Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian debate in danger of pollution (was Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:47:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1028 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> It is said that there is more evidence for the life of Christ than
> of George Washington, yet I don't see you doubting the claims that he was
> the first president - a fact you CANNOT prove without such evidence about
> which I could make equally as foolish arguments as you do.
I don't have any reason to doubt that Jesus the man existed, and I don't
think that's what Larry's suggesting, either. And I've heard the
witness-evidence-that-would-stand-up-in-court argument before. Similarly,
I've heard it asked why we (skeptics and/or atheists) accept historical
accounts of battles or secular events, while we don't accept the same
testimonials about the life and works of Jesus. However, the argument falls
short when one considers the types of events being reported; I need more
than hearsay and oblique archaeological evidence to support the assertion of
Miracles twenty centuries ago.
I've read some of the "hostile witness" testimony you're describing, most
concerning the absence of a body in Christ's sepulcher. Interesting, to be
sure, but hardly conclusive, especially if one allows such explanations as
the smuggling off the cross of the still-living Christ, for which the
evidence is not significantly less strong. (Though, I grant you, this
doesn't explain just who Longinus poked with his spear...)
The problem is that the stakes are higher in accepting the evidence for
Christ (about which you've already made some excellent points) and accepting
the evidence for George Washington. That is, no one is claiming that
Washington walked across the Delaware or multipled the wooden teeth (which
weren't wooden, I know); the claims made about Washington are grounded in
earthly matters and don't purport to have delved into the supernatural.
> Also, I doubt that you would be willing to give your life for the story you
> told. If they knew it was contrived then why did they die in poverty
> defending it, they had no reputation to uphold, they were scum to most.
As a straightforward (ie; not being a smart-alec) question, how much
wealthier would the early Christians have been had they not followed Christ?
Not to dismiss you out of turn, but the Branch Davidians likewise gave
their lives for the story someone told, and there are countless examples
throughout history of similar sacrifices made in the name of someone else.
> This is nothing original to your intellect but merely a base emotional
> aversion to some religiously overbearing figure out of your past - something
> I have intimated several times and which you always side step.
That may or may not explain Larry (and who can really explain Larry,
anyway?), but I can assert that there was no "religiously overbearing
figure" in my past. Rather, I suggest that we subject reports of miracles
and predictions to the same scrutiny to which we would subject claims of
telepathy, mind reading, and astral projection.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
