Epilepsy = Demonic Possession!

[Gordon]

Pourqoi?

NS didn't offer an argument from incredulity, so you were wrong to suggest that he may have.

Would you believe the witness who stated he saw the cyclist shout at the woman he rode into while she lay in the road?

In general I'd be sceptical of witness statements, especially if they didn't agree. If the matter being described was trivial then I wouldn't be unduly bothered, in view of the triviality, but for anything non-trivial I'd say scepticism is advised.

How can evidence that is exactly what you would expect if it was true be a good reason to be skeptical?   

Because my expectations might be wrong as might the evidence that confirms my expectations: confirmation bias you see, so scepticism is a healthy attitude - especially where the matter is non-trivial and/or highly unusual.

[Nearly Sane]

They were written for people who could verify the details, as seen in Mark 15:21.

What I meant was that eyewitness testimony is behind the accounts

you don't know who Mark is/was and claiming it is an eye witness account is wrong. If you don't retract the claim you are lying.

BTW if someone appeared in court this would be 'hearsay' you don't even have that since you don't know who is making the claim. In legal terms the entirety if this is worthless, so stopusing terms like eye witness incorrectly. Note thus has been pointed out to you previously so why continue with vacuous incorrect assertions?

[Spud]

NS didn't offer an argument from incredulity, so you were wrong to suggest that he may have.

Again I may be wrong, but if he has no method of establishing something and therefore cannot or does not believe it, isn't he incredulous about it?

In general I'd be sceptical of witness statements, especially if they didn't agree. If the matter being described was trivial then I wouldn't be unduly bothered, in view of the triviality, but for anything non-trivial I'd say scepticism is advised.

The three gospel accounts agree; the cyclist could be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, which is not trivial if the punishment for this is imprisonment. That is the reason for requiring the evidence of two or more witnesses to agree.

Because my expectations might be wrong as might the evidence that confirms my expectations: confirmation bias you see, so scepticism is a healthy attitude - especially where the matter is non-trivial and/or highly unusual.

It's a matter of fact that evidence from different witnesses will contain different details. As previously discussed, the authors had nothing to gain from inventing the accounts. This argues against the stories being invented.
As for the evidence being mistaken, see the link: <<The fact that the gospels were records of sermons to the early church community strengthens the case for historical reliability because the community itself would exercise a form of check and balance with the historical record.>>

[Nearly Sane]

Again I may be wrong, but if he has no method of establishing something and therefore cannot or does not believe it, isn't he incredulous about it?

I would be obliged if you didn't misrepresent what was said. I said YOU don't have a methodology in law or history to establish the claim. Until you demonstrate something, I am simply not asserting belief either way. i am not saying it isn't true, just you haven't met any burden of proof.

And see previous post as to why your claim about eye witness accounts in law here are specious.

[Gordon]

Again I may be wrong, but if he has no method of establishing something and therefore cannot or does not believe it, isn't he incredulous about it?

As I said earlier: you are wrong.

The three gospel accounts agree; the cyclist could be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, which is not trivial if the punishment for this is imprisonment. That is the reason for requiring the evidence of two or more witnesses to agree.

Their evidence still may be wrong, and juries are fallible too. However, when it comes to recent events for which there is corroboration: a damaged bicycle or injuries requiring treatment then it may be the evidence is credible, especially since the provenance can be explored.

The situation differs though when it comes to ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance: in such cases scepticism is well advised since the risks of mistakes or lies can't be practically addressed. Therefore historians don't report that Jesus was resurrected since they have no method to investigate this, so they report that people believed he was (which isn't the same thing).

That NS was pointing out to you that your claim isn't amenable to historical research methods isn't a fallacy of personal incredulity - do you get it now? 

It's a matter of fact that evidence from different witnesses will contain different details.

Therefore scepticism is advisable, along with methods to investigate both the claim and any differences in accounts.

As previously discussed, the authors had nothing to gain from inventing the accounts. This argues against the stories being invented.

Unless I'm mistaken the stories about Jesus portray him as divine: ever heard of propaganda. That early Christians were somehow immune from human artifice sounds awfully like special pleading - and even then, as noted, their claims aren't amenable to investigation, so scepticism is advised.

As for the evidence being mistaken, see the link: <<The fact that the gospels were records of sermons to the early church community strengthens the case for historical reliability because the community itself would exercise a form of check and balance with the historical record.>>

Only if you think these early Christians were infallible: I don't think anyone is infallible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I said earlier: you are wrong.

Their evidence still may be wrong, and juries are fallible too. However, when it comes to recent events for which there is corroboration: a damaged bicycle or injuries requiring treatment then it may be the evidence is credible, especially since the provenance can be explored.

The situation differs though when it comes to ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance: in such cases scepticism is well advised since the risks of mistakes or lies can't be practically addressed. Therefore historians don't report that Jesus was resurrected since they have no method to investigate this, so they report that people believed he was (which isn't the same thing).

That NS was pointing out to you that your claim isn't amenable to historical research methods isn't a fallacy of personal incredulity - do you get it now? 

Therefore scepticism is advisable, along with methods to investigate both the claim and any differences in accounts.

Unless I'm mistaken the stories about Jesus portray him as divine: ever heard of propaganda. That early Christians were somehow immune from human artifice sounds awfully like special pleading - and even then, as noted, their claims aren't amenable to investigation, so scepticism is advised.

Only if you think these early Christians were infallible: I don't think anyone is infallible.

Unfortunately Gordon you only have to be infallible to get everything right.
You need not be infallaible to get important things right.

[Gordon]

Unfortunately Gordon you only have to be infallible to get everything right.
You need not be infallaible to get important things right.

Even so you can still make mistakes: involving both the important and the trivial, and since people are fallible then scepticism is always relevant.

So your attempted point seems pointless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even so you can still make mistakes: involving both the important and the trivial, and since people are fallible then scepticism is always relevant.

You can make mistakes but to assume mistakes have been made or to bend this argument and choose selective mistakes to suit argument is rather suspect.

Yes we can make mistakes, That doesn't guarantee mistakes have been made.

[floo]

Again I may be wrong, but if he has no method of establishing something and therefore cannot or does not believe it, isn't he incredulous about it?
The three gospel accounts agree; the cyclist could be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, which is not trivial if the punishment for this is imprisonment. That is the reason for requiring the evidence of two or more witnesses to agree.
It's a matter of fact that evidence from different witnesses will contain different details. As previously discussed, the authors had nothing to gain from inventing the accounts. This argues against the stories being invented.
As for the evidence being mistaken, see the link: <<The fact that the gospels were records of sermons to the early church community strengthens the case for historical reliability because the community itself would exercise a form of check and balance with the historical record.>>

You have made no case for historical reliability, imo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have made no case for historical reliability, imo.

But a better historical case than any alternative view.

[Shaker]

But a better historical case than any alternative view.

No, actually.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, actually.

Let's hear it. It has to be historical mind not scientific or History is a materialist thing or any of that bollocks.

[Shaker]

Let's hear it. It has to be historical mind not scientific or History is a materialist thing or any of that bollocks.

I think what you're trying to say, in your customarily incoherent way, is: "History is methodologically naturalistic and doesn't support my belief system ... waaaaaaaagh mummy they're being meeeeeaaaaaan".

The same as usual, therefore.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think what you're trying to say, in your customarily incoherent way, is: "History is methodologically naturalistic and doesn't support my belief system ... waaaaaaaagh mummy they're being meeeeeaaaaaan".

The same as usual, therefore.

Look Shaker, Be as mean as you like, whatever alternative history you have got...... put it up for scrutiny.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think what you're trying to say, in your customarily incoherent way, is: "History is methodologically naturalistic and doesn't support my belief system ... waaaaaaaagh mummy they're being meeeeeaaaaaan".

He did it! He turned History into science!

[Shaker]

That's the problem; what you call alternative history is what those of us in the reality-based community call history. Yours is the alternative version; the alternative being no methodology to a methodology.

[Shaker]

He did it! He turned History into science!

No; it's that history and science share the same procedural toolkit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's the problem; what you call alternative history is what those of us in the reality-based community call history. Yours is the alternative version; the alternative being no methodology to a methodology.

Stop blustering and give us your history for scrutiny

[floo]

But a better historical case than any alternative view.

How do you make that out?

[Gordon]

You can make mistakes but to assume mistakes have been made or to bend this argument and choose selective mistakes to suit argument is rather suspect.

Don't be silly: I've often noted that mistakes (and lies) are risks when it comes to people, that that these risks need to be assessed.

Yes we can make mistakes, That doesn't guarantee mistakes have been made.

It doesn't, but it does imply some sort of assessment in order to say with reasonable confidence that no mistake(s) has been made.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly: I've often noted that mistakes (and lies) are risks when it comes to people, that that these risks need to be assessed.

It doesn't, but it does imply some sort of assessment in order to say with reasonable confidence that no mistake(s) has been made.

If that is what you are settling on I have no further questions of you. The court usher will escort you back until such times it will be necessary to interrogate you again.

[floo]

If that is what you are settling on I have no further questions of you. The court usher will escort you back until such times it will be necessary to interrogate you again.

You wouldn't make a cop or lawyer, your interrogation techniques are well below par. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You wouldn't make a cop or lawyer, your interrogation techniques are well below par. 

I tell you what is below Par.......Falmouth.

[floo]

I tell you what is below Par.......Falmouth.

Ehhhhh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ehhhhh?

Ah....................shit at Geography as well.