Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

Craig asserting his way to the empty tomb and resurrection

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#1  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2017 7:31 am

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/jesus-resurrection#ixzz4nCRchnx7

Modern man thought that in divesting himself of God, he had freed himself from all that stifled and repressed him. Instead, he discovered that in killing God, he had also killed himself.
...
At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul's information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul's.
....
All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.
...
Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul.
...
Second, the empty tomb. Once regarded as an offense to modern intelligence and an embarrassment to Christian theology, the empty tomb of Jesus has come to assume its place among the generally accepted facts concerning the historical Jesus and supports Jesus' resurrection.
...
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29965
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#2  Postby Manticore » Jul 21, 2017 10:34 am

I wonder what planet he lives on (anyone want to bet on whether it's a flat one?)
The existence of just one racist is proof that there exists at least one person who could be reasonably classified as sub-human.
User avatar
Manticore
 
Posts: 206

Country: Tanzania
Tanzania (tz)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#3  Postby Animavore » Jul 21, 2017 10:44 am

Never mind fallacies. I see a number of bare-faced lies.

The only scholars who put the earliest gospel in the 50s are ones who believe that it must've written before the sacking of Jerusalem because Jesus prophecises it. The earliest evidence for the gospels is from the 70s, suggesting this "prophecy" was written after the fact.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42714
Age: 40
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#4  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2017 12:39 pm

Animavore wrote:Never mind fallacies. I see a number of bare-faced lies.

Indeed.

Animavore wrote:
The only scholars who put the earliest gospel in the 50s are ones who believe that it must've written before the sacking of Jerusalem because Jesus prophecises it. The earliest evidence for the gospels is from the 70s, suggesting this "prophecy" was written after the fact.

I find the whole idea of referencing a consensus of scholars to be disengenuous.
First of all, scholar isn't a protected term, anyone can call themselves a scholar.
More-over, these supposed scholars often include theologians who do not have any historical or archeological qualifications.
Finally, it doesn't matter what these supposed scholars claim, what matters is what they can demonstrate.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29965
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#5  Postby Animavore » Jul 21, 2017 12:45 pm

True that. I believe around half the people of Ireland are scholars.

The other half are Saints
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42714
Age: 40
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#6  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 21, 2017 12:47 pm

:lol:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29965
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#7  Postby pelfdaddy » Jul 21, 2017 8:37 pm

When I was a (cough**choke) preacher--sigh--I frequently engaged in the sort of sweeping generalities that Craig emits. I would blithely fling over the pulpit such pompous effluence as "Modern Man thought that in divesting himself of God , he had freed himself from all that stifled and repressed him", and on and on and on.

Once you have shackled your mind to a fable, you are forced to ignore science, history, anthropology, and every other robust means by which we have mined the hard-won knowledge we now possess. Volumes of Christian writing, actually thousands of books and sermons, are based entirely on false generalizations of the kind mentioned above. Preachers and theologians call it "research", but they are merely making shit up on the fly, concocting myths and junk theories about the flow of history and the workings of the cosmos, the motivations behind political movements and human institutions.

The concurrence of all this theological sewage flowing freely and unchecked through ages of secular tolerance (or outnumbered secular submission) creates a general narrative with which preachers just continue to agree, feeding the gyre with fresh "information" with every book, sermon, pamphlet, posting, and ark museum display.

Morality is written upon the tablet of the human heart, the Amorites were wicked, Christian faith was necessary for science to arise, and Nineveh could not have been discovered without the Bible. All of this must be true because it allows other narratives to make sense, which allows the apologetics to function.

Craig doesn't assert these fallacious claims because he has discovered them. He does it because they just make sense to him.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 997
Age: 52
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#8  Postby Tracer Tong » Jul 27, 2017 3:03 pm

Animavore wrote:Never mind fallacies. I see a number of bare-faced lies.


Are those the same things as 'mistakes'?

Animavore wrote:The only scholars who put the earliest gospel in the 50s are ones who believe that it must've written before the sacking of Jerusalem because Jesus prophecises it. The earliest evidence for the gospels is from the 70s, suggesting this "prophecy" was written after the fact.


So would it be fair to say that your view is that Mark (for example) is post 70, because of the reference to the Temple's destruction?
Тебя прощают. Не будут больше подавать платок.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1559
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#9  Postby Animavore » Jul 27, 2017 3:08 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:
Are those the same things as 'mistakes'?


Nope.

Tracer Tong wrote:
So would it be fair to say that your view is that Mark (for example) is post 70, because of the reference to the Temple's destruction?

Nope.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42714
Age: 40
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#10  Postby Tracer Tong » Jul 27, 2017 3:12 pm

Animavore wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
Are those the same things as 'mistakes'?


Nope.


In that case, why think Craig is lying, rather than simply mistaken?

Animavore wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
So would it be fair to say that your view is that Mark (for example) is post 70, because of the reference to the Temple's destruction?

Nope.


So why date it thus, then?
Тебя прощают. Не будут больше подавать платок.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1559
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#11  Postby Animavore » Jul 27, 2017 3:24 pm

Because Craig has a history of being a lying weasel.

Because the that's the general consensus by historians. It's not my date.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42714
Age: 40
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#12  Postby Tracer Tong » Jul 27, 2017 3:28 pm

Animavore wrote:Because Craig has a history of being a lying weasel.


I see.

Animavore wrote:
Because the that's the general consensus by historians. It's not my date.


So when you said "The earliest evidence for the gospels is from the 70s", you didn't actually have any evidence in mind?
Тебя прощают. Не будут больше подавать платок.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1559
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#13  Postby Animavore » Jul 27, 2017 3:36 pm

I had a lecture series on Historical Jesus by Bart Ehrman I'd listened to a few years ago ago in mind.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42714
Age: 40
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#14  Postby Shrunk » Jul 27, 2017 4:48 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:
Animavore wrote:Because Craig has a history of being a lying weasel.


I see.

Animavore wrote:
Because the that's the general consensus by historians. It's not my date.


So when you said "The earliest evidence for the gospels is from the 70s", you didn't actually have any evidence in mind?


I'm sorry, I must have missed the part when Craig provided evidence for his claim that "all NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses." All? Every single one of them?

:rofl:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#15  Postby Shrunk » Jul 27, 2017 4:51 pm

More high comedy, from WL Craig, professional doofus for Christ:

The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed.


For fuck sake. There are people walking around today who are convinced there are pedophile rings operating on the planet Mars. That took a matter of days, not generations.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#16  Postby Shrunk » Jul 27, 2017 4:53 pm

Let me make this simple: Resurrections don't happen. So the stories of the Gospel are false. This is not complicated.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#17  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jul 27, 2017 5:00 pm

Shrunk wrote:More high comedy, from WL Craig, professional doofus for Christ:

The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed.


For fuck sake. There are people walking around today who are convinced there are pedophile rings operating on the planet Mars. That took a matter of days, not generations.

You'll note that Craig doesn't even attempt to explain/defend, why legends can't accumulate in less than 3 generations.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29965
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#18  Postby Animavore » Jul 27, 2017 5:21 pm

3 generations? Does he think that people back then had internet and acess to the same information as everyone else? Three town hops could be enough to make a legend.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42714
Age: 40
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#19  Postby Shrunk » Jul 27, 2017 5:22 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Shrunk wrote:More high comedy, from WL Craig, professional doofus for Christ:

The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed.


For fuck sake. There are people walking around today who are convinced there are pedophile rings operating on the planet Mars. That took a matter of days, not generations.

You'll note that Craig doesn't even attempt to explain/defend, why legends can't accumulate in less than 3 generations.


Well, some professor said so, apparently.

There's also a shit tonne of professors who say resurrections don't happen, but for some reason (not to do with Craig's personal presuppositions, no siree Bob) that gets swept aside.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Anyone on want to play fallacy bingo?

#20  Postby Shrunk » Jul 27, 2017 5:28 pm

Oh, would you look at that. WL Craig, for a refreshing change of pace, is acting like a lying sack of shit (my emphasis):

The part of Sherwin-White’s essay that has attracted the most attention from Christian apologists is his comments on the length of time it takes for mythology to displace historical fact. However, contrary to Craig, Strobel, Geisler and a host of others, he did not attempt to calculate a rate of legendary accumulation that is universally applicable. Nor did he lay out a rule that enables an historian to identify a point before which an oral tradition can still be considered historical. Indeed, Sherwin-White acknowledged that various types of bias can be present both in the original source of the oral tradition and in the writer who finally records it. He merely asserted that “historical content is not hopelessly lost” to the critical historian even after a period of two generations. (RSRLNT p. 191)

The apologetic abuse of the Oxford professor starts with William Lane Craig. His claim that Sherwin-White “states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be ‘unbelievable’" is at least a gross distortion if not an outright falsehood. Sherwin-White never classified the gospels as either legend or fact. Nor did he ever use the word “unbelievable” despite Craig application of quotation marks. Throughout his essay, the Oxford professor acknowledged that all of his ancient sources contain both fact and fiction. What he did argue is that it would usually take more than two generations for the legendary elements to so completely displace the historical facts as to make the gospels useless to the critical historian. But he made no attempt to identify where such displacement occurred in the gospels or which parts could be considered historical....


http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.ca/2 ... white.html
Last edited by Shrunk on Jul 27, 2017 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 54
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest