the way peopl ...[text shortened]... n invented
or before the value and knowledge of science of the modern world had been achieved.
The idea of requiring evidence for religious claims probably dates to the Enlightenment. Of course it is not valid to assume modern reasoning for people who lived before modern reasoning had been invented; that is why I wonder what mileage one hopes to get out of any sort of probabilistic (Bayesian) approach to religious claims, since that cannot have been the operative "ground" for getting the religion going during its first few centuries or for keeping the religion going during its next millennium, before the Enlightenment.
You are perhaps familiar with the oft-quoted line from Tertulian: "I believe because it is impossible." ? Quite unthinkable for a modern person, but understandable for someone ignorant of basic natural laws and physiological process (such as the chemistry of conception).
Originally posted by googlefudgeHowever, today we can debunk the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist because of many factors. The main physical factors are the combination of the empty tomb in Jerusalem, the Shroud of Turin, and the Sudarium of Oviedo.
You assume a number of things.
One that people generally base their beliefs on any kind of rational analysis of the evidence.
Then or now.
Two, that people then thought the same way we do about how the world works and how to
determine what it's like.
If you watch the video twhitehead linked earlier, you will get an insight into the way peopl ...[text shortened]... n invented
or before the value and knowledge of science of the modern world had been achieved.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html
Originally posted by RJHindsAn empty tomb proves that somebody was in there ?? Whoa nelly !!
However, today we can debunk the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist because of many factors. The main physical factors are the combination of the empty tomb in Jerusalem, the Shroud of Turin, and the Sudarium of Oviedo.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by moonbusI don't think you quite understand what it is that a Bayesian approach achieves or is supposed to achieve.
I do not assume that people then thought as we do now. On the contrary, I assume the opposite. Perhaps "grounds" would have been a more fortuitous word than "evidence" to describe how or why people accepted religions in previous centuries. Certainly, the great mass of illiterate people in the middle ages were simply indoctrinated by their parents and society ...[text shortened]... ignorant of basic natural laws and physiological process (such as the chemistry of conception).
The question here, is simply "was there a real human being upon which the Christian religion was based?"
This is a question of historical fact.
We, today, have evidence of various sorts from the period in question [the foundation of Christianity] and
we want to determine what that evidence tells us. We want to know what it is we can say, and with how
much confidence, based upon the evidence we actually have.
The way to do this [the only valid way to do this] is to do a Bayesian analysis of the available evidence
to determine what [if anything] we can probabilistically conclude from that evidence.
In a wider sense, when dealing with religious claims, the [first] question is "are they true/valid?"
In seeking the answer to that question you can only go on the evidence that you actually have, and you should
use the best, most reliable logically justified method to analyse that evidence to come to the best possible
answer available to us. That's Bayesian analysis/reasoning.
You are perhaps familiar with the oft-quoted line from Tertulian: "I believe because it is impossible." ?
Quite unthinkable for a modern person
Have you met RJHinds? 😉