There is no health in us.

[floo]

Whether the arrow in the eye incident attributed to King Harold was 100% factual we don't know for sure, but it is credible, where are most of the things attributed to Jesus aren't.

[Jack Knave]

...
Except it is Alien who applies double standards in the way he treats various things as many keep complaining about to him. This claim of his on me here is a double standard, to deflect from the fact of his lack of an answer, and he tends to resort to these tactics when he feels cornered - if he has an answer let him give it. I have not applied any double standards as my treatment of all history is the same, as he well knows.

Help me here then. Why do you write stuff like, "You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned" about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history? I genuinely do not understand why you seem to require different levels of evidence in determining whether something happened. Note that to say that the NT accounts are more important is actually irrelevant (if you were going to say that). If you can't assign a high probability of something happening in the NT because you can't interview the people involved, you can't assign a high probability to the Battle of Hastings, the fall of Rome, the Spanish Armada, the Crusades and so. The importance of the event is important if we need to act as a result of those events, but it does not affect the probability of their having happened.

Please explain.

"...about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history?"

But I don't. Why don't you help me here by keeping to what we have agreed instead of endlessly backtracking as if it was never mentioned.

You base the whole of your intrinsic and fundamental lifestyle and attitude on your faith and the NT documents. Your whole approach to life is fashioned by this milieu. What else in history do you do that for? You don't!

I have explained (and you even did a post asking other atheists if they thought the same) that I treat history for my amusement, as just some academic curiosity (I can not personally verify its content) and that I do not base anything fundamental in my life and approach on anything in history. How I conduct my life is based on my personal experiences and on the information I have acquired through my years using my intellect, rationality and intuition to assess these and come to some kind of judgement on various matters. These judgement are the best I've got and I know that they are not perfect or complete but that they will have to do. It is true that I consider what some people from history have said but this is always brought into the colouration of my knowledge, intuition and personal experiences, but it has no direct significance for my life. I therefore treat all history the same.

As I do not believe in God or heaven and all that the fact that my judgements and lifestyle may not be up to some idealistic standard does not bother me which is why I can take this take-it-or-leave-it attitude to some claims in history. A similar thing may apply to late political thinking such as ideas of Marx and so on. Everything  is brought under the lens of my own knowledge and experience - what else do I have?

The importance of the event is important if we need to act as a result of those events, but it does not affect the probability of their having happened.

And how do you judge the importance of an historical event? And how do you assess what needs to be done with that importance, how to respond to it? Do you not make all your judgements on what you personally know, what your life has given you in your very short time on this planet? And because of this short period your personal knowledge about life is substantially lacking, as it is for all of us, and yet from this deficient well you are suppose to come to up with an all embracing answer on the meaning of life from some tatty manuscripts written 2000 years ago! Pulling a rabbit out of that proverbial hat. You must be one hell of a ubermensch to achieve all that without err.

And this comes to my other ace up my sleeve - if this is the best your God can do in conveying Its most superordinate message to mankind, is to leave us very limited creatures, trapped in the confines of time, with this protean historical puzzle then your God is a joke at best and sadistic at worst.

[Jack Knave]

...
My overall point is about being efficient and methodical. If a specific virus had wiped out all the sinners then the process would have been a lot cleaner and less messier (the flood would have churned up the fertile land and afterwards would have left tonnes of rotting vegetation leaving one hell of a smell). Noah wouldn't have had to build that ark but just watch the plague wipe out those sinners. He would have had good ground to start planting some crops and would have fruit etc. to eat. What did he survive on, food, whilst he waited for the rotting mess to disappear?

I don't know what he lived on during that time. I would presume he would have planted stuff and eaten that when it ripened just like before. When we've had floods around here people survive. Why do you think there would be a particular problem?

A total flood like that would destroy the fertility of the soil. It would take months if not years for it to be put right. All the plants and trees would be destroyed and of course there would be very few eatable animals about, though he couldn't touch those as they had been saved to repopulate the Earth. What did the carnivores survive on after they were let loose?

May I point out to you that I do not believe that the bible speaks of a flood which covered the entire planet, so if I am correct, your point above may not be relevant.

Oh, I am surprised.

You should not be. I have argued thus for years on several "Noah's Flood" threads. Did you really not know that was my stance?

I thought the purpose of the flood was to remove the whole of mankind (sinners) except Noah and his family?

In fact what you say doesn't square with what Gen 6 says.

Have a search for some of the previous threads on the Flood. Here's one at http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10057.0 and here's the one it refers to and which would be more useful for you to look at to see my stance http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10056.0

Oh, look, jakswan took part in it, so why the "Oh, I am surprised" in this post I am replying to?

Well regardless what the words mean as you explain in the post link above, Gen 6:17 says "...to destroy all life under the heavens, every life that has the breath of life in it."

Unless you can fiddle the words 'heaven', 'all' and 'every' it would seem to me to mean globally.

[BashfulAnthony]

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

If that is part of the Islamic belief, it is dafter than Christianity.

But as it's written in a book, Len, Alan says we should believe it.

Harold being killed by an arrow in the eye is supposedly depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry. I fact, it is not at all clear that it is indeed Harold being shot.  My point is, in historical events going back that far, and further, whether written or otherwise depticted, it is always open to some doubt, but it does not mean it didn't, or couldn't have, happened.

You are perfectly right, BA, Harold may or may not have been killed; he may or may not have escaped and someone else may have had that arrow in his eye, who knows?

Historical events are always open to doubt but if one account said that Harold's body had been found, an arrow in his brain and a spear had been thrust into his side ... he was then buried on the battlefield ... and a couple of weeks later he was seen by 500 people talking and eating ...

Well I doubt if many of us would think that particular account could be overly relied upon!   Unless you think otherwise?

You cannot compare the case of Harold with that of Jesus:  that is a spurious comparison.  My point is that you cannot be totally sure of claims made in ancient texts, but by the same token, it is the act of an idiot to dismiss something attested to by so many.  I assume you, and the sainted Leonard, aren't idiots...?

No we're not.

You failed to appreciate my sarcasm;  just as you fail to appreciate most that goes on in the forum. Back to your crayoning, old bean, and we grown-ups can get on with it in peace.

[Sassy]

And you know all that for a fact do you? GET REAL , Sass!

Of course, I know all that for a fact... but tell me why you question it when you have no idea as to what is fact and isn't when it comes to the bible?

The less than credible is unlikely to be factual where that book is concerned!

Well give us the proof...

The people who claim less than credible things to be true and factual, as you appear to do, when one can decipher your wordy not very intelligible posts, are the ones who have to provide the proof!

WRONG! You made a claim:-

The less than credible is unlikely to be factual where that book is concerned!

That is your claim so you have to provide the evidence.
Provide the 'less than credible' from the book and show that it is unlikely to be factual..

Otherwise you have absolutely no reason given the evidence including your own daughters beliefs that they are not true...
Does your daughter who is a vicar claim to know God and believe in Jesus Christ? Has your daughter always been honest and does she live as if Christ is the Son of God? Well how much more evidence do you need that Christ is the Son of God and that he rose from the dead and has revealed himself to your daughter?

You see... If my son was honest, a vicar and lived as he professed I would have no problem if an atheist in believing something has to be real about it...

[floo]

As I have told you and others MANY times, I will NEVER discuss my daughter's thoughts on the topic of religion.

[jjohnjil]

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

If that is part of the Islamic belief, it is dafter than Christianity.

But as it's written in a book, Len, Alan says we should believe it.

Harold being killed by an arrow in the eye is supposedly depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry. I fact, it is not at all clear that it is indeed Harold being shot.  My point is, in historical events going back that far, and further, whether written or otherwise depticted, it is always open to some doubt, but it does not mean it didn't, or couldn't have, happened.

You are perfectly right, BA, Harold may or may not have been killed; he may or may not have escaped and someone else may have had that arrow in his eye, who knows?

Historical events are always open to doubt but if one account said that Harold's body had been found, an arrow in his brain and a spear had been thrust into his side ... he was then buried on the battlefield ... and a couple of weeks later he was seen by 500 people talking and eating ...

Well I doubt if many of us would think that particular account could be overly relied upon!   Unless you think otherwise?

You cannot compare the case of Harold with that of Jesus:  that is a spurious comparison.  My point is that you cannot be totally sure of claims made in ancient texts, but by the same token, it is the act of an idiot to dismiss something attested to by so many.  I assume you, and the sainted Leonard, aren't idiots...?

No we're not.

You failed to appreciate my sarcasm;  just as you fail to appreciate most that goes on in the forum. Back to your crayoning, old bean, and we grown-ups can get on with it in peace.

LOL  !!!!!!!!!!!!!  Got any others?   

[Leonard James]

You failed to appreciate my sarcasm;  just as you fail to appreciate most that goes on in the forum. Back to your crayoning, old bean, and we grown-ups can get on with it in peace.

LOL  !!!!!!!!!!!!!  Got any others?

Sadly, he ain't joking! He really thinks he's one of the grown-ups here. The reality is that his juvenile jokes and beliefs show just the reverse.

[jjohnjil]

You failed to appreciate my sarcasm;  just as you fail to appreciate most that goes on in the forum. Back to your crayoning, old bean, and we grown-ups can get on with it in peace.

LOL  !!!!!!!!!!!!!  Got any others?

Sadly, he ain't joking! He really thinks he's one of the grown-ups here. The reality is that his juvenile jokes and beliefs show just the reverse.

If he keeps on, Len, he's gong to be sitting on the naughty step for a good long time!

[BashfulAnthony]

You failed to appreciate my sarcasm;  just as you fail to appreciate most that goes on in the forum. Back to your crayoning, old bean, and we grown-ups can get on with it in peace.

LOL  !!!!!!!!!!!!!  Got any others?

Sadly, he ain't joking! He really thinks he's one of the grown-ups here. The reality is that his juvenile jokes and beliefs show just the reverse.

No sense of humour: no debating skill: no imagination: no appreciation of anyone else's position: blind atheism!!  Poor fella.

[floo]

You failed to appreciate my sarcasm;  just as you fail to appreciate most that goes on in the forum. Back to your crayoning, old bean, and we grown-ups can get on with it in peace.

LOL  !!!!!!!!!!!!!  Got any others?

Sadly, he ain't joking! He really thinks he's one of the grown-ups here. The reality is that his juvenile jokes and beliefs show just the reverse.

Some people like you, dear Leonard, are gifted with many more marbles than others!

[Leonard James]

You failed to appreciate my sarcasm;  just as you fail to appreciate most that goes on in the forum. Back to your crayoning, old bean, and we grown-ups can get on with it in peace.

LOL  !!!!!!!!!!!!!  Got any others?

Sadly, he ain't joking! He really thinks he's one of the grown-ups here. The reality is that his juvenile jokes and beliefs show just the reverse.

Some people like you, dear Leonard, are gifted with many more marbles than others!

 

Flattery makes my day! 

[floo]

I NEVER flatter people, I only say what I believe to be true.

[Alien]

Please explain.

Alan, surely you can see that the probability of something having happened which does not defy natural laws is greater than something which does?

For example, the probability of the moon being hit by an enormous asteroid and breaking into pieces is far greater than it just breaking up for no scientific reason, and that is simply because we have observed such things as the former.

The same principle applies to the supernatural events recounted in the Bible.

When determining whether something happened we need to look both at the probability of that thing happening on the basic background information and also on the probability of the evidence being in place if that event did not happen. I've gone into this more on the "Low probability that God raised someone from the dead". JeremyP has confirmed that the equation is correct, though, unsurprisingly, we disagree on the actual figures which should be assigned to the various bits.

So, no, your statements are not correct.

[Alien]

...
Except it is Alien who applies double standards in the way he treats various things as many keep complaining about to him. This claim of his on me here is a double standard, to deflect from the fact of his lack of an answer, and he tends to resort to these tactics when he feels cornered - if he has an answer let him give it. I have not applied any double standards as my treatment of all history is the same, as he well knows.

Help me here then. Why do you write stuff like, "You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned" about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history? I genuinely do not understand why you seem to require different levels of evidence in determining whether something happened. Note that to say that the NT accounts are more important is actually irrelevant (if you were going to say that). If you can't assign a high probability of something happening in the NT because you can't interview the people involved, you can't assign a high probability to the Battle of Hastings, the fall of Rome, the Spanish Armada, the Crusades and so. The importance of the event is important if we need to act as a result of those events, but it does not affect the probability of their having happened.

Please explain.

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

You might find it helpful to understand what I actually claim. I do not believe "that Jesus came back from the dead" just because it is written in a book.

[Alien]

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

If that is part of the Islamic belief, it is dafter than Christianity.

No, it isn't part of Islamic belief.

[Alien]

...
Except it is Alien who applies double standards in the way he treats various things as many keep complaining about to him. This claim of his on me here is a double standard, to deflect from the fact of his lack of an answer, and he tends to resort to these tactics when he feels cornered - if he has an answer let him give it. I have not applied any double standards as my treatment of all history is the same, as he well knows.

Help me here then. Why do you write stuff like, "You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned" about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history? I genuinely do not understand why you seem to require different levels of evidence in determining whether something happened. Note that to say that the NT accounts are more important is actually irrelevant (if you were going to say that). If you can't assign a high probability of something happening in the NT because you can't interview the people involved, you can't assign a high probability to the Battle of Hastings, the fall of Rome, the Spanish Armada, the Crusades and so. The importance of the event is important if we need to act as a result of those events, but it does not affect the probability of their having happened.

Please explain.

"...about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history?"

But I don't. Why don't you help me here by keeping to what we have agreed instead of endlessly backtracking as if it was never mentioned.

But you do. You say we can't believe something because it happened so long ago and so on, but you accept that other things happened long ago. Why do you accept all those and not the NT accounts?

You base the whole of your intrinsic and fundamental lifestyle and attitude on your faith and the NT documents. Your whole approach to life is fashioned by this milieu. What else in history do you do that for?

I have explained (and you even did a post asking other atheists if they thought the same) that I treat history for my amusement,

Nowhere have I spoken of "amusement".

as just some academic curiosity (I can not personally verify its content) and that I do not base anything fundamental in my life and approach on anything in history. How I conduct my life is based on my personal experiences and on the information I have acquired through my years using my intellect, rationality and intuition to assess these and come to some kind of judgement on various matters. These judgement are the best I've got and I know that they are not perfect or complete but that they will have to do. It is true that I consider what some people from history have said but this is always brought into the colouration of my knowledge, intuition and personal experiences, but it has no direct significance for my life. I therefore treat all history the same.

I do not expect that you have to frequently ask yourself if the Battle of Hastings, the fall of Rome, the Spanish Armada and the Crusades happened. However, please answer me this simple question. Did they happen or not? Yes or no?

As I do not believe in God or heaven and all that the fact that my judgements and lifestyle may not be up to some idealistic standard does not bother me which is why I can take this take-it-or-leave-it attitude to some claims in history. A similar thing may apply to late political thinking such as ideas of Marx and so on. Everything  is brought under the lens of my own knowledge and experience - what else do I have?

That's fine, but it is not a good excuse for avoiding the evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection. As you seem to suggest whether the Battle of Hastings actually took place will not make much difference to your day today. We can be quite blasé about such stuff, but we do accept it happened. It does not affect how we determine whether or not happened. It does affect how we respond to it. Jesus made claims about himself and about your need to respond to him. If we Christians are wrong and physical death is indeed the end then fair enough. However, if we are right and Jesus was who the NT claims he was and is and if he did indeed make those claims, be prepared to answer his questions.

The importance of the event is important if we need to act as a result of those events, but it does not affect the probability of their having happened.

And how do you judge the importance of an historical event? And how do you assess what needs to be done with that importance, how to respond to it? Do you not make all your judgements on what you personally know, what your life has given you in your very short time on this planet? And because of this short period your personal knowledge about life is substantially lacking, as it is for all of us, and yet from this deficient well you are suppose to come to up with an all embracing answer on the meaning of life from some tatty manuscripts written 2000 years ago! Pulling a rabbit out of that proverbial hat. You must be one hell of a ubermensch to achieve all that without err.

"Some tatty manuscripts written 2000 years ago?" The state of the manuscripts is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we know what was written and whether it is making a valid claim for our attention and response.

And this comes to my other ace up my sleeve - if this is the best your God can do in conveying Its most superordinate message to mankind, is to leave us very limited creatures, trapped in the confines of time, with this protean historical puzzle then your God is a joke at best and sadistic at worst.

If you find yourself having to give an account of your life to God, you can bring this up with him. It might be helpful to make some notes now.

You do not need to justify yourself to me nor me to you. You and I have come to different conclusions. Time will tell which, if either, of us is correct.

[Alien]

...
My overall point is about being efficient and methodical. If a specific virus had wiped out all the sinners then the process would have been a lot cleaner and less messier (the flood would have churned up the fertile land and afterwards would have left tonnes of rotting vegetation leaving one hell of a smell). Noah wouldn't have had to build that ark but just watch the plague wipe out those sinners. He would have had good ground to start planting some crops and would have fruit etc. to eat. What did he survive on, food, whilst he waited for the rotting mess to disappear?

I don't know what he lived on during that time. I would presume he would have planted stuff and eaten that when it ripened just like before. When we've had floods around here people survive. Why do you think there would be a particular problem?

A total flood like that would destroy the fertility of the soil. It would take months if not years for it to be put right. All the plants and trees would be destroyed and of course there would be very few eatable animals about, though he couldn't touch those as they had been saved to repopulate the Earth. What did the carnivores survive on after they were let loose?

May I point out to you that I do not believe that the bible speaks of a flood which covered the entire planet, so if I am correct, your point above may not be relevant.

Oh, I am surprised.

You should not be. I have argued thus for years on several "Noah's Flood" threads. Did you really not know that was my stance?

I thought the purpose of the flood was to remove the whole of mankind (sinners) except Noah and his family?

In fact what you say doesn't square with what Gen 6 says.

Have a search for some of the previous threads on the Flood. Here's one at http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10057.0 and here's the one it refers to and which would be more useful for you to look at to see my stance http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10056.0

Oh, look, jakswan took part in it, so why the "Oh, I am surprised" in this post I am replying to?

Well regardless what the words mean as you explain in the post link above, Gen 6:17 says "...to destroy all life under the heavens, every life that has the breath of life in it."

Unless you can fiddle the words 'heaven', 'all' and 'every' it would seem to me to mean globally.

I have no need to fiddle anything. I've put my arguments forward on that thread and elsewhere.

[Sassy]

As I have told you and others MANY times, I will NEVER discuss my daughter's thoughts on the topic of religion.

Whether you discuss it or not... (as you did in the past)
It still means everything you believe and think about Christianity has to apply to your daughter... It also goes to show what you really think about applying and having faith in what they share with you?

No double standards for Christians or Atheists...
We are all in the same boat...

[jjohnjil]

...
Except it is Alien who applies double standards in the way he treats various things as many keep complaining about to him. This claim of his on me here is a double standard, to deflect from the fact of his lack of an answer, and he tends to resort to these tactics when he feels cornered - if he has an answer let him give it. I have not applied any double standards as my treatment of all history is the same, as he well knows.

Help me here then. Why do you write stuff like, "You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned" about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history? I genuinely do not understand why you seem to require different levels of evidence in determining whether something happened. Note that to say that the NT accounts are more important is actually irrelevant (if you were going to say that). If you can't assign a high probability of something happening in the NT because you can't interview the people involved, you can't assign a high probability to the Battle of Hastings, the fall of Rome, the Spanish Armada, the Crusades and so. The importance of the event is important if we need to act as a result of those events, but it does not affect the probability of their having happened.

Please explain.

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

You might find it helpful to understand what I actually claim. I do not believe "that Jesus came back from the dead" just because it is written in a book.

If you didn't get it from a book, those who have taught you took it from a book - the Bible ... Simply because it isn't told in anything other than in the Bible!

[Leonard James]

If you didn't get it from a book, those who have taught you took it from a book - the Bible ... Simply because it isn't told in anything other than in the Bible!

Unless he is speaking about a personal experience, which is notoriously unreliable.

[Alien]

...
Except it is Alien who applies double standards in the way he treats various things as many keep complaining about to him. This claim of his on me here is a double standard, to deflect from the fact of his lack of an answer, and he tends to resort to these tactics when he feels cornered - if he has an answer let him give it. I have not applied any double standards as my treatment of all history is the same, as he well knows.

Help me here then. Why do you write stuff like, "You also do not have good evidence - you can't follow it up by interviewing the people concerned" about the NT accounts yet ignore that for the rest of history? I genuinely do not understand why you seem to require different levels of evidence in determining whether something happened. Note that to say that the NT accounts are more important is actually irrelevant (if you were going to say that). If you can't assign a high probability of something happening in the NT because you can't interview the people involved, you can't assign a high probability to the Battle of Hastings, the fall of Rome, the Spanish Armada, the Crusades and so. The importance of the event is important if we need to act as a result of those events, but it does not affect the probability of their having happened.

Please explain.

So if we accept that Harold was killed by being shot in the eye by an arrow, we must logically accept that Jesus came back from the dead, because both are written in books?  Presumably we must also accept that Mohammed flew on a magic carpet then!

If not, Alan, please explain?

You might find it helpful to understand what I actually claim. I do not believe "that Jesus came back from the dead" just because it is written in a book.

If you didn't get it from a book, those who have taught you took it from a book - the Bible ... Simply because it isn't told in anything other than in the Bible!

But it is not just because it is in a book that I believe it. You seemed to be implying that I was saying it's just because it is in a book that I should believe it. That is what is implied by your stuff about Harold.

Actually I think you will find that it is claimed he was hit in the eye, but that did not kill him...

[Alien]

If you didn't get it from a book, those who have taught you took it from a book - the Bible ... Simply because it isn't told in anything other than in the Bible!

Unless he is speaking about a personal experience, which is notoriously unreliable.

See #324.

[Leonard James]

If you didn't get it from a book, those who have taught you took it from a book - the Bible ... Simply because it isn't told in anything other than in the Bible!

Unless he is speaking about a personal experience, which is notoriously unreliable.

See #324.

The fact is, Alan, that everybody who believes in the Christian god does so either because of what they have heard or read, or because of some personal "experience" that they consider was caused by him.

[BashfulAnthony]

If you didn't get it from a book, those who have taught you took it from a book - the Bible ... Simply because it isn't told in anything other than in the Bible!

Unless he is speaking about a personal experience, which is notoriously unreliable.

See #324.

The fact is, Alan, that everybody who believes in the Christian god does so either because of what they have heard or read, or because of some personal "experience" that they consider was caused by him.

And who are you to gainsay that?