... I don't even know where to start. The skepticism of Jesus starts with the fact that he was purported to be literally magic. He could literally do things that are impossible. If La-ba'shum was reported to have shot lightning from his eyes and fire from his ass there'd be a bit more skepticism surrounding him. If belief in La-ba'shum was the grounds for suffering or death people would be looking at him a bit more closely. You mention "biographies" of Jesus. Where? What? You mean the Bible? Hardly a biography in that it skips 20 or more years of his life. And...actually what else ever mentions Jesus? Also the quality of the evidence comes in when you look at what it is: one is an impersonal list of kings of an empire, the other is a huge propaganda tool meant to expound a point and push an agenda. Skepticism about Jesus is not about "belief", it's about observable facts: there were many, MANY god like figure before Jesus that had all the same characteristics (virgin birth, son of god, heal the sick) the Bible is the only thing that mentions Jesus, or ANY of the events in the Bible which partly takes place in Egypt (the most obsessive record keepers in history "forgot" to mention that one day all the water turned to blood or all the first born died or all the slaves up and left) and, again, he could literally do magic. Amazing how all the great Saints are from a time when the European world was at it's highest religious fever, and how the number of religious people who can literally fly, or teleport, or heal the sick with just a touch, or talk to animals has completely disappeared with the invention of the camera. The "miracle" prerequisite for sainthood by the Catholic Church has gone from "used belief in God to fly" to "was REALLY nice".
It doesn't matter how many, it only matters that it break one law of the universe. The entire account from a record is then suspect. Kind of like Brett's posting history.
Can someone's conception of the "laws of universe" incorporate the "laws" of supply-side economics? (edited for posting flow)
Are economists purported to walk on water, now? edit: I see your point, I'm just poking around a bit.
I don't see how this conflicts with Magnet's point though. My belief that magic doesn't exist makes me skeptical of biblical accounts of Jesus. But it wouldn't be a problem for people with other worldviews who happen to believe in magic. I think what Magnet is getting at is that when it comes to epistemology and ontology, we're all just monkeys trying to navigate an infinitely complex maze in the dark. Getting pissy at another monkey who repeatedly runs into the same wall strikes me as uncharitable. And if Brett is bothering you that much, there's an entire forum where he can't interact with you.
"Magic doesn't exist" isn't a "belief". "People cannot fly" isn't a "belief". "You can't cure disease just by touching someone" "you can't create complex, multicellular objects out of nothing" "you can't walk on water" are not "beliefs". He said And I pointed out that no, "conflicts with beliefs" is not the only reason he runs into skepticism. And who said anything about Brett?
This is starting to sound like a semantics issue. I think those are all beliefs. I also think they're all true. I honestly don't see the conflict here. Maybe we should define belief before moving on? As I understood Magnet, he was trying to use the example of religion to show that it's hard for all of us to deal with evidence that conflicts with our worldviews. This was in reference to previous posts where people were calling Brett a liar. You seemed to get sidetracked into a discussion on the historical evidence for Christianity, which I thought you were doing to refute the argument that Brett isn't mendacious. I believed that at the time because you called Brett a "Libertarian Shithead", and because you were making a case for Brett being a liar earlier in the thread. It also seemed like a really weird point to get sidetracked on in isolation of the larger discussion.
Sorry, I overlooked your replies earlier. Baldr pretty much replied as I would have, but I'll post this because I already typed it up! I am using "belief" in the philosophical sense: a premise one holds to be true. For example, I believe I am using a computer right now to type this response. I also believe magic doesn't exist. I did. Brett has various strong beliefs about how the market works. He generally rejects evidence offered to contradict those beliefs. We complain, but it's not an unusual characterisic. If someone offered me evidence to contradict "magic doesn't exist", I would very likely find some reason to reject it because it contradicts my strong beliefs.
This isn't true at all. Archaeological evidence is the gold standard of proof in ancient history. Anything that doesn't have archaeological evidence to back it up is suspect, to one degree or another. (Hell, even things that do have archaeological evidence to support them are often still suspect, since the evidence can usually be interpreted different ways.) But even if your statement were accurate, that would simply mean that ancient history often doesn't have empirical evidence. Which is true, actually. So that means you shouldn't use the term. See, "empirical evidence" doesn't mean "the best evidence we have". It means "evidence that can be observed first hand", which usually means the evidence can be re-created and viewed at will. Actually, it is because the quality of evidence is inferior that I'm more skeptical. "Evidence" doesn't only refer to things that directly address the issue at hand. The term can encompass all of our experiences. And in the case of Jesus, I have a lifetime of experience (aka actual empirical evidence) that argues against the biblical account.* Again, this isn't true. We do have a concept in this culture of lying to yourself. It's a well established phenomenon that I think everyone would agree is real. But it simply doesn't fit your definition of lying, no matter how you squeeze and morph the term. Your definition is too limiting, and thus too generous to people who are engaged in different forms of lying. Yet again, this is untrue. If someone chooses willful ignorance, I am not impoverished in any way. The fault (and impoverishment) lies completely with them. *Here I'm talking about the biblical account as a literal account. Smarter Christians read the bible in a more allegorical light, which puts it beyond empirical evidence.
I'm glad you brought that up. It's true that a "lifetime of experience" is commonly considered superior to evidence that is not directly experienced. And that's exactly why I think Brett won't ever be convinced of anything on the topics we discuss. Yes, and an essential element is to recognize a contradiction in one's own beliefs. I have not seen Brett ever recognize any self-contradiction. Any brought to his attention are always dismissed by his lifetime of experience.
