tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post984122197974106482..comments2023-10-29T08:19:51.395-05:00Comments on The Raytractors - Ray Comfort's Detractors: Where is the Disconnect?MacGyver Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02307024564664964571noreply@blogger.comBlogger198125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-7460493317847871532008-10-19T16:25:00.000-05:002008-10-19T16:25:00.000-05:00The biggest problem is not just that historians do...The biggest problem is not just that historians do not take "documents" face value, no sir, the biggest problem is that it does not even make sense to do just that.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-23300023808758409892008-10-19T02:17:00.000-05:002008-10-19T02:17:00.000-05:00@ FreeYou completely missed MY point.You wrote "An...@ Free<BR/><BR/>You completely missed MY point.<BR/><BR/>You wrote "Anyway, you said Habermas was wrong-- in essence because Schaeffer said so."<BR/><BR/>Incorrect I wrote that Habermas was wrong because the evidence - in this case the Toldoth Jeshu - said so.<BR/><BR/>If the Toldoth Jeshu says something else prove it.<BR/><BR/>Then you wrote "But Habermas has PhD in history..."<BR/><BR/>Incorrect. Habermas has a PhD in Theology NOT history. Check out the wikipedia article on him:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Habermas<BR/><BR/>According to wikipedia "Gary Robert Habermas (born in 1950 in Michigan) is an Evangelical Christian, American Christian apologist, theologian, and philosopher of religion."<BR/><BR/>No History qualifications though he does have qualifications in the History of Philosophy. Maybe that's where you're getting confused.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-79966824787882478812008-10-19T02:08:00.000-05:002008-10-19T02:08:00.000-05:00@ everyone who is not freeFree seems t think that ...@ everyone who is not free<BR/><BR/>Free seems t think that its enough for someone to say "This is the truth" & it must be so.<BR/><BR/>Is that the way a reputable historian operates?<BR/><BR/>Not according to wikipedia, education forums in the UK & Cornell University.<BR/><BR/>So what do they say is the criteria for evaluating the texts & their trustworthyness?<BR/><BR/> The following criteria for source evaluation is taken from the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988):<BR/><BR/>How was the source located? <BR/><BR/>What type of source is it? <BR/><BR/>Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed? <BR/><BR/>When was the information published? <BR/><BR/>In which country was it published? <BR/><BR/>What is the reputation of the publisher? <BR/><BR/>Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias? <BR/><BR/>For literary sources we might add complementing criteria:<BR/><BR/>Does the source contain a bibliography? <BR/><BR/>Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited? <BR/><BR/>How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books? <BR/><BR/>This is the method used according to:<BR/>American Library Association (1994) Evaluating Information: A Basic Checklist. Brochure. American Library Association <BR/>Engeldinger, Eugene A. (1988) Bibliographic Instruction and Critical Thinking: The Contribution of the Annotated Bibliography. Research Quarterly, Vol. 28, Winter, p. 195-202 <BR/>Engeldinger, Eugene A. (1998) Technology Infrastructure and Information Literacy. Library Philosophy and Practice Vol. 1, No. 1 <BR/><BR/>If you wish to read the web sites for yourself they are:<BR/><BR/>Cornell University Library - Critically Analyzing Information Sources <BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_evaluation<BR/><BR/>http://www.educationforum.co.uk/Page4.htm<BR/><BR/>I leave it up to the readers to decide which they think is the sorrect method.<BR/><BR/>1)Test the sources<BR/><BR/>2) Take them on face value & trust them until proven otherwise. [Even though it is impossible to prove a negative].Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-52187311766185729822008-10-19T01:55:00.000-05:002008-10-19T01:55:00.000-05:00@Chris you completely miss the point. I was just u...@Chris you completely miss the point. I was just using an analogy for a well known historical event.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you said Habermas was wrong-- in essence because Schaeffer said so.<BR/>But Habermas has PhD in history and Schaeffer has none so i would tend to side with the one with credentials? Wouldn't you.<BR/>?<BR/>If some amateur journalist said something about evolution that contradicted the statements of someone with PhD's in biochemistry, who would you side with? that's all I was saying.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-72892758070527174242008-10-19T01:44:00.000-05:002008-10-19T01:44:00.000-05:00@ freeWhy are you contradicting yourself?You wrote...@ free<BR/><BR/>Why are you contradicting yourself?<BR/><BR/>You wrote "I don't think you should appeal to Schaeffer-doesn't look like he has any credentials"<BR/><BR/>Then check out his evidence & prove it wrong. Oh and by the way if you had bothered to ask shaeffer is quoted by a credentialed historian. Ooops guess you feel kinda foolish.<BR/><BR/>Need I point out that according to YOU a text [in this case shaeffer's] must be correct until proven false.<BR/><BR/>Or does that only apply when it's a christian text?<BR/><BR/>Next you write "Historian: Suetonious said Ceasar crossed the Rubicon.<BR/>Skeptic: But he could have been lying<BR/>Historian: Unless you can provide a good reason Suetonius was lying or is unreliable, we accept his claim at face value."<BR/><BR/>BULLSHIT! Where do you get this garbage from? For one thing the date of the crossing of the rubicon would have been gleaned fromCaesar's diaries. Those were propaganda tools and ARE treated as suspect by historians. Bet you feel foolish. <BR/><BR/>I've already given you a cite for scepticism toward texts. Would you like me to produce others? How many more would convince you? 1? 5? 10? 20? 50? 100? None ever?<BR/><BR/>Cite one non-fundie historian who argues what you've claimed. Just one or admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about.<BR/><BR/>And need I point out that since YOU are an uncredentialed person, then, acording to you, you don't get a say.<BR/><BR/>Or does that apply only when it's used against non-christians?<BR/><BR/>Remember when you wrote "I don't think you should appeal to Schaeffer-doesn't look like he has any credentials"?<BR/><BR/>So basically you've totally contradicted yourself. <BR/><BR/>Provided no evidence for your claim - this is how historians operate, really truely.<BR/><BR/>Made up stuff just to support your viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>You've made claims about things with no supporting evidence.<BR/><BR/>Even when you've been offered evidence that you are wrong you've ignored it.<BR/><BR/>Can you see, just slightly, why people might dismiss fundies as just a bunch of arrogant liars?<BR/><BR/>I think you and your conscience have a LOT to talk over. What you have to remember is 'telling lies for Jesus' is still lying.<BR/><BR/>With that fare thee well. I shall trouble you nay more.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-53623057576743237932008-10-19T00:39:00.000-05:002008-10-19T00:39:00.000-05:00@chrisI don't have time to go over everything you ...@chris<BR/>I don't have time to go over everything you said but you don't have a very full understanding of Habermas' work. I'd recommend picking up one of his books.Many of the things here are just misunderstandings of his arguements. A lot of the assertions you make are covered there. He discusses the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15 and its dating.Another decent book on understanding the resurrection is the one by N.T. Wright.<BR/>and as to the burden of proof it goes like this.<BR/>Historian: Suetonious said Ceasar crossed the Rubicon.<BR/>Skeptic: But he could have been lying<BR/>Historian: Unless you can provide a good reason Suetonius was lying or is unreliable, we accept his claim at face value.<BR/>That's the way it works in history.<BR/>Ps ( I don't think you should appeal to Schaeffer-doesn't look like he has any credentials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sheaffer)MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-14370635428352267342008-10-19T00:24:00.000-05:002008-10-19T00:24:00.000-05:00As I stated beforeIf you believe you don't feel th...As I stated before<BR/><BR/>If you believe you don't feel that evidence is necessary<BR/><BR/>And if you don't believe you feel that no evidence is possible.<BR/><BR/>Since you've remained silent about my offer to refute Habermas' argumnts for the resurrection I'll take it that you aren't interested.<BR/><BR/>So on that note fare ye well.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-29056111497940523422008-10-19T00:18:00.000-05:002008-10-19T00:18:00.000-05:00But so it will be very, very clear what I am stati...But so it will be very, very clear what I am stating.<BR/><BR/>I assert that Jesus [more properly yeshua] ministered and died in the Roman controlled area known as Judaea.<BR/><BR/>He was most probably captured by the Romans & falsely charged with rebellion.<BR/><BR/>He was most probably crucified & was probably taken to be buried.<BR/><BR/>And that's it. That is all that can be shown historically. Full stop. <BR/><BR/>Everything after that is a matter of faith NOT historical evidence. As I pointed out since Jesus left no archaeological evidence his resurrection CANNOT suddenly turn into history.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to assert that the resurrection is true. That is your faith & you are welcome to it. But it is NOT a matter of history.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-33554091212904950002008-10-19T00:09:00.000-05:002008-10-19T00:09:00.000-05:00In the end Free I have shown that Habermas usesA) ...In the end Free I have shown that Habermas uses<BR/><BR/>A) logical fallacies, <BR/><BR/>B) deliberately misrepresents his opponents arguments [straw man & his ever shrinking lot of scholarly consensus], <BR/><BR/>C) Gives farcical arguments [like the nicodemus one], <BR/><BR/>D) Treats his texts as though they were blow by blow historical accounts [a mistake a 1st year history student wouldn't make], <BR/><BR/>E) argues that Jesus' opponents could identify his corpse even when the earliest account was written at least 20+ years after the event.<BR/><BR/>Ask yourself this Free. If I or anyone else who was a non-christian made lame arguments like this wouldn't you immediately jump on us & point them out? Of course you would. And quite rightly too.<BR/><BR/>So why are you treating Habermas any different? <BR/><BR/>Why does he get to make so many foul mistakes when if we make a minor one we get jumped on?<BR/><BR/>I will leave that question to you and you conscience.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-3441655089506778902008-10-18T23:55:00.000-05:002008-10-18T23:55:00.000-05:00@ FreeThen you wrote "Archeological evidence ...@ Free<BR/><BR/>Then you wrote "Archeological evidence is absent for Justus of Tiberias, Hillel, Gamaliel, Hori...etc (all were Jews contemporary with Jesus)."<BR/><BR/>Totally agree since the quote I gave actually stated that although there was no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus he DID exist. <BR/><BR/>Do you actually read anything I post? Or do you just react to them? <BR/><BR/>For the record - I am asserting that Jesus existed but there is no archaeological evidence for him. That being so his resurrection is can only ever be a matter of faith & NOT history.<BR/><BR/>Not an argument from silence at all. Is it Free?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-8260942409636901172008-10-18T23:49:00.000-05:002008-10-18T23:49:00.000-05:00@ FreeYou then write "Habermas never claimed they ...@ Free<BR/><BR/>You then write "Habermas never claimed they believed Jesus rose.he claimed most agreed with the minimal facts."<BR/><BR/>Except when Habermas didn't. For example he spoke about consensus with at least these points. Then he spoke of most scholars agreeing - then only some scholars.<BR/><BR/>SO WHICH IS IT?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-88050770981695497272008-10-18T23:43:00.000-05:002008-10-18T23:43:00.000-05:00@ FreeI'm sorry but you are totally wrong.Didn...@ Free<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry but you are totally wrong.<BR/><BR/>Didn't even look at the site I provided about burden of proof did you?<BR/><BR/>No I thought not. <BR/><BR/>Here's an example about why the burden of proof rests on the maker of a positive claim.<BR/><BR/>Let's say I assert that flying raindeer exist [positive claim].<BR/><BR/>You assert thery don't [negative claim].<BR/><BR/>To prove your point you take a raindeer up to the top of a tower & throw them off - splat!<BR/><BR/>My response? I declare "I didn't say all raindeers fly."<BR/><BR/>You take every single raindeer up to the top of the building & push them off - splat!<BR/><BR/>My response? "The raindeer chose not to fly."<BR/><BR/>You CANNOT prove a negative!<BR/><BR/>But you can prove a positive. I can just point to one flying raindeer.<BR/><BR/>Conclusion: The burden of proof is ALWAYS on those making the positive claim.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-14521374424839571672008-10-18T23:33:00.000-05:002008-10-18T23:33:00.000-05:00You then write "It is the same with the gospe...You then write "It is the same with the gospels, Nicodemus and Joe of Arimethea were important people. when you make up a story you do not include important people in."<BR/><BR/>That is very, very odd. First Joseph & Nicodemus are first names. I could write the most totally false things I could imagine & if I gave their first names NO ONE would know who the hell I was talking about.<BR/><BR/>Second your reply has NOTHING to do with the argument of Habermas. Try arguing what Habermas actually says m'kay.<BR/><BR/>Habermas wrote "A lot of folks have made the point that Joseph and Nicodemus, their names are difficult to explain in those burial stories unless they were the guys that did the burial. Why bring these names out of OBSCURITY if they weren’t really the people" <BR/><BR/>In other words those names wouldn't have been used because the were OBSCURE. NOTHING to do with them being powerful people!<BR/><BR/>And I have already given a reason as to why obscure names could have been used - historical fiction needs local colour. Habermas never even considers this as a possibility. That shows gullibility at best.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-1334405640491856792008-10-18T22:55:00.000-05:002008-10-18T22:55:00.000-05:00Chris, that is not how history works. The burden i...Chris, that is not how history works. The burden is on the skeptic to demonstrate that<BR/>1)the source is unreliable<BR/>2)the source was likely to be lying<BR/>We take sources at face value unless we can make a case otherwise<BR/><BR/>//My answer: Indeed you could get into trouble. //<BR/>exactly. In the same way- if Mark was just making up the story of Joseph and nicodemus he would get in trouble. Why then would you risk it? The most likely option would be he was just relating it as it happened.<BR/>And as you claims t Habermas being dishonest<BR/>//Example 1: He lists as scholars supporting his position scholars who write that Jesus NEVER rose.<BR/>So whichis it? Do they agree with Habermas [in which case why do they write the opposite] or do they disagree [in which case why does Habermas have them listed]?//<BR/>Habermas never claimed they believed Jesus rose.he claimed most agreed with the minimal facts<BR/><BR/>//Example 2: Archaeological evidence is totally absent for Jesus. Now since we cannot prove He even exist how can anyone prove that Jesus rose?//<BR/>Archeological evidence is absent for Justus of Tiberias, Hillel, Gamaliel, Hori...etc (all were Jews contemporary with Jesus).<BR/>Look up a fallacy called argument from silence.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-13136510459665104372008-10-18T22:44:00.000-05:002008-10-18T22:44:00.000-05:00Finally you wrote "The gospels were not writt...Finally you wrote "The gospels were not written 60 years after and you would do well to look at the 1 corinthians 15 creed (dated 2-5 years after the crucifixion)."<BR/><BR/>STOP PULLING MAKE BELIEVE FACTS OUT OF YOUR ARSE!<BR/><BR/>To quote the Oxford Bible Companion. <BR/>Matthew ["It is commonly held that the gospel of Matthew was written about 85 - 90 C.E"]<BR/><BR/>Mark ["The Gospel of Mark was written between 65 - 75 CE"]<BR/><BR/>Luke ["It is widely held that the Lukan gospel was composed around 80-90 C.E"]<BR/><BR/>John ["An upper limit of 150 C.E or a little earlier. Though the Rylands Papyrus [which contains a few verses of John] may be dated to 135 C.E"]<BR/><BR/>Corinthians ["1st & 2nd Cor consist of several shorter letters & notes written to the church at Corinth in the early 50s C.E"]<BR/><BR/>What was that you wrote again Free?<BR/>Oh yes...it went "The gospels were not written 60 years after and you would do well to look at the 1 corinthians 15 creed (dated 2-5 years after the crucifixion)."<BR/><BR/>You didn't really know what the hell you were talking about did you Free?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-20947175041810891932008-10-18T22:30:00.000-05:002008-10-18T22:30:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-64269781183136664452008-10-18T22:24:00.000-05:002008-10-18T22:24:00.000-05:00Then you give a strange example which destroys wha...Then you give a strange example which destroys what you've just written.<BR/>"Imagine I were to write a fake account for the news that everyone could read. In this fake piece I had the names of the Governor and several local congressmen involved in a conspiracy. you see the problem there. I could get in trouble." <BR/><BR/>My answer: Indeed you could get into trouble. Thank goodness that since you are making a positive claim the burden of proof is on you. The one accused of corruption doesn't have to prove a thing.<BR/><BR/>But you just wrote that we should take these accusations as true until proven false. Now you're arguing against your own previous point. This s very confusing Free.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-43014674524861387032008-10-18T22:20:00.000-05:002008-10-18T22:20:00.000-05:00Then you write "We usually take documents at facev...Then you write "We usually take documents at facevalue unless we have good reason to think the writer was lying."<BR/><BR/>Wrong again! Documents could be lying, or mistaken or just plain insufficiently accurate. <BR/><BR/>We ALWAYS have to decide whether they are reliable or not.<BR/>Read about the process of evaluating a source here:<BR/>http://www.educationforum.co.uk/Page4.htm<BR/><BR/>You won't find ONE WORD about accepting the source until shown to be false. It must have hurt to pull that large a piece of bullshit from your arse. Take painkillers next time.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-77759653193210344162008-10-18T21:53:00.000-05:002008-10-18T21:53:00.000-05:00Then you wrote "And in history the skeptic ha...Then you wrote "And in history the skeptic has the burden of proof."<BR/><BR/>My answer: Totally wrong! A positive statement always has the burden of proof. <BR/>http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html<BR/><BR/>What Habermas used is known as the Appeal to ignorance fallacy. Oooh But since the presence of a logical fallacy makes an argument worthless & habermas' argumens contain logical fallacies then they are worthless. That's another strike out isn't it Free?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-43833688899350303432008-10-18T21:49:00.000-05:002008-10-18T21:49:00.000-05:00You then wrote "You then write "And oftentimes "hu...You then wrote "<BR/><BR/>You then write "And oftentimes "hung" is used to describe a person hanging FROM a CROSS (Paul even says Jesus was hung in Galatians 3:13)."<BR/><BR/>My answer: Absolutely correct. But it's not the case here.<BR/>"Robert Sheaffer, in The Making of the Messiah (1991, Prometheus Books), makes the case that the early Jewish writings and the Toldoth Jeshu contain the most accurate account of Jesus' life and death--that he was executed by Jews, by being stoned and hung in a tree." Ooops. Look like Habermas strikes out again. Doesn't it Free?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-875862653892394172008-10-18T21:43:00.000-05:002008-10-18T21:43:00.000-05:00Quote from Free "If you read the whole account [of...Quote from Free "If you read the whole account [of someone surviving a crucifixion] he was taken down EARLY and given the best medical treatment in Rome." <BR/><BR/>My answer:Irrelevant! Habermas wrote "If the person is hanging low on the cross for any amount of time—let’s say, 30 minutes—he’s dead."<BR/><BR/>Inother words the crucifixion victim would have to be taken down in those in those 30 minutes or he's dead.<BR/><BR/>While Seneca, who actally watched a crucifixion, disagrees with Habermas. He wrote "Those<BR/>condemned to such a death lose their life drop by drop." [from Epistulae 101,14].<BR/><BR/>So Habermas got it wrong didn't he Free? Habermas didn't know what he was talking about did he?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-5325861892037555512008-10-18T21:38:00.000-05:002008-10-18T21:38:00.000-05:00@ FreeYou demand evidence yet when someone provide...@ Free<BR/><BR/>You demand evidence yet when someone provides it you dismiss i & scream "Not enough give me more".<BR/><BR/>How much more Free? How much will be enough for you? I've already given facts which show the poor research done by Habermas. <BR/>So I'm going to respond to each of your points & show that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. ready? Let's beginChrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08281025205602142063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-3554938755284100132008-10-18T20:46:00.000-05:002008-10-18T20:46:00.000-05:00@ChrisI'm writing a response to Maragon right now ...@Chris<BR/>I'm writing a response to Maragon right now so I won't get to respond to you.<BR/><BR/>Why instead of beating Habermas don't you just make a decent essay explaining what facts you agree and disagree with and on what grounds?<BR/><BR/>P.s.That account you are talking about of a guy surviving crucifixion is Josephus not Tacitus.If you read the whole account he was taken down EARLY and given the best medical treatment in Rome. And oftentimes "hung" is used to describe a person hanging FROM a CROSS (Paul even says Jesus was hung in Galatians 3:13).<BR/>And in history the skeptic has the burden ofproof. We usually take documents at facevalue unless we have goodreason to think the writer was lying.<BR/>Imagine I were to write a fake account for the news that everyone could read. In this fake piece I had the names of the Governor and several local congressmen involved in a conspiracy. you see the problem there. I could get in trouble. these people will make statements discrediting my story. Most likely if I make a fake story I would use fake names- so noone could discredit me or at least use the names of people who are not well known. It is the same with the gospels, Nicodemus and Joe of Arimethea were important people. when you make up a story you do not include important people in.<BR/>The gospels were not written 60 years after and you would do well to look at the 1 corinthians 15 creed (dated 2-5 years after the crucifixion).MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-28025579123087564232008-10-18T20:07:00.000-05:002008-10-18T20:07:00.000-05:00MrFreeThinker,In your "parody" you added:Who cares...MrFreeThinker,<BR/><BR/>In your "parody" you added:<BR/><BR/><I>Who cares if those "facts" were supported by credentialed biologists?</I><BR/><BR/>When did I say: Who cares if those facts were supported by credentialed "historians"? I said that your credentialed historian is not such thing. Maragon and Chris have told you why. I did so too. I would not call anybody who works for a biased Christian "university," who publishes in biased Christian "journals." A credentialed anything. Well, maybe a credentialed liar for Jesus.<BR/><BR/>A bit of a while ago I asked historians at the University of "Not a Chance that there is any god," and all of these credentialed historians agreed that there was no Jesus, nothing even similar, no apostles, and so on. They even made a survey among thousands of other credentialed PhDs and they mostly agreed with them. They have thousands of publications in the Journal of the Non-Existence of Deities, the Journal of the Impossibility of the Christian God, and many other highly respected journals.<BR/><BR/>Now my friend. How does that sound to you? Would you need to do lots of research before dismissing their arguments, or would their presentation suffice for you to think they might be "a bit" biased and willing to make any claims, with or without evidences?<BR/><BR/>And that is just the start. I have found the same thing about "credentialed" anythings defending the Christian faith. Then, if you still go a read what they write, they show unreliability from the get go. Just look at Chris's point by point comments. <BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-24267032855717532292008-10-18T19:34:00.000-05:002008-10-18T19:34:00.000-05:00As I said MrFreeThinker, I am not interested, just...As I said MrFreeThinker, I am not interested, just as you are not interested in the talkorigins stuff.<BR/><BR/>I did, however, mention the main fallacy, didn't I? Charged questions. You want us to just accept that these 5 things did happen, then go from that to demonstrate that "the best explanation is that the resurrection is true" is wrong.<BR/><BR/>I knew you wrote it. It has your punctuation all over it.<BR/><BR/>Now, the reason I am not interested. I have done a lot of that, explaining and showing that these people do lots of biased and charged arguments. Just to find no Christian will even try to understand what I am saying. Exactly like you ignored the "charged questions" fallacy that I clearly told you about. Also because Chris is debating the very authenticity of your charged question. Why should I do that too?<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com