Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: Parse Tree (account_at_domain.extension)
Date: 01/28/05 

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:47:27 GMT

learner@juno.com wrote:
> In <46fKd.248156$f47.49184@news.easynews.com>, on 01/27/05
> at 11:49 PM, Parse Tree <account@domain.extension> said:
>
>>>However, there are many first hand accounts of people who saw Jesus after
>>>he was crucified, and there are records of Him being seen by other
>>>civilizations.
>
>
>>There are? Please point to both.
>
> This is not about whether there is a God or not. It is about people who
> like to set their own rules, make their own definitions, and use that to
> control the discussion.

Well, I admit that you tried those things, but you failed to control the
discussion.

> I am not about to try and prove the existence of God. Its not my place, it
> doesn't belong here, and I won't do it.

Ok. And I won't prove that there are a finite number of primes.

> Unless you live under a rock, like your ancestors apparently did, you know
> as well as I do that the writings being unearthed today in the middle east
> are filled with journals, and writings, of people who say they were
> witnesses to the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ.

No, I've never heard any credible evidence that there even was an
historical Jesus Christ.

> The LDS
> Church has scriptures and stories that testify to the visit of Jesus
> Christ to ancient inhabitants of Central America.

I think you mean LSD Church.

> There are many
> historical records from around the world that say the same thing.

Yes.

> There
> are many in our day who say they have seen Him,

Seen who?

> and you can laff, and you
> can deride them, and you will choose to say that they are liars, but you
> cannot say for sure that they did not see God.

Yes I can. Haven't you been paying attention this whole time?

> You can only say that you
> don't believe them, and that is up to you to decide.

Uh huh.

> I don't much care if you believe it, and I wonder about it too, but the
> FACT is that these are not just stories written by one person,

Yes, it's one of those group stories that never really amounts to much
quality.

> and each of
> the witnesses in these and other resources, all record the same thing,

Oh, they do? And what was this same thing?

> even tho the people who wrote them were scattered across the globe, and
> across time, with no internet or cell phone to coordinate their stories.

You don't need a cell phone to coordinate stories when there is no
timeframe with which to coordinate. I can claim to have seen Jesus
tonight, but that doesn't change the fact that such is not the case.

> That much evidence demands that intelligent people consider it.

Zero evidence demands that intelligent people consider it?

I think it demands that unintelligent people stop considering it.

> An
> intelligent person would check it out, consider it, and make a decision.

It's been done so many times. Past evidence is thrown out, and yet
people like yourself try to bring it back in, hoping that somehow it's
more valid, now.

> A
> fool just cries out that it is not really evidence.

Except if we follow your standard of evidence, I can pretty much
demonstrate anything to be true. How about that?

> You want to know about them, go look em up. Why should I do it for you?

Because all evidence for God that I have ever witnessed was false evidence.

> Its really chessy and childish to just find a web site that agrees with
> your point of view, and shove the URL into the post, like it is some kind
> of authority that we ought to bow down to. People who do that are just
> wasting everyone's time.

And yet I should bow down to you who has given no evidence, and flies in
the face of both empiricism and rationalism?

>>Witnesses are generally not credible evidence in the first place.
>
> Yikes!! Since when are witnesses generally not considered credible?

They may very well be considered credible by a lot of people, but that
doesn't make them credible. Witnesses provide very poor evidence.

> Have
> you notified the courts about this rule change?

What rule change? Courts are very well aware of how fallible witnesses
are. Even Hollywood is aware of this fact, based on the number of movies
about lawyers demonstrating the incorrectness of many witnesses.

> The entire justice system
> is based on that principle. You are so far out on that one, you may NEVER
> get back......

Since when has the justice system been based on witnesses? There are
plenty of cases in which there are no witnesses to a crime.

> There are a lot of things that you believe in, which are only based on the
> testimony of a witness. Its really unbelievable that you think your
> witnesses are okay, and anyone else's are of no value.

I don't need or use witnesses. All of my evidence is empirical or
rational. The rational evidence can be deduced on it's own, and the
empirical evidence can be repeated to demonstrate it's veracity.

> We have no common ground from which to proceed, as you do not believe
> that an eye witness is credible for anything, we are done.

Ok.

> As I told Kevin, people who like to discuss, listen to all sides, and make
> a choice, areworthy of another's time and consideration. People who just
> want to argue, stir the pot, and generally feel the need to put others
> down, change the rules, the defintions, and the topic, in order to avoid
> answering any questions are just total wastes.

I wouldn't call you a total waste. Perhaps that's going a bit too far.
Maybe mostly a waste.

> I am betting you will say that I am doing that, but you are actually the
> one who is deciding what is evidence,

Credible evidence, yes.

> and what is not, based not on the
> generally accepted terms, in order to insure that no one else can
> participate.
>
> One day, we will find out who is right, and who is wrong.

That day was a couple of days ago. It turned out I was right and you
were wrong.

> Until that
> time, you have no credibility from here.

I think it's funny that you think that I'd rely in some way upon
credibility. You can think that I'm not the slightest bit credible, but
that doesn't change the fact that my evidence is repeatable through
scientific experimentation, or deducible from first principles.

My evidence doesn't rely on you trusting people not to make mistakes.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another transitional fossil found.
    ... no one of them had any reason to write down an independent ... But anyway, many Flood stories are ... None of this is evidence that the stories ... assuming that there were even three witnesses. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... > witnesses to the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. ... > Church has scriptures and stories that testify to the visit of Jesus ... Zero evidence demands that intelligent people consider it? ... you have no credibility from here. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Another transitional fossil found.
    ... no one of them had any reason to write down an independent ... But anyway, many Flood stories are ... None of this is evidence that the stories ... assuming that there were even three witnesses. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another transitional fossil found.
    ... And don't you believe the flood story, despite it's having been witnessed, supposedly, by only 8 people? ... But anyway, many Flood stories are ... Further, the evidence they would have seen around them would also be evident to us, now, if it were actually true. ... But if he told them that the witnesses were their own parents, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Truckers asked to haul package for Drew
    ... solid evidence to present to a jury, ... And we had two corroborating witnesses -- a neighbor who saw the ... barrel being loaded into the SUV, and Stacy's sister, who had seen a blue ...
    (alt.true-crime)
Loading