Science and spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good heavens: you are dense today - the burden of proof is yours!

No, once you say this Gordon...

The 'resurrection' is not a historical event - stories about a resurrection claim have certainly had an influence, but you musn't conflate stories with historical events.

It’s yours.

None of your posts back your assertion.

Me, i’ve Stated how far history gets us and so your demands for further analysis are inappropriate.

[Nearly Sane]

No, once you say this Gordon...It’s yours.

None of your posts back your assertion.

Me, i’ve Stated how far history gets us and so your demands for further analysis are inappropriate.

You don't even have a coherent definition of evidence that you use.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't even have a coherent definition of evidence that you use.

Explain.

[Gordon]

No, once you say this Gordon...It’s yours.

None of your posts back your assertion.

Me, i’ve Stated how far history gets us and so your demands for further analysis are inappropriate.

Bollocks - it is likely that there was a character on which the Jesus stories are based and that this person was crucified - Tacitus mentions it. However, and importantly, the 'resurrection' claim (as in being dead and then not dead) is not taught as being historical fact: it is a faith claim.

That is the issue your are avoiding.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Explain.

I take it you are new here? And you haven't read anything ever on this?


Explain what you mean about evidence for supernatural claims, outlining your methodology for evaluating such claims.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bollocks - it is likely that there was a character on which the Jesus stories are based and that this person was crucified - Tacitus mentions it. However, and importantly, the 'resurrection' claim (as in being dead and then not dead) is not taught as being historical fact: it is a faith claim.

That is the issue your are avoiding.

It is presented as an historical fact in the epistles and what the early Christian communities believed Gordon. Now prove your assertion. What it is or isn’t taught as NOW doesn’t seem relevant but perhaps you can add that to your list of pending cases you have to make.

[Nearly Sane]

It is presented as an historical fact in the epistles and what the early Christian communities believed Gordon. Now prove your assertion. What it is or isn’t taught as NOW doesn’t seem relevant but perhaps you can add that to your list of pending cases you have to make.

Holy mispresentation, Vladman.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I take it you are new here? And you haven't read anything ever on this?


Explain what you mean about evidence for supernatural claims, outlining your methodology for evaluating such claims.

I’m still not following you. When did I suggest you can use science to evaluate the supernatural or mention the evaluation of supernatural claims. I may have mentioned research into how long conspiracy theories last and if not held to be true that’s what the resurrection is.

Logic never goes amiss, avoidance of the contradictory perhaps. Maybe the principle of sufficient reason too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Having been retired from here these last couple of years or so I thought I’d check in again just to see whether Vlad had had enough time finally to tell us how he would propose that someone distinguish his faith claims from any other – equally heartfelt – faith claims.

Imagine therefore my surprise and disappointment to find not only that he hasn’t done that, but that instead he’s still trotting out the same old rhetorical fallacies that have been explained to him over and over again – just in this thread alone he’s tried the god of the gaps, the shifting of the burden of proof and, most recently, a fun dollop of survivor bias to boot (“If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history. Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so…” yada yada).

Never mind though – cock-eyed optimist that I am, I reckon another couple of years should be enough finally for him to get his ducks in a row.

My best wishes to you all.       

[Nearly Sane]

I’m still not following you. When did I suggest you can use science to evaluate the supernatural or mention the evaluation of supernatural claims. I may have mentioned research into how long conspiracy theories last and if not held to be true that’s what the resurrection is.

Logic never goes amiss, avoidance of the contradictory perhaps. Maybe the principle of sufficient reason too.

I didn't say you could use science. Stop lying!

I asked you for your method to evaluate supernatural claims. As I have many many times, and you just avoid the question and lie. Yet again.

[Gordon]

It is presented as an historical fact in the epistles and what the early Christian communities believed Gordon.

I suggest you read over what you've said here and see if you can spot the problem - I'm guessing you won't. Here's a clue - facts and beliefs aren't the same thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say you could use science. Stop lying!

I asked you for your method to evaluate supernatural claims. As I have many many times, and you just avoid the question and lie. Yet again.

sorry but when I have offered methodologies in the past you have poo pooed them . I have taken that to mean that for you there is only one true methodology. Science. Indeed i’ve Offered using logic and the principle of sufficient reason and you have rejected that.

Your line of interrogation here is very much like a religion vs science premis.

I do not see the science vs religion argument as valid. They are different domains.

Maybe maths has a methodology.

As for repeating your request over and over again. I suggest that needs looking into.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suggest you read over what you've said here and see if you can spot the problem - I'm guessing you won't. Here's a clue - facts and beliefs aren't the same thing.

They are presented as facts rather than mere beliefs. It looks like you haven’t actually read the New Testament but being charitable you may just be really rusty.

[Nearly Sane]

sorry but when I have offered methodologies in the past you have poo pooed them . I have taken that to mean that for you there is only one true methodology. Science. Indeed i’ve Offered using logic and the principle of sufficient reason and you have rejected that.

Your line of interrogation here is very much like a religion vs science premis.

I do not see the science vs religion argument as valid. They are different domains.

Maybe maths has a methodology.

As for repeating your request over and over again. I suggest that needs looking into.

Your inability yet again to offer a credible methodology for your claims, and your continual lying is both obvious and tedious.

[Nearly Sane]

They are presented as facts rather than mere beliefs. It looks like you haven’t actually read the New Testament but being charitable you may just be really rusty.

Flat earthers present their beliefs as facts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Flat earthers present their beliefs as facts.

So does this guy...

The 'resurrection' is not a historical event - stories about a resurrection claim have certainly had an influence, but you musn't conflate stories with historical events.

Flat earthers have been shown to be wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Having been retired from here these last couple of years or so I thought I’d check in again just to see whether Vlad had had enough time finally to tell us how he would propose that someone distinguish his faith claims from any other – equally heartfelt – faith claims.

Imagine therefore my surprise and disappointment to find not only that he hasn’t done that, but that instead he’s still trotting out the same old rhetorical fallacies that have been explained to him over and over again – just in this thread alone he’s tried the god of the gaps, the shifting of the burden of proof and, most recently, a fun dollop of survivor bias to boot (“If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history. Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so…” yada yada).

Never mind though – cock-eyed optimist that I am, I reckon another couple of years should be enough finally for him to get his ducks in a row.

My best wishes to you all.     

pah....More come backs than Frank Sinatra.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Having been retired from here these last couple of years or so I thought I’d check in again just to see whether Vlad had had enough time finally to tell us how he would propose that someone distinguish his faith claims from any other – equally heartfelt – faith claims.

Imagine therefore my surprise and disappointment to find not only that he hasn’t done that, but that instead he’s still trotting out the same old rhetorical fallacies that have been explained to him over and over again – just in this thread alone he’s tried the god of the gaps, the shifting of the burden of proof and, most recently, a fun dollop of survivor bias to boot (“If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history. Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so…” yada yada).

Never mind though – cock-eyed optimist that I am, I reckon another couple of years should be enough finally for him to get his ducks in a row.

My best wishes to you all.     

Bluehillside making a voice of God type post ha ha.

[Nearly Sane]

So does this guy...Flat earthers have been shown to be wrong.

And yet again you illustrate your stupidity, your lying, or possibly your lying stupidity. Not accepting something as the truth is not the same as saying something is the truth or is not the truth.The default position is to be sceptical.

[Outrider]

If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history.

Right up there alongside Mohammed's ascent on the winged horse...

Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so I would be looking for alternative real history which debunks the resurrection, records of the overturning and the bringing to book for the fraud...rather than religious or political offence caused.

Argument from incredulity duly noted. That you can't see people lacking prospects and formal education are gullible doesn't in any way validate claims of magic.

And that is the point. If you are going to claim historical fraud, historical mass gullibility, historical mass hallucination etc. Then it strikes me you need historical evidence for those assertions.

We have it in each and every denouncement of the claims of Islam by Christians, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from Muslims, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from each of the others. I just accept all of those denouncements rather than selectively exempting one of them from critical scrutiny.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Having been retired from here these last couple of years or so I thought I’d check in again just to see whether Vlad had had enough time finally to tell us how he would propose that someone distinguish his faith claims from any other – equally heartfelt – faith claims.

Imagine therefore my surprise and disappointment to find not only that he hasn’t done that, but that instead he’s still trotting out the same old rhetorical fallacies that have been explained to him over and over again – just in this thread alone he’s tried the god of the gaps, the shifting of the burden of proof and, most recently, a fun dollop of survivor bias to boot (“If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history. Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so…” yada yada).

Never mind though – cock-eyed optimist that I am, I reckon another couple of years should be enough finally for him to get his ducks in a row.

My best wishes to you all.     

Nice to see you back but I find it odd that your return is summed up purely by the reaction to Vlad. The rest of the board, and what's happened, and to help you out - quite a lot has happened, and has been posted on - and you pop back and focus on Vlad. Hmm...

And leaving aside that, you may have missed that we have not seen, and despite efforts, not received a reply from SusanDoris, and perforce we fear the worst.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Right up there alongside Mohammed's ascent on the winged horse...

Above and beyond, pal, above and beyond.

Argument from incredulity duly noted. That you can't see people lacking prospects and formal education are gullible doesn't in any way validate claims of magic.

what are you talking about? If it wasn’t true, these people pulled of the biggest hoax in history.
Many early Christians were educated in philosophy and the like. More so than your horsemen of the apocalypse who are absolute philosophical duffers.

We have it in each and every denouncement of the claims of Islam by Christians, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from Muslims, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from each of the others. I just accept all of those denouncements rather than selectively exempting one of them from critical scrutiny.

O.

I don’t odds anyone’s spiritual experience, I merely communicate my own.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Right up there alongside Mohammed's ascent on the winged horse...

Argument from incredulity duly noted. That you can't see people lacking prospects and formal education are gullible doesn't in any way validate claims of magic.

We have it in each and every denouncement of the claims of Islam by Christians, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from Muslims, and each and every denouncement of the claims of Hinduism from each of the others. I just accept all of those denouncements rather than selectively exempting one of them from critical scrutiny.

O.

If you hadn’t noticed Christians and other faiths denounce some of the views of their co religionists. Disagreement is common in all domains.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice to see you back but I find it odd that your return is summed up purely by the reaction to Vlad. The rest of the board, and what's happened, and to help you out - quite a lot has happened, and has been posted on - and you pop back and focus on Vlad. Hmm...

Don’t you recognise Bromance when you see it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Having been retired from here these last couple of years...........

Yes, i’ve always thought guffing on about Leprechauns was a young mans game.