Atheism (3)

[Dave Ellis]

abusive ad hominem,

all you need to say is....

it's wrong.

not "laughably wrong"

abusive ad hominem.

No, it's not.

 

[Dave Ellis]

then know that saying something is "laughably wrong" is an abusive ad hominem!

It's not.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I asked you what God's were quoted in pliny's works, I didn't see any.

He mentions that they made offerings to the Roman Gods.

 

[createdtoworship]

If it is true!
Of course, the dates for the birth of Zarathustra (Zoroaster) range between 1800 to 600 BCE, and three magi attended his birth, bringing gifts also. What's more, a wicked king, having heard the magi foretell that Zarathustra would be mightier than the king, tried to have him killed.

All this was BCE mind you.

here is a clip for you!

"many mythical accounts of dying and rising gods actually postdate the time of Christ:

1-There is no evidence of the influence of Mithraism in the Roman Empire until the end of the first century A.D.[vii]
2-The sacrifice of a bull by some Mithraists allegedly mimicking the substitutionary atonement of Christ first shows up in the second century A.D. [viii]
3-The four texts that cite the resurrection of Adonis date from the second to fourth centuries A.D.[ix]
4-The account of the miraculous birth of Zoroaster dates to the ninth century A.D.[x]

The most academically exhaustive work, a ponderous study entitled The Riddle of Resurrection by Tryggve Mettinger, concludes that even though some myths of dying and rising gods may predate the Christian era, the claims made regarding Jesus of Nazareth are distinct from them in three critical ways.

First, Jesus was a flesh and blood human whose resurrection happened in history at a precise topographical location on earth. Second, the mythical “resurrected” deities were invariably tied to the seasons of the agricultural cycle, “dying” and “rising” repeatedly every calendar year, while Jesus’ resurrection was a one-time event unrelated to seasonal changes. Third, Jesus died as a vicarious sacrifice for sins. There is no evidence of such an atonement in any other accounts.[xi]

Mettinger sums up the evidence this way:
There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions.[xii]

A Skunk in the Woodpile

In his work, The Gospel and the Greeks, Ronald Nash offers a handful of suggestions to protect the novice from being misled by dubious factual claims.[xiii]

Check the evidence in the primary sources. Don’t settle for a website citing a website that cites a website. Web postings often run in a circle, with each site quoting others without ever citing a primary source document (an original rendering of the ancient myth itself). Try to get as close to the original source as you can to reduce the chance that “facts” got distorted in the retelling. Make sure your evidence comes from an established authority in the field who has access to the original material.

Check the dates. Be sure the original records (not the original myth) predate the accounts that allegedly borrowed from them. Even ancient tales get amended over time.

Determine if the parallels are really parallel and significant. Similarities are frequently overstated or oversimplified. Many are inconsequential, like the claim ancient gods were born on December 25th. Some accounts trade on the kinship of phrases like “birth of the sun” vs. “birth of the son.” This word play only works, though, when rendered in English, a language that developed millennia after these events.

Beware of Christian language and terms being read back into the ancient account. Some refer to the death of Osiris as his “passion,” employing Christian terminology to imply a similarity that doesn’t exist. Any death can be called a passion, even when the passions themselves are wildly dissimilar. Also, no one should be impressed when Egyptian sun gods are called “The Light.”

As it turns out regarding the factual claims, once the primary sources of the ancient myths are consulted, a host of alleged similarities turn out to be fictions. The parallels remaining are usually far too general to be significant. Further, the dating of many of the ancient records completely undermines the argument because the stories appear too late in history to have any influence on the Gospels.

But that’s not the worst of it. Even if the characterizations of the myths were accurate—that Mithras was born of a virgin, and Osiris was resurrected from the dead, and Horus had a dozen disciples, and Dionysus turned water into wine, and Attis was crucified—there is something else fundamentally wrong with the Zeitgeist challenge. Even if the facts were accurate, it proves nothing. Here’s why.

A Titanic Coincidence

In 1898, Morgan Robertson published a novel entitled Futility. The story was a fictional account of a transatlantic voyage of the cruise ship Titan traveling between England and New York. The largest vessel afloat displacing 45,000 tons, the Titan was considered virtually unsinkable. Yet in the middle of the night in April, with three massive propellers driving the ship forward at the excessive speed of 25 knots, it collided with an iceberg and sunk. Since the number of lifeboats was the minimum the law required (though twice that was needed for its 3,000 capacity), more than half of its passengers perished.

Fourteen years later in April, the world’s largest luxury liner with a displacement of 45,000 tons—the indestructible Titanic—departed from England on a transatlantic voyage to New York. In the middle of the night, the Titanic’s triple screws drove the ship at the excessive speed of nearly 25 knots into an iceberg and sunk. Since the Titanic was fitted with less than half the number of lifeboats needed for its 3,000 capacity (the minimum the law required), more than half of its passengers were lost.

This real-life coincidence makes a crucial point. Regardless of the similarity between two accounts of different events, the second cannot be summarily dismissed as an invention simply because the first turns out to be fiction. Whether or not the details of the Titanic’s disaster are accurate is determined by its own body of evidence, unrelated to the fictional story of the ill-fated Titan that came before.

This is a critical procedural point, one best described by C.S. Lewis:
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.”… Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself....If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain…how I came to be so bad at arithmetic...but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely mathematical grounds....In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.[xiv] [emphasis in the original]

Lewis’s insight applies to our challenge. Remember the claim in question: Ancient myths explain the origin of the Jesus myth. The second false account was inspired by the first ones. Do you see the misstep? The New Testament account is presumed false; then the ancient accounts are invoked to explain the fiction. The argument of Zeitgeist turns out to be circular, assuming what it intends to prove.

Imagine introducing yourself to a stranger and sharing bits of autobiography only to be labeled a liar and an imposter. His evidence? In the past three months, 12 other phonies tried to pawn off the same story on him. When you offer identification, he ignores it. He’s already assumed you’re a fraud like the rest, no matter what bona fides you produce.

In addition to being offended, you’d probably be mystified. Clearly, he can’t prove you are lying about your identity by citing others who lied about theirs. No imposter of the past could logically foreclose on the possibility that you might be the genuine article. That must be decided on separate grounds. To paraphrase Lewis, one has to show that a person is lying before it makes any sense to speculate on where the lie came from.

In the same way, one first has to show that Jesus is a fiction before he starts explaining how the fiction came to be. Even if someone produced a thousand parallels with Jesus from the writings of antiquity, that alone would not prove He was just another phony. If the similarities were remarkable, it might raise eyebrows (“Not another one&#8221 and invite a closer look. But it would do nothing on its own to disqualify Christ. Only shortcomings with the specific historical evidence for Jesus can do that.

The Zeitgeist approach is an evasion, not an argument. It is not good enough to assume Jesus is a myth and then speculate on the genesis of the error. The primary source historical documents about Him—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—must be dealt with first, not dismissed with misleading talk about alleged literary relationships with ancient dying and resurrecting gods.

Jesus, Man of History

Professional historians do not believe the New Testament account is merely a retelling of an ancient myth. Though not endorsing every detail of the Gospel records (most academics reject the supernatural elements for philosophic reasons), scholars both liberal and conservative overwhelming agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a man of history.

Will Durant, the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, co-authored with his wife the most successful work of history in history, the 11 volume The Story of Civilization. In “Caesar and Christ,” in spite of the “many suspicious resemblances to the legends of pagan gods,” Durant concludes:
Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that many inventors would have concealed. No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of higher criticism, the outlines of the life, character and teachings of Christ remain reasonably clear and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.[xv]

The challenge in Zeitgeist is why we should consider the stories of Mithras, Horus, Attis, and the other pagan mystery saviors as fables, yet treat as factual a similar story told of a Jewish carpenter.

The answer is simple: There is no good evidence for the authenticity of any ancient mythological characters and their deeds, but there is an abundance of such evidence for Jesus. And if the historical documentation for the man from Nazareth is compelling, then it doesn’t matter how many ancient myths share similarities.

The Apostle Paul readily acknowledged that if Jesus’ resurrection was a myth and the witnesses were trading in lies, then Christians were a pitiful lot (1 Corinthians 15:19). And fools too, I might add, because it cost many of them their lives.

Nothing in the Zeitgeist recycled redeemer theory, however, suggests Christians have misplaced their confidence. The skeptics’ facts are unreliable and their thinking is unsound, so their challenge is doubly dead.

According to their own testimony, the New Testament writers were not following “cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). They were testifying not to myths, but to “sober truth” about events that had “not been done in a corner” (Acts 26:25-26):
What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also (1 John 1:1-3)."

from

Stand to Reason: Jesus, The Recycled Redeemer

 

[createdtoworship]

I see exasperated comments, due to a merry-go-round argument; not insulting remarks. It is difficult to participate in a debate in which one person uses vacuous pedantry as a way of communicating.

no excuse

 

[Dave Ellis]

no excuse

No excuse for what?

 

[Gracchus]

then know that saying something is "laughably wrong" is an abusive ad hominem!

It may be abusive. That is a matter of perspective. But it is not an "ad hominem", since what is said to be laughable is the assertion under discussion.

Now if someone accurately points out that you have made lots of absurd claims in the past, it does not demonstrate that any current claim is wrong. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Just so, even an utter idiot* can be right. That is why the argumentum ad hominem is a fallcious form.

Hope that clears things up for you.

*Note that I don't think you are an idiot. I am saying that even if you were, you could be right. (But I don't think you are!)

 

[createdtoworship]

It may be abusive. That is a matter of perspective. But it is not an "ad hominem", since what is said to be laughable is the assertion under discussion.

Now if someone points out that you have made lots of absurd claims, it does not demonstrate that any current claim is wrong. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Just so, even an utter idiot can be right. That is why the argumentum ad hominem is a fallcious form.

Hope that clears things up for you.

I personally don't care what you guys say to me. But for arguments sake, it just simply wrong.

 

[Belk]

abusive ad hominem,

all you need to say is....

it's wrong.

not "laughably wrong"

abusive ad hominem.

Do you understand the difference between you and your argument?

 

[Gracchus]

I personally don't care what you guys say to me. But for arguments sake, it just simply wrong.

You mean of course, "argument" in the sense of disagreement, and not "argument" in the sense of a presentation of facts and reasoning.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you understand the difference between you and your argument?

that is a red herring, avoiding the issue.

 

[createdtoworship]

You mean of course, "argument" in the sense of disagreement, and not "argument" in the sense of a presentation of facts and reasoning.

same thing (and you know it)

 

[Belk]

that is a red herring, avoiding the issue.

Since an ad hominem is about you, not your argument, it is directly relevant to your continued mislabeling of fallacies. Case in point your calling of red herring.

 

[createdtoworship]

Since an ad hominem is about you, not your argument, it is directly relevant to your continued mislabeling of fallacies. Case in point your calling of red herring.

nope, try again.

 

[Belk]

nope, try again.

Feel free to prove me wrong rather then resorting to simple denial.

 

[Dave Ellis]

nope, try again.

If I said you were a laughably sad human being... that would be an ad hominem. (I am not asserting you are I should add)

If I said your argument is laughably wrong, that is not an ad hominem. It is not a personal attack.


This is a demonstration, again, of your inability to accurately detect logical fallacies. Please stop throwing out accusations that simply are not true.

 

[createdtoworship]

If I said you were a laughably sad human being... that would be an ad hominem. (I am not asserting you are I should add)

If I said your argument is laughably wrong, that is not an ad hominem. It is not a personal attack.


This is a demonstration, again, of your inability to accurately detect logical fallacies. Please stop throwing out accusations that simply are not true.

thats a red herring

 

[createdtoworship]

Feel free to prove me wrong rather then resorting to simple denial.

no need, the evidence is in the pudding.

 

[createdtoworship]

Since an ad hominem is about you, not your argument, it is directly relevant to your continued mislabeling of fallacies. Case in point your calling of red herring.

actually fallacies are innacuracies within the argument

 

[dlamberth]

I'm wondering how we can get the subject back on track/



.