Why the state must stop funding faith schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon's assertion about an assessment of lying was countered in reply 91 with an assessment given.
He then makes the assertion again in reply 94. The assessment of the possibility of lying is made again
Gordon then repeats the accusation a second time in post 98.

[jeremyp]

No my assessment is of what is the case. This type of lie does not work as a world religion vis the extinction of them all.

In the fourth century, Rome started to favour one particular religion that happened to be a bit stronger than the others. That and the penchant of its followers for proselytising others may be guaranteed Christianity's success.

It was a lottery. Christianity had the winning ticket.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the fourth century, Rome started to favour one particular religion that happened to be a bit stronger than the others. That and the penchant of its followers for proselytising others may be guaranteed Christianity's success.

It was a lottery. Christianity had the winning ticket.

Ah, the Darwinian answer. Care to evidentialise?

[jeremyp]

Ah, the Darwinian answer. Care to evidentialise?

Is "evidentialise" even a word? My spell checker says no.

Please rephrase your question in English.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is "evidentialise" even a word? My spell checker says no.

Please rephrase your question in English.

Do you care to back up your thesis with some historical evidence that it's purely a matter of luck.

I accept your theory isn't strictly Darwinian since there is also the question of fitness as opposed to mere complete randomness.

[Nearly Sane]

Gordon's assertion about an assessment of lying was countered in reply 91 with an assessment given.
He then makes the assertion again in reply 94. The assessment of the possibility of lying is made again
Gordon then repeats the accusation a second time in post 98.

No, he ask how you counter it, nor that you fail to do so, and you continue to cite posts that show that. Why is that you continue to lie? Are you trying to make your opinions look bad? Are you Farmer in disguise?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, he ask how you counter it, nor that you fail to do so, and you continue to cite posts that show that. Why is that you continue to lie? Are you trying to make your opinions look bad? Are you Farmer in disguise?

Gordon's overall thesis is as I understand it that Christians do not have any consideration for lies and mistake.
I pointed out that these are covered by at least Lewises Trilemma. Christians do ask these questions.

What I am saying is that out of the 200 or so messiahs concurrent with Christ not all can be deluded but some are, not all can be mistaken but some are  and some must be liers. That messiahism dies out shows that the lie, the mistake and delusion do not work as explanatories for a messianic religion.
So a messiah story which survives may by elimination of what doesn't actually work, may actually be true.

That is what Gordon never considers.

That I'm giving him and you the time of day is currently surprising me.

[Nearly Sane]

Gordon's overall thesis is as I understand it that Christians do not have any consideration for lies and mistake.
I pointed out that these are covered by at least Lewises Trilemma. Christians do ask these questions.

What I am saying is that out of the 200 or so messiahs concurrent with Christ not all can be deluded but some are, not all can be mistaken but some are  and some must be liers. That messiahism dies out shows that the lie, the mistake and delusion do not work as explanatories for a messianic religion.
So a messiah story which survives may by elimination of what doesn't actually work, may actually be true.

That is what Gordon never considers.

That I'm giving him and you the time of day is currently surprising me.

No, this isn't what Gordon has that he asked how YOU take account of the possibility of mistakes and lies. And yet again you lie and misrepresent that, why?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh and BTW. Yes all messiahs and any followers could be wrong.

[Gordon]

Gordon's overall thesis is as I understand it that Christians do not have any consideration for lies and mistake.

No, I'm simply asking how they addressed these risks.

these are covered by at least Lewises Trilemma. Christians do ask these questions.

Only if you think the naive opinions of an apologist represent meaningful questioning - if you do, Vlad, then perhaps you'd explain the underlying reasoning.   

What I am saying is that out of the 200 or so messiahs concurrent with Christ not all can be deluded but some are, not all can be mistaken but some are  and some must be liers. That messiahism dies out shows that the lie, the mistake and delusion do not work as explanatories for a messianic religion.

So you have returned to the fallacy of survivor bias.

So a messiah story which survives may by elimination of what doesn't actually work, may actually be true.

Maybe, but how have you excluded the risks of mistakes or lies?

That is what Gordon never considers.

That I'm giving him and you the time of day is currently surprising me.

Surprises me too, given your performance in this thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh and BTW. Yes all messiahs and any followers could be wrong.

But one could be right.

That an extensive Christian community existed very shortly after the events and within living memory means that corroboration of the events on which a gospel faith was built would have been highly likely.

Gordon and those like him never give an exemplar lie or mistake which this phenomenon can be compared and assessed in the light of. If you'd like to produce one be my guess.

Gordon gravitates to the lie option. That for me suggests he is guilty of the generic fallacy....that his lie hypothesis is based on a caricature of Christians which he holds.

I have made these points explicitly and more than once on this board. Gordon is wrong and you have chosen to partake of his wrongness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm simply asking how they addressed these risks.

Only if you think the naive opinions of an apologist represent meaningful questioning - if you do, Vlad, then perhaps you'd explain the underlying reasoning.   

So you have returned to the fallacy of survivor bias.

Maybe, but how have you excluded the risks of mistakes or lies?

Surprises me too, given your performance in this thread.

You are just plundering the list of fallacies Gordon.
survivor bias? is that a proper one or one that you just made up?

[Nearly Sane]

But one could be right.

That an extensive Christian community existed very shortly after the events and within living memory means that corroboration of the events on which a gospel faith was built would have been highly likely.

Gordon and those like him never give an exemplar lie or mistake which this phenomenon can be compared and assessed in the light of. If you'd like to produce one be my guess.

Gordon gravitates to the lie option. That for me suggests he is guilty of the generic fallacy....that his lie hypothesis is based on a caricature of Christians which he holds.

I have made these points explicitly and more than once on this board. Gordon is wrong and you have chosen to partake of his wrongness.

Gordon has not gravitated to any hypothesis, you continue to lie and misrepresent. Given that I will leave you to it. I have no idea why you think this amount of lying is in any way good for your case.

[Gordon]

That an extensive Christian community existed very shortly after the events and within living memory means that corroboration of the events on which a gospel faith was built would have been highly likely.

Assertion and special pleading.

[/quote]Gordon and those like him never give an exemplar lie or mistake which this phenomenon can be compared and assessed in the light of. If you'd like to produce one be my guess.[/quote]

The burden of proof is yours, Vlad.

Gordon gravitates to the lie option. That for me suggests he is guilty of the generic fallacy....that his lie hypothesis is based on a caricature of Christians which he holds.

I think you mean 'genetic' fallacy.

I have made these points explicitly and more than once on this board. Gordon is wrong and you have chosen to partake of his wrongness.

Actually, Vlad, all you've done is evade and misrepresent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon has not gravitated to any hypothesis, you continue to lie and misrepresent. Given that I will leave you to it. I have no idea why you think this amount of lying is in any way good for your case.

Are you saying that Gordon does not think of Christianity as most likely a mistake, delusion or a lie?
Are you not at least a bit suspicious that the word lie crops up in Gordon's posts?
You may go and take your silly mind games with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Assertion and special pleading.

Gordon and those like him never give an exemplar lie or mistake which this phenomenon can be compared and assessed in the light of. If you'd like to produce one be my guess.

The burden of proof is yours, Vlad.

I think you mean 'genetic' fallacy.

Actually, Vlad, all you've done is evade and misrepresent.

Ching....That's 10,000 Gordon Bingo points!!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Assertion and special pleading.

Gordon and those like him never give an exemplar lie or mistake which this phenomenon can be compared and assessed in the light of. If you'd like to produce one be my guess.

The burden of proof is yours, Vlad.

I think you mean 'genetic' fallacy.

Actually, Vlad, all you've done is evade and misrepresent.

From Gordon. Post 82

'' I'm suggesting that if Jesus really was killed then he stayed dead and there is a much simpler explanation for claims that he didn't stay dead and that the resurrection didn't happen at all: which is that this element is most likely fictitious propaganda - no props, magic wands or rabbits popping out of hats.''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon has not gravitated to any hypothesis, you continue to lie and misrepresent. Given that I will leave you to it. I have no idea why you think this amount of lying is in any way good for your case.

From Gordon post 82

''I'm suggesting that if Jesus really was killed then he stayed dead and there is a much simpler explanation for claims that he didn't stay dead and that the resurrection didn't happen at all: which is that this element is most likely fictitious propaganda - no props, magic wands or rabbits popping out of hats.''

[Gordon]

From Gordon. Post 82

'' I'm suggesting that if Jesus really was killed then he stayed dead and there is a much simpler explanation for claims that he didn't stay dead and that the resurrection didn't happen at all: which is that this element is most likely fictitious propaganda - no props, magic wands or rabbits popping out of hats.''

So!

I'm stating my opinion on likely explanations but I fail to see how my opinion gets you off the hook of explaining how you have assessed the risk of mistakes or lies in the NT.

Shifting the burden again, Vlad - it does you no credit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So!

I'm stating my opinion on likely explanations but I fail to see how my opinion gets you off the hook of explaining how you have assessed the risk of mistakes or lies in the NT.

Shifting the burden again, Vlad - it does you no credit.

I have already stated how and why I have dismissed the likelihood of your lie hypothesis.

You have a burden because you have stated it is fictional propaganda. That being a positive assertion means you have a burden of proof.

[Gordon]

I have already stated how and why I have dismissed the likelihood of your lie hypothesis.

You haven't dismissed anything Vlad - you've simply evaded.

You have a burden because you have stated it is fictional propaganda. That being a positive assertion means you have a burden of proof.

No I haven't: I've said that mistakes and lies are one possible explanation that fits with known human behaviour, so in my view they are very likely the case. But my view isn't the point here: the point is that I've repeatedly asked you how you have assessed these risks but it seems you have no answer, hence you continue to evade and wriggle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You haven't dismissed anything Vlad - you've simply evaded.

No I haven't: I've said that mistakes and lies are one possible explanation that fits with known human behaviour, so in my view they are very likely the case. But my view isn't the point here: the point is that I've repeatedly asked you how you have assessed these risks but it seems you have no answer, hence you continue to evade and wriggle.

Obviously I'm not giving you the response you want. I have included your assertion.....it is likely to be a lie....that is a positive assertion please justify.

You don't like having to justify yourself do you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

I have already stated how and why I have dismissed the likelihood of your lie hypothesis.

No you haven't. You claim to have "assessed" it, but absent a method of any kind to distinguish your whateverpopsintomyhead-ism from just guessing about stuff your have no means of assessing anything, and thus no rationale for your "dismissal". 

You have a burden because you have stated it is fictional propaganda. That being a positive assertion means you have a burden of proof.

No, as ever you have this wrong. What's actually being said is that you have no means to distinguish the stories you think to be true from fiction - a very different matter. And given the supernatural nature of those stories (and by the way your dismissal of different supernatural stories from other faiths entirely) then you have a huge burden of proof to establish even a method to determine their truth value.

Oh, and yes survivor bias is a real thing. You're doing it a lot here by implying that in some unexplained way the success of your particular faith must in some way be connected with its supposed truthfulness (would you say the same about the more successful faith of Islam?). You seem to be entirely oblivious to the fact that the same could be said of the Aztec faith, the Sumerian faith, the Norse faith etc by their proponents when they happened to prevalent.

A famous example of survivor bias was the case of the USAF bombers. They were coming back from raids in WWII badly shot up and the officers concerned decided to add more armour where they could, but not so much as to make them too sluggish in the air. As the engines had hardy any bullet marks but the fuselage had lots, they decided that the extra armour should be added to the fuselage.

Big mistake. Turns out that the engines were the most vulnerable places to be shot, so very few that had their engines shot up made it back to base. The sample they had in front of them then actually showed that being hit in the fuselage did hardly any serious damage and so the armour should in fact be added to the places that showed least damage - ie, the engines.

The same mistake is essentially what you're doing here.   

   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Obviously I'm not giving you the response you want. I have included your assertion.....it is likely to be a lie....that is a positive assertion please justify.

The overwhelming evidence is that lies, mistakes, delusions, misattributions etc are the more likely explanation for supernatural claims than those claims being true. You know this to be the case because you apply the same principle in respect of supernatural claims other than those in which you happen to believe.

Why should your particular suite of supernatural claims be exempt from the principle?

[Gordon]

Obviously I'm not giving you the response you want. I have included your assertion.....it is likely to be a lie....that is a positive assertion please justify.

You don't like having to justify yourself do you?

You are still evading Vlad - that people tell lies and make mistakes is hardly an earth-shattering observation of mine. No doubt you've come across these risks in real-life.

However, where remarkable or unusual claims are made then mistakes or lies are a risk to be addressed by those who take such claims seriously, like you, and where those who are more sceptical, like me, can reasonably ask on what basis there has been meaningful scrutiny of the claim its supporters - like you.

So, how can you reassure my sceptical self that you have applied any sort of review to the remarkable claims made in the NT? It seems you haven't, or you can't, so you need to at least recognise the risk that the divine bits in the NT really are indistinguishable from fiction.