Stahrwe's Points:
"You are flat wrong here. Courts attempt to get at the truth all the time. In court evidence is presented and evaluated. The problem is that evidence is not always perfect. But by collecting a large quantity of evidence usually, a point is reached where the evidence in one direction is overwhelming."

Things done in the name of Christianity are only things done in the name of Christianity. There is no proof that the religion of Christianity is based on any truth. This is so basic that I am going to pose such a question to the next five year old I meet. What you call evidence is not evidence of the life of a man called Jesus. It is only evidence of a religion grown up around such a name.



interbane wrote:
If a single man builds a hospital because he believes in Jesus, that does not mean Jesus is real, it only means the man believes Jesus is real. If a million men build hospitals and other things because they believe Jesus is real, that does not mean Jesus is real, it only means a LOT of people believe Jesus is real. If you try to piggy back on this point and say that the sheer number of people is evidence in itself(along with their created relics and culture), you're committing the ad populum fallacy.

The above paragraph is TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!



Stahrwe' s point:
"Drop the relics whine it doesn't play here. You might be right about the sheer number but it isn't just the number, it is the richness and depth of the ministry. At some point, after the millionth hospital has been built, and the millionth orphan has been rescued, and the millionth drunk helped back to sobriety, and the millionth Christian martyred someone standing on the corner yelling, "ad populum fallacy" isn't convincing it is just pathetic."

O.K. when this all happens with Mormonism will it then make Mormonism true?

Stahrwe said, without a glimmer of irony or Epiphany:

But by collecting a large quantity of evidence usually, a point is reached where the evidence in one direction is overwhelming."

re:
biblical error
age of the earth
evolution of life
Christianity’s status as a religion
falsehood of creationism
in-accuracy of biblical creation account
in-accuracy of biblical flood story
your lack of understanding of logic and the application thereof
categorical equivalent of Christian myths to those of other religions / fairy tales
categorical equivalent of prayer and magic
really, really believing a thing does not equate to knowledge

anyone want to jump in here to point star to relevant topics where the preponderance of evidence looms toweringly high over his contrary baseless assertions?

lady of shallot wrote:Stahrwe's Points:
"You are flat wrong here. Courts attempt to get at the truth all the time. In court evidence is presented and evaluated. The problem is that evidence is not always perfect. But by collecting a large quantity of evidence usually, a point is reached where the evidence in one direction is overwhelming."

Things done in the name of Christianity are only things done in the name of Christianity. There is no proof that the religion of Christianity is based on any truth. This is so basic that I am going to pose such a question to the next five year old I meet. What you call evidence is not evidence of the life of a man called Jesus. It is only evidence of a religion grown up around such a name.

This post is a bit challenging to reply to based on its structure but I will do my best. I think you are carrying my argument beyond where I did. But let me post it slightly differently:

Suppose you are given a coin, one side is heads, the other is tails. Suppose you flip that coin 5 times and get 3 heads and 2 tails. Can you conclude that coin is a fair coin?
Probably not.

Suppose you flip it 100 times and get 48 heads and 52 tails. Fair coin?
1,000 times, 499/501 fair?
1,000,000; 500,000/500,000 fair?

at some point it is reasonable to conclude that the representation that it is a fair coin is True. Assumint no Pop Warner Fallacy.

interbane wrote:
If a single man builds a hospital because he believes in Jesus, that does not mean Jesus is real, it only means the man believes Jesus is real. If a million men build hospitals and other things because they believe Jesus is real, that does not mean Jesus is real, it only means a LOT of people believe Jesus is real. If you try to piggy back on this point and say that the sheer number of people is evidence in itself(along with their created relics and culture), you're committing the ad populum fallacy.

The above paragraph is TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!



Stahrwe' s point:
"Drop the relics whine it doesn't play here. You might be right about the sheer number but it isn't just the number, it is the richness and depth of the ministry. At some point, after the millionth hospital has been built, and the millionth orphan has been rescued, and the millionth drunk helped back to sobriety, and the millionth Christian martyred someone standing on the corner yelling, "ad populum fallacy" isn't convincing it is just pathetic."

O.K. when this all happens with Mormonism will it then make Mormonism true?[/quote]

They will have a much better argument in favor of it at that point but I wouldn't bet my eternal life on it.

Stahrwe
Perhaps but the majority of the populace considers the Bible to be legitimate. You have a different position due to your agenda, but taking a position against the Bible does not legitimize your claims, indeed the evidence is that the legal institutions of the United States favor the Bible; the building which houses the United States Supreme Court has a depiction of Moses holding the two tablets of the Ten Commandments. In fact Moses appears in at least two places on the Supreme Court building with the Ten Commandments either written or represented in at least 3 place. I submit that representation of people from the Bible , by the highest court in the land, establishes the credibility of the Bible. Further, the Bible has been the basis for innumberable laws and legal precendents, and is commonly used by presidents of the United States when being sworn into office. The overwhelming recognition of the Bible as a legitimate document places you and the nay sayers in the position of proving it is not. I know you reject that concept but doing so reminds me of the old Jim Croce, 'you can't spit in the wind' That is what you are doing when you deny the Bible is legitimate.

You are somehow so ignorant you don’t/can’t see this has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the evidence of the claim actually supports the claim. All that matters is the claim and the evidence... The rest is just a pointless distraction because as shown competently above, the length of time something is believed and what manifests from that belief show absolutely no, zip, zero, nada support for the original claim or the truth (or lack of) contained within. The claim is the foundation if it is not supported the rest is meaningless. There was a time when most people believed that the earth was flat… their numbers did not make them more correct... their inspired maps and descriptions of the edge of the world did not make them correct... and neither do churches, hospitals, or holy wars.

Stahrwe
Your information, I do not say facts, are plain wrong.

Ok… if you say so… Ha, Ha, Ha ! You might want to start telling that to the foremost scholars in the field though… by the way I will consider reading your silly apologetic books when you nut-up and watch the video series.

frank013 wrote:
And here is the kicker… the examples I gave earlier all meet the standards of evidence I put forth… even something as simple as a tomb cover stone is shown to work… If the biblical stories do not, it is because of a problem with them… not the criteria.

stahrwe
History has shown otherwise, the very argumentative approach taken to the Bible shows that nothing would be accepable as evidence.

This is ridiculous in the extreme… the very fact that I will show you what does count as evidence before you show us what you have, demonstrates the absurdity of your statement…

Stahrwe
You are comparing apples and oranges once again. If Hercules;

had a church that lasted 2,000 years with a billion members,
had a holy book about him which is revered and has been throughout history,
had universities started to train people to teach others about him,
had great art, literature and music devoted to him,
started orphanages in response to his teachings,

This has been beaten into the ground already… no sense in beating a dead horse… I will leave that to stahrwe.

stahrwe

I think a good case could be make for his reality.

This shows your absolute ignorance as to the professional requirements in the historical field of study, in addition it betrays your willingness/eagerness to accept claims without actual evidence to back them up… not to say that there might not have been a historical Hercules… although I seriously doubt that he was the son of a god or that he killed a hydra… there is just no evidence to support any concrete conclusion… just like Jesus and the other claims made in the Bible… they are exactly alike in that respect… of course you will not accept this, which is a dismissal of the facts and also betrays your delusional bias.

Stahrwe
I really am not sure what point you are trying to defend by claiming that BT is not a court. Generally evidence has to meet a higher standard in court than in informal life situations so if you are claiming that BT is not a court there should be no issue with respect to accepting the Bible and Jesus and a real person based on the evidence of history.

As shown above by voiceofreason the criteria of evidence for court and academic/intellectual fields are considerably different, with the academic/intellectual criteria being much more strict… this is what must be met for Jesus to pass as historical… once again I will tell you… there is really no debate in the matter… the rules of play are as I earlier laid out… if you cannot meet them… keep looking idiotic/retarded/stupid/crazy/delusional/ foolish… and so on.

Stahrwe
Let me make it easy for you; name a single fictional character that has had the influence that Jesus has had for as long a period.

Again this does nothing to make your evidence (or lack there of) more credible… it simply shows your inability to recognize acceptable evidence when presented.

Stahrwe
You, Frank013, even said the Bible has to be held to a different standard.

And I explained exactly why… which is a rational course of action considering the facts I mentioned above… and as I mentioned would be required for the Hercules myth Jason and the Argonauts and so on… they did not pass either… so at least Jesus is in good company.

Stahrwe
Amazing! There is nothing in the above statement which even remotely discredits the accuracy or legitimacy of the Biblical accounts.

Except that a Biblical Scholar admits as much as do many others…

Stahrwe
Let me state for the record that NOTHING written two thousand years ago, no matter how correct, would be, 'in accordance with modern historiographic requirement or professional standards.

Duh… I showed you four examples that do… Holy crap, are you getting even stupider or what?

Stahrwe
I rarely step out of the argument to make a personal obervation but I will do so here. Your choice to use the word 'retard' is indicative of a level of maturity which, in my opinion, does not represent BT well.

Well I never claimed to have any specific level of maturity… so blah ! at least I can see the truth when shown to me.

Stahrwe
I am by no means a proponent of political correctness but the term 'retard' is widely, if not universally condemned as an offensive and inaccurate representation of people with developmental issues.

I merely said you may act like a retard if you wish… take that as you will… however you decide to, so I can see why you might have taken offense…

Later

Stahrwe has obviously made a very generous financial contribution to Booktalk.

And that is good.

But I wonder why?

He posts on here, gets verbally attacked from all directions, which I find quite distressing, even if I agree that he is delusional.......it is still a distressing situation.

Why are we doing this?

You're going to buy a new car. You have two options, both cost $25,000. The cars appear identical but one is from a company which has been around for 80 years is known for its service and support and has a repuration for reliability, the other is a brand new company. The car is from their first production run. The company's financial strenghth is shakey and ther quality and service have never been tested. I suppose you would rate these two equally acceptable so as not to commit the appeal to tradition fallacy. Giver me a break.

Cars aren't propositions or claims to the truth. Is this what passes for convincing reasoning in your circles? Let's try sticking to logic rather than appealing to irrelevant and unrelated examples.

Why on earth are you bringning up relics?

Do you have some prejudice with the word? I mean it in the general sense, everything that people build or do in the name of their beliefs.

You are flat wrong here. Courts attempt to get at the truth all the time. In court evidence is presented and evaluated. The problem is that evidence is not always perfect. But by collecting a large quantity of evidence usually, a point is reached where the evidence in one direction is overwhelming.

I am not flat out wrong here you idiot. YOU ARE WRONG! Without a doubt, absolutely wrong. You aren't using your damned brain.

The evidence. This massive amount of evidence. It's an arrow. And what it points to is... people believe something. And that's it. Nothing else. It does NOT say anything about whether that belief is true or false. Read that sentence again. A thousand times. Stop being incorrigible.

At some point, after the millionth hospital has been built, and the millionth orphan has been rescued, and the millionth drunk helped back to sobriety, and the millionth Christian martyred someone standing on the corner yelling, "ad populum fallacy" isn't convincing it is just pathetic.

So you think you are correct and that the fallacy doesn't apply? Really? You're committing a fallacy, and you think that what you believe MUST be true, so therefore the fallacy MUST be wrong. Here's your sign.

Are you familiar with the psychological term, projection?

I have a better question. Are YOU familiar with the psychological term projection?

Penelope wrote:Why are we doing this?

The things he says are false beyond the shadow of a doubt. So much so, that every time I see such a false comment, I think "all I have to do is show him how his thinking is wrong and he'll shed the delusion." I wouldn't think it's possible for someone to keep the fight going even after he's shown to be illogical. The depth of delusion is amazing, honestly. I'm not sure why I try.

Interbane
I wouldn't think it's possible for someone to keep the fight going even after he's shown to be illogical. The depth of delusion is amazing, honestly. I'm not sure why I try.

The reason I try is so that people who cross the path of BookTalk do not see stahrwe a the predominate voice of this website… and let’s admit it sometimes it’s good to sharpen our talons against stupidity.

Later

Penelope wrote:Stahrwe has obviously made a very generous financial contribution to Booktalk.

And that is good.

But I wonder why?

He posts on here, gets verbally attacked from all directions, which I find quite distressing, even if I agree that he is delusional.......it is still a distressing situation.

Why are we doing this?

Penelope, Stahrwe made a generous contribution to the Cleveland Boys Home. Not to Booktalk. The verbal attacking is a two way street. Why do you find it distressing? Stahrwe does not. I do not. Frustrating, yes. Irritating, yes. Any one of us individually can opt to drop out of the discussion. Don't you find it interesting that Stahrwe persists in trying to convince the majority here that he is correct when we so obviously do not agree with him? Why are there no other people of his religious persuasion who have joined him? Remember Dawn who was here for a short while and IMHO under the impression that we just were not familiar with the Bible or the tenets of the various Christian sects and faiths? She is no longer posting. there is something special about Stahrwe that makes him so dogged in this. I do not know what it is. It has occurred to me that perhaps he is just toying with us? Or maybe trying to win a bet or something. I don't know. Maybe longer time members would have some insight.

Well, at the risk of seeming to side with the minority and making myself unpopular:-

Frank said:

The reason I try is so that people who cross the path of BookTalk do not see stahrwe a the predominate voice of this website… and let’s admit it sometimes it’s good to sharpen our talons against stupidity.

Stahrwe might be stupid, though I doubt it, he might be delusional, which seems likely, but whatever he believes, he has a right to believe it.

I don't agree with him by any means, but I defend his right to believe what he likes, so long as he isn't hurting anyone.

People who cross the path of BookTalk, might think we're a bunch of bullies.

And lady of shallot, it is interesting to exchange views but there comes a point when it just seems tortuous to continue. As you say, one can always opt out.

Penelope
Stahrwe might be stupid, though I doubt it, he might be delusional, which seems likely, but whatever he believes, he has a right to believe it.

I do not think stahrwe is totally stupid… however he does believe some very stupid things… and many of his arguments are stupid… Hmmm…

Anyway… This being said he does in fact have the right to believe as he will… just as I have the right to challenge stupidity wherever I may find it.

Penelope
I don't agree with him by any means, but I defend his right to believe what he likes, so long as he isn't hurting anyone.

As do I… In fact I was in the military where I put my life on the line to protect freedoms such as this… but there a distinction between having a right to believe something and having a right not to be ridiculed for believing stupid things. He has the first not the latter.

Penelope
People who cross the path of BookTalk, might think we're a bunch of bullies.

Possibly, but I think when confronted by rank idiocy it would be pathetic not to take a stance for what is rational.

Later