• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What would you have done?

Sure and there are countless ways to see humor in this, but my question was serious what would you actually do if you found yourself in that position?

The question is clearly rhetorical since it leads to what you feel is the obvious answer. But you have provided no evidence or proof other than pure conjecture.
Let's take a closer look. Did MMLJ actually observe these so-called miracles? Obviously not, or they would have stated so in order to give their story more credence. Did they talk to someone who observed them? Again, no, or they would also have included such information. That is what true historians would do, is to research their story by finding participants or observers to provide support.
So what is the ACTUAL conclusion in this case: that MMLJ were simply repeating myths that had quickly grown up around this Jesus in order to give him the status that they myth-makers wanted, and what better way to do that than mythologized "miracles". Case closed.
 
The issue is the Bible proposes some rather extreme things that other societies DEFINITELY would have commented on. For instance, one of the Gospels says that when Jesus was crucified, dead people all over Jerusalem rose from the dead and walked all over the city talking to people.

You really think no one outside of the Bible would have written about that if it really happened?

The Romans loved to talk about the atrocities committed by Herod. But they make not a single mention of him supposedly ordering the execution of every male infant in a province. Why would they leave that out?
 
Most people in that day and age had the critical-thinking-skills of a brick. I've said this before: I don't take much stock in 2-3 thousand year old writings written by semi-illiterate goat herders.
One has to be trained to uncover tricks and bullsh!t. Here's a great example>> When the first movies were made (Black and white, of course), people couldn't believe what they were actually seeing..and worse..when movie makers first showed gigantic waves coming at the camera, people flew from their chairs and ran out of the viewing area/theater yelling and screaming.
After the 3rd-4th time, they got used to it and understood what was going on. Hard for us to imagine that scenario in this day and age. :)
 
what would you actually do to let every one know about you if you were all powerful and knew about all people and wanted all people to know you?

That isn't an answer, that's another question.
 
Strange how there are a lots of posts here but rather fewer actual answers.
 
That isn't an answer, that's another question.

1 you can answer would you talk to a few out of billions across millennia or would you find a better way?
 
1 you can answer would you talk to a few out of billions across millennia or would you find a better way?

I'll readily answer almost any question you ask, but I do think questions should be answered in the order they are asked.
 
I'll readily answer almost any question you ask, but I do think questions should be answered in the order they are asked.

Any yet in the past I have seen you avoid answering a question but demand an answer to one of your own. Situational ethics, I suppose.
.
 
Strange how there are a lots of posts here but rather fewer actual answers.

Not so strange that intellectual dishonesty gets the attention it deserve. Instead of demanding an answer to a set-up question and using cheap debating tactics, just make your case. Don't pretend you are really interested in getting answers to questions framed such that you expect only one answer. This is just another weak theist argument similar to the claim that is trotted out that no one would die for a belief that they knew wasn't true, so therefore the belief must be true. No, that is not the only conclusion. Another is that people really believe in something without requiring full objective knowledge that what they believe is factually true. So they can write down things that they strongly believe in without that being evidence of the things actually happening. People have all kinds of motivations for writing things down.
 
More ad-hominem, very well, if you must, you are who you are I suppose.

This is a very poor argument for the case that written records have no evidential value David, there are rather a lot of historians, archeologists and Egyptologists who'd be surprised to hear your view on this.

(Incidentally "evidence" is not the same as "proof" David, perhaps this is where you came off the rails?)

The evidential value is based upon what type of documents that they are. The bible is not considered a rendering of history.

Did I use the word "proof"?
 
Not so strange that intellectual dishonesty gets the attention it deserve. Instead of demanding an answer to a set-up question and using cheap debating tactics, just make your case. Don't pretend you are really interested in getting answers to questions framed such that you expect only one answer. This is just another weak theist argument similar to the claim that is trotted out that no one would die for a belief that they knew wasn't true, so therefore the belief must be true. No, that is not the only conclusion. Another is that people really believe in something without requiring full objective knowledge that what they believe is factually true. So they can write down things that they strongly believe in without that being evidence of the things actually happening. People have all kinds of motivations for writing things down.
Hear! Hear! Especially the first three sentences. They define Sherlock exactly.
 
Not so strange that intellectual dishonesty gets the attention it deserve.

That's a very obvious ad-hominem attack.

Instead of demanding an answer to a set-up question and using cheap debating tactics, just make your case.

So was that.

Don't pretend you are really interested in getting answers to questions framed such that you expect only one answer.

So is that (if you object to the question because you believe it has only one answer then why didn't you point that out?)

This is just another weak theist argument similar to the claim that is trotted out that no one would die for a belief that they knew wasn't true, so therefore the belief must be true.

It wasn't an argument it was a question.

No, that is not the only conclusion.

But you just complained that it was intentionally framed to have only one answer, you seem quite confused.

Another is that people really believe in something without requiring full objective knowledge that what they believe is factually true.

What question is that an answer to? not the one that I asked that's for sure.

So they can write down things that they strongly believe in without that being evidence of the things actually happening. People have all kinds of motivations for writing things down.

Very interesting amateur psychology David but not an answer to my very simple and rather polite question.
 
Last edited:
Your OP thesis was that people would write it down IF they observed a miracle. But it’s quite clear that MMLJ did not actually do so. So you nuke your own argument.
 
The evidential value is based upon what type of documents that they are. The bible is not considered a rendering of history.

I never mentioned the Bible David nor did I ever say it was a "rendering of history" so you're in danger of drifting into another strawman argument here.

Did I use the word "proof"?

No not explicitly but it seems you draw no distinction between "proof" and "evidence" or do you?

The fact is David that the earliest gospel manuscripts we have date from the 2nd century (100 - 199) AD, centuries before any "bible".

The facts are also that these documents are the most extant of documents from antiquity and their composition date is much closer to the events they describe than almost all other documents from antiquity.

These are both facts, by all means dispute then if you wish to.
 
Last edited:
I never mentioned the Bible David nor did I ever say it was a "rendering of history" so you're in danger of drifting into another strawman argument here.



No not explicitly but it seems you draw no distinction between "proof" and "evidence" or do you?

Ummm....your thesis has no merit if you can’t identify where it is that this information is written.
 
That's a very obvious ad-hominem attack.



So was that.



So is that (if you object to the question because you believe it has only one answer then why didn't you point that out?)



It wasn't an argument it was a question.



But you just complained that it was intentionally framed to have only one answer, you seem quite confused.



What question is that an answer to? not the one that I asked that's for sure.



Very interesting amateur psychology David but not an answer to my very simple and rather polite question.

I did point out your obvious tactic. That you call it simple and polite does not change its intellectual dishonesty. It is an argument posing as a question, as is clearly evident by how it is framed.
 
I never mentioned the Bible David nor did I ever say it was a "rendering of history" so you're in danger of drifting into another strawman argument here.



No not explicitly but it seems you draw no distinction between "proof" and "evidence" or do you?

The fact is David that the earliest gospel manuscripts we have date from the 2nd century (100 - 199) AD, centuries before any "bible".

The facts are also that these documents are the most extant of documents from antiquity and their composition date is much closer to the events they describe than almost all other documents from antiquity.

These are both facts, by all means dispute then if you wish to.

I did not use the word proof. Stop the intellectual dishonesty. My use of the word evidence means exactly what it says and nothing more is implied.

Close, but no cigar. None of the documents date from a time there were possible eyewitnesses writing down what they saw. It could only have been passed down orally until the point it was ever put into writing.

Other than the Bible, what other historical documents "report" these amazing events?
 
I did point out your obvious tactic.

Not really, all you've pointed out is that I wrote something you do not like, rather than discuss politely you instead elect to attack my integrity.

That you call it simple and polite does not change its intellectual dishonesty. It is an argument posing as a question, as is clearly evident by how it is framed.

Again accusing me of being dishonest is an ad-hominem attack David.

If you cannot reason without attacking my integrity then that's a very serious shortcoming in the efficacy of your own argument, nothing more.

So enough of this pettiness.
 
Last edited:
I did not use the word proof. Stop the intellectual dishonesty. My use of the word evidence means exactly what it says and nothing more is implied.

Yes and I admitted that above, you did not use the word "proof" I apologize, I stand corrected.

But I would like to ask you what you understand as the difference between "proof" and "evidence"?

Close, but no cigar. None of the documents date from a time there were possible eyewitnesses writing down what they saw. It could only have been passed down orally until the point it was ever put into writing.

I never said any of the manuscripts did date from the time there might have been eyewitness.

It is very obvious that a story will be passed on orally until the first time it isn't passed on orally.

I'll assume this is just an error on your part, I'd hate to imply that you were being dishonest.

Other than the Bible, what other historical documents "report" these amazing events?

None to my knowledge, there are some extra biblical "pseudepigrapha" manuscripts of course but other than these not much.
 
Last edited:
Not really, all you've pointed out is that I wrote something you do not like, rather than discuss politely you instead elect to attack my integrity.



Again accusing me of being dishonest is an ad-hominem attack David.

If you cannot reason without attacking my integrity then that's a very serious shortcoming in the efficacy of your own argument, nothing more.

So enough of this pettiness.

I am correctly pointing out your intellectual dishonesty. And correctly pointing out that you diguise your argument as a simple and polite question. In debating, not all questions require answers.
 
Yes and I admitted that above, you did not use the word "proof" I apologize, I stand corrected.

But I would like to ask you what you understand as the difference between "proof" and "evidence"?



I never said any of the manuscripts did date from the time there might have been eyewitness.

I never said that it couldn't be passed on orally until first written down, furthermore it is very obvious that a story will be passed on orally until the first time it's passed on in writing!

I'll assume this is just an error on your part, I'd hate to imply that you were being dishonest.



None to my knowledge.

You referred specifically to actions taken by Jesus, yet you dishonesty pretend you are asking an open hypothetical question. Then it turns out that the actions you specially pointed out were not written about at the time they happened.
 
I am correctly pointing out your intellectual dishonesty.

I know you are accusing me, you've accused me of being dishonest several times now, and it is an ad-hominem attack.

And correctly pointing out that you disguise your argument as a simple and polite question. In debating, not all questions require answers.

Well not everyone is prepared to answer questions, that's rather clear to me.

As for another accusation (this time of deceit it seems) I'm quite confident that my question is polite, here it is, the question is inherent from the title of the post too.

If you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described in the Gospels, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) I put it to you that you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event or ask someone else to do so, or do nothing, ignore the information.

So really the question being asked is: would you have had any other options?

There is no "disguise" David, the question is clear, if not clear then ask me to clarify.
 
Last edited:
You referred specifically to actions taken by Jesus, yet you dishonesty pretend you are asking an open hypothetical question.

Another ad-hominem, here's what I assume you're referring to David:

If you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described in the Gospels, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) I put it to you that you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event or ask someone else to do so, or do nothing, ignore the information.

Note that "miracle" is in quotation marks David, note too that "turning vats of water into wine" is prefixed with "e.g.", describing anything in that as dishonesty is an ad-hominem attack, nothing more.

The question is asking what you would do, had you lived some two thousand years ago, were you to witness something inexplicable, shocking, remarkable whatever it may be, for example someone turning water into wine.

The post then goes on to show that in the case of the gospels, these documents do fit the pattern of what we'd expect if they did originate from an event or observation like that, you've said nothing of substance that counters that view.

Then it turns out that the actions you specially pointed out were not written about at the time they happened.

I never said anything was "written about at the time they happened", this is a strawman argument David.

I'd hoped for a stimulating discussion about this but instead I get repeatedly insulted and attacked.

But this is no surprise I suppose, this is what atheism ultimately amounts to, where it always leads to, false accusations, personal attacks, assaults on one's character, vitriol; this is in fact what atheism is, this is what it looks like in the cold light of day.

In almost every discussion I've had with atheists in this and other forums, 99.9% of the time this is how it goes, this is how the atheists conduct themselves.
 
Last edited:
Not really, all you've pointed out is that I wrote something you do not like, rather than discuss politely you instead elect to attack my integrity.



Again accusing me of being dishonest is an ad-hominem attack David.

If you cannot reason without attacking my integrity then that's a very serious shortcoming in the efficacy of your own argument, nothing more.

So enough of this pettiness.

I doubt it. You've been doing it for all the months that I've been here, and I don't expect that to end anytime soon,
 
Another ad-hominem, here's what I assume you're referring to David:



Note that "miracle" is in quotation marks David, note too that "turning vats of water into wine" is prefixed with "e.g.", describing anything in that as dishonesty is an ad-hominem attack, nothing more.

The question is asking what you would do, had you lived some two thousand years ago, were you to witness something inexplicable, shocking, remarkable whatever it may be, for example someone turning water into wine.

The post then goes on to show that in the case of the gospels, these documents do fit the pattern of what we'd expect if they did originate from an event or observation like that, you've said nothing of substance that counters that view.



I never said anything was "written about at the time they happened", this is a strawman argument David.

I'd hoped for a stimulating discussion about this but instead I get repeatedly insulted and attacked.

But this is no surprise I suppose, this is what atheism ultimately amounts to, where it always leads to, false accusations, personal attacks, assaults on one's character.

Let's see. In one case, you claim it's all pure conjecture, and yet when you reference "2000 years ago", it becomes clear who you are referencing. So, as usual, you want to have it both ways: clearly referencing what you see as an actual event and yet claiming that it is just a bunch of "supposing". David was right to use the term: Dishonest.
 
Back
Top Bottom