(05-18-2021, 09:17 PM)Free Wrote: I don't assume they lied.
What we read is what we have.
Which would be an account of fiction, precisely.
Crucifixion argument....
|
(05-18-2021, 09:17 PM)Free Wrote: I don't assume they lied. Which would be an account of fiction, precisely. (05-18-2021, 09:17 PM)Free Wrote:(05-18-2021, 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:(05-18-2021, 05:17 PM)Free Wrote: Tell that to Nero and Pliny. Suppose they weren't consciously lying? Suppose they were merely wrong? Or insane? Suppose they were merely writing down the tall tales that others told them? Lies. Mistakes. Insanity. Credulousness. What's the difference?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
(05-19-2021, 12:09 AM)Minimalist Wrote:(05-18-2021, 09:17 PM)Free Wrote:(05-18-2021, 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So you just assume they always told the truth. Since Tacitus lists his numerous sources, I see no reason to think he would lie about anything. Since Pliny and Trajan each have a letter about it, I have no reason to doubt that corroborative information either. You are doubting because you want to, not that you have any valid reason to do so.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
(05-19-2021, 12:01 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:(05-18-2021, 09:17 PM)Free Wrote: I don't assume they lied. Except you have no valid justification to come to that conclusion.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
(05-18-2021, 09:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:(05-18-2021, 09:17 PM)Free Wrote:(05-18-2021, 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So you just assume they always told the truth. Give me a valid reason why I should think Tacitus, Pliny, and Trajan would lie. Take your time.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
(05-19-2021, 12:58 AM)Free Wrote: Except you have no valid justification to come to that conclusion. Of course, I do. Just as you have arrived at your own conclusion. Except that mine is more realistic. (05-19-2021, 01:05 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:(05-19-2021, 12:58 AM)Free Wrote: Except you have no valid justification to come to that conclusion. Mine has evidence to support it. You got squat. Thanks for playing.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
(05-19-2021, 01:19 AM)Free Wrote: Mine has evidence to support it. Quote: Since Tacitus lists his numerous sources He mentions Cluvius Rufus and Fabius Rusticus...neither of whom seem to figure prominently in the text and I can recall no instance where either is cited in reference to the supposed jesus....excuse me, Chrestus, bullshit. Neither of their works survived at all...a fate which befell Justus of Tiberias when it was found that he did not mention the godboy, either. You don't have a fucking clue where that supposed reference came from. I've seen jesus freaks invent all sorts of possibilities which they then proclaim a true ( Roman records, reports of Pilate, yada, yada, yada. You have one thin thread on which to hang an entire life story and you insist it is a cable to anchor a supertanker.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
05-19-2021, 01:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-19-2021, 01:36 AM by Free.)
Crucifixion argument.... (05-19-2021, 01:29 AM)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Since Tacitus lists his numerous sources Naww ... his sources were far more than that. "Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the sessions of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as those of Tiberius and Claudius. Tacitus also uses collections of letters (epistolarium). He also took information from exitus illustrium virorum. These were a collection of books by those who were antithetical to the emperors." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Sources
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
And you, in your borderline, mystic way, know which source he used for that particular piece of bullshit..... which NO OTHER WRITER IN ANTIQUITY knew fuckall about, right?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
05-19-2021, 01:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-19-2021, 01:50 AM by Free.)
Crucifixion argument.... (05-19-2021, 01:42 AM)Minimalist Wrote: And you, in your borderline, mystic way, know which source he used for that particular piece of bullshit..... which NO OTHER WRITER IN ANTIQUITY knew fuckall about, right? Now don't be doing the "moving the goalposts" thing again. The point is that he used numerous sources for his works and had access to a treasure trove of information. He was writing within a few decades of Nero, and was a contemporary.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
05-19-2021, 02:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-19-2021, 02:11 AM by Bucky Ball.)
Crucifixion argument.... (05-19-2021, 01:00 AM)Free Wrote:(05-18-2021, 09:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:(05-18-2021, 09:17 PM)Free Wrote: I don't assume they lied. Moving the goalposts gramps ? Nero and Pliny. They were the two I asked you about. Yeah, Pliny as he was an "upwardly mobile" dude, moving through the Roman Civil admin, and sucked up to the emperor , yeah he would't lie. LOL. Nero, he's a nut case who would have wanted to change the way history viewed him.
Test
The goal posts have not moved. I think Tacitus Annales 15:44 is a (much) later interpolation and you think it is real. This has never changed. We are just quibbling about facts ( in my case ) or wishes and hopes( in yours.)
The fact that the nearest thing we have to a citation of it is from the 5th century work of Sulpicius Severus which, a) does not cite Tacitus as a source and b) Severus doesn't mention the Christos (Chrestos) thing in relation to Pilate or him being a procurator. In Book 29 of his Sacred History he picks right up with the fire in Rome and Nero blaming the Christians ( or Chrestians) which is more likely. I once dealt with one guy and gave him a listing of ancient writers - xtian and pagan - which noted, as follows: "According to Tacitus, alone, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome. [i]Annals[/i], XV. This passage is not referred to in any other pagan, nor Christian writings until 400 CE." The guy went nuts....which was not a long trip for him under the best of circumstances. He insisted that was a lie. I invited him to take the list and prove the author wrong. Guess what. I never heard from him again which I regarded as a win-win! You want to take a crack at it? I still have the list.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
05-19-2021, 02:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-19-2021, 02:16 AM by Free.)
Crucifixion argument.... (05-19-2021, 02:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:(05-19-2021, 01:00 AM)Free Wrote:(05-18-2021, 09:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: ... and you believe what they say. I see. Of course Nero had no reason to lie. Do we have anything written by Nero about the situation to justify your accusation? And from where do you get your info on Pliny?
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
A quibble here, Buck.
All we know about Nero came from the writings of his enemies. Nero was deposed by the senate, not the army. As such, one must take such writings with a grain of salt. There was no popular uprising against Nero which suggests that he continued the traditional Julio-Claudian approach of keeping the people happy. He did this by taxing the rich and even back then, just like today, rich motherfuckers hated being taxed so poor people wouldn't starve to death. Pliny the Younger is a different case. It seems to me that he stumbled onto a band of Chrestians who were breaking one of Trajan's laws about holding private meetings (sedition, not religion, being the issue.) What he reports is almost like they were giving a ceremonial toast to Chrestus by eating a common meal - but nothing about changing into body and blood - and singing a hymn to Chrestus, quasi deo ( "as if to a god") which is a curious thing for supposed xhristards to say but "Chrestians" may have considered "Chrestus" to be a spiritual leader much as hasidic jews today follow a particular rabbi as if he is hot shit. They may have been honoring his memory and promising not to be scumbags. More religitards should try that. But this was private correspondence between Pliny and his boss. I have to think that if he had any hint of later xtian doctrine he would have said something like "Hey, boss. You won't believe what these assholes profess. They actually think that some dumb motherfucker who got himself nailed to a cross in Jerusalem 80 years ago was the "messiah" who was going to lead them to the promised land. What kind of idiot follows a dead criminal? Ain't that a knee slapper?" Of course, it probably would have sounded better in Latin.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
05-19-2021, 02:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-19-2021, 02:29 PM by Free.)
Crucifixion argument.... (05-19-2021, 02:11 AM)Minimalist Wrote: The goal posts have not moved. I think Tacitus Annales 15:44 is a (much) later interpolation and you think it is real. This has never changed. We are just quibbling about facts ( in my case ) or wishes and hopes( in yours.) The problem is you haven't provided any credible justification for that position, and the changing if an "e" to an "i" centuries later doesn't explain the rest of the text. Nor can you place any Christian scribe as anyone doing the wholesale altering as the text is clearly anti-Christian and distinctly Tacitian. Quote:The fact that the nearest thing we have to a citation of it is from the 5th century work of Sulpicius Severus which, a) does not cite Tacitus as a source and b) Severus doesn't mention the Christos (Chrestos) thing in relation to Pilate or him being a procurator. In Book 29 of his Sacred History he picks right up with the fire in Rome and Nero blaming the Christians ( or Chrestians) which is more likely. None of that changes what has come down to us from Tacitus, and instead is used as evidence to further substantiate the Neronian persecution of the Christians. Quote:I once dealt with one guy and gave him a listing of ancient writers - xtian and pagan - which noted, as follows: "According to Tacitus, alone, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome. [i]Annals[/i], XV. This passage is not referred to in any other pagan, nor Christian writings until 400 CE." Again, these unsupported arguments from silence don't change anything, and remain fallacious. Quote:The guy went nuts....which was not a long trip for him under the best of circumstances. He insisted that was a lie. I invited him to take the list and prove the author wrong. Guess what. I never heard from him again which I regarded as a win-win! You want to take a crack at it? I still have the list. If he's stupid enough to not recognize a fallacious argument from silence, that's on him. And guess what? I am nothing like him.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Quote:The problem is you haven't provided any credible justification for that position, I see the problem is that your refuse to consider anything on the subject unless it was claimed to have been written by one of your holy liars and certified by some theologian masquerading as a "historian." Again, I regard this as your problem. And, no. I didn't think you would dare to consider any list which does not support your position. Nonetheless, the FACT remains. No one in antiquity knew fuckall about Tacitus' supposed comment. I understand that it does not bother you. You won't let it. But it bothers the fuck out of me.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
(05-19-2021, 10:10 PM)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:The problem is you haven't provided any credible justification for that position, That's not the case with me. It's exactly like I said; it's a matter of probabilities. When I see what's written in Tacitus, I see absolutely no reason to doubt what I am reading. I have no bias to cloud my judgement which would cause me to think the way you do. You are looking for something wrong with it, and making assertions against it. You look at an "e" that was changed to an "i" to reflect that proper spelling of "Christian" and decide that it wasn't speaking of Christians, despite the fact that "Christ" is spelled properly, and we have numerous examples attesting to Chrestians and Christians referring to the same religious sect, as well as Christus and Chrestus also referring to the same person. I am an evidence based guy. Where there is evidence, I follow it and test it. I find absolutely nothing wrong with the evidence, and your assertions against it don't even make a dent in it. You constantly use arguments from silence without providing any direct evidence to support them. When you can't directly support those arguments from silence they becomes fallacious and can be dismissed because no reason has been given to accept them. But everything you believe about this stuff is never going to change what is actually there in the eyes of reason, nor in the eyes of those with far greater proficiency than you or I. It is what it is because there's nothing to prove that it isn't.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Quote: When I see what's written in Tacitus, I see absolutely no reason to doubt what I am reading. And all I'm saying is that you need to be more skeptical. The fact that NOT A SINGLE Xhristard writer ever mentions that passage doesn't bother you at all - even when they started whining about how badly they were "persecuted." Instead you trot out that tired old "Argument from Silence" routine. Well, there are lots of things that have no "evidence." Invisible pink unicorns. Martians landing in the Ohio Valley in the 14th century. Frie-breathing dragons. Witches. Honest republiKKKunts. I suppose you apply your same standard and accept all of those as real, too?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
05-21-2021, 05:41 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-21-2021, 05:42 PM by Free.)
Crucifixion argument.... (05-21-2021, 03:59 PM)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:When I see what's written in Tacitus, I see absolutely no reason to doubt what I am reading. I am as skeptical as the next person, but so far nothing has been presented to warrant any substantial need for the skepticism to overwhelm the evidence. Quote:The fact that NOT A SINGLE Xhristard writer ever mentions that passage doesn't bother you at all - even when they started whining about how badly they were "persecuted." Instead you trot out that tired old "Argument from Silence" routine. Aside from that being an argument from silence, it doesn't bother me at all that no Christians mentioned it. From what we read in Tacitus, it is not exactly something any early Christian would want to mention due to it being so unflattering of the Christian faith. He tells us the Christians were hated by the population, and that their beliefs were "mischievous superstitions." Why would any Christian have any need at all to refer to Tacitus? Quote:Well, there are lots of things that have no "evidence." Invisible pink unicorns. Martians landing in the Ohio Valley in the 14th century. Frie-breathing dragons. Witches. Honest republiKKKunts. Comparing the possibility of a man existing to the possibility that invisible pink unicorns exist is ridiculous.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Quote: Aside from that being an argument from silence, But I'm not as dismissive of the argument from silence as you are. Every archaeologist knows that the next shovel in the ground could overturn any current paradigm. But religitards reject anything that questions their bullshit and will simply refuse to accept any new evidence which might upset their holy little apple cart. It's a major difference between scientists and religitards. You don't want to be like Ken Ham, do you? He's a fucking asshole.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
(05-22-2021, 04:41 AM)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Aside from that being an argument from silence, What comes to my mind? The difference between verifiable evidence and unsupported imaginings...
Never argue with people who type fast and have too much time on their hands...
05-22-2021, 04:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2021, 04:45 PM by Free.)
Crucifixion argument.... (05-22-2021, 04:41 AM)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Aside from that being an argument from silence, Arguments from silence can only be persuasive at best, and that's only if there is some way to justify them. You are not providing any justification for your argument from silence, and that's exactly what makes it fallacious. "To make an argument from silence is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author's available writings. Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned. While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain. This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings." Conditions Required For An Argument From Silence To Be Valid: An argument from silence may apply to a document only if: 1. the author was expected to have the information, 2. was intending to give a complete account of the situation, 3. and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time. "Arguments from silence, based on a writer's failure to mention an event ... are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as fallacies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence In this case, to regard your argument from silence as even being weak at best would be charitably generous. Quote:You don't want to be like Ken Ham, do you? He's a fucking asshole. I am evidence based, not faith based.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Quote:You are not providing any justification for your argument from silence, and that's exactly what makes it fallacious. So...let me get this straight. You think that I should have to explain why no one in the first century ever heard or wrote about a miracle working god boy who supposedly came back from the fucking dead? Are you serious? It never happened. Even you think that never happened but I can't help but notice that you are perfectly willing to discard anything that you personally think is bullshit in order to get down to some concept you can live with. I have long since learned to let go of that last rung on the ladder.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|