|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Dec 12, 2017 16:15:53 GMT
I tend not to click on random links, so please spoil the ending for me. Was the detective's name "Dirk Gently"?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 12, 2017 18:29:11 GMT
Incidentally one can watch a pretty good atheist response to his book Cold Case Christianity here : Steve Shives? Is that Steve Shives? This is a joke, right? Well, I should have guessed he'd be one of your role models. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 20:47:44 GMT
Incidentally one can watch a pretty good atheist response to his book Cold Case Christianity here : Steve Shives? Is that Steve Shives? Yes Doctor Watson, you see there's a subtle clue in the way the channel is called "Steve Shives". It's elementary, really. Nope. If it were a joke, you would be telling me the reasons you think it's funny. But you're not, because this isn't a joke, it's just bluster from your usual "talk like a retard" schtick. Did I say he was a role model of mine? I must have forgotten about that part. Or maybe you just made it up... again.  |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 14, 2017 1:07:26 GMT
Let's forget the notion of Biblical eye witnesses for a second. There's no detective and no court in the land that would take four contemporary eye-witnesses who claimed to have seen/experienced miracles seriously. This is even true if we knew for 100% certain those four people were present for whatever event they supposedly witnessed. A handful of people claiming they saw/experienced something is good evidence for common occurrences, but is terrible evidence for anything supernatural. The Bible is far removed from even THIS standard of evidence though. In that case we have alleged eye-witness accounts that were written decades after the supposed events by unknown authors with no way of checking the veracity of either the authors or the supposed witnesses. There are no independent corroborative sources. They are not testable in any scientific sense. Plus, the Gospels conflict/contradict each other numerous times.
Basically, even in the best case scenario, eye-witness evidence is pitifully weak evidence for the supernatural, and The Bible is far, far, far, far removed from a "best case scenario." That a "detective" came to believe them is no more substantial than scientists that come to believe them; all it means is that detectives/scientists have one set of standards they use in their day job that they dramatically lower (if not drop completely) when it comes to their faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 3:53:53 GMT
In that case we have alleged eye-witness accounts that were written decades after the supposed events by unknown authors with no way of checking the veracity of either the authors or the supposed witnesses. This is worth reinforcing. We do not know who wrote the gospels. We do not know if those writers talked to anybody who actually witnessed what happened when jesus allegedly did his thing. The bible has no eyewitness testimony. None. It is the equivalent of me writing about things that happened in World War II and then somebody claiming this is a reliable eyewitness account because it's possible that somebody who was alive in 1945 was alive today and I might have talked to them about it and I might have accurately written down their first-hand take on it. Only in this case you'd take that into a court long after I was dead, with no idea whatsoever of who I was, and simply present it to the court as "Somebody wrote this, your honour." For a detective to pretend that this rises to the level of reliable eyewitness testimony is extraordinary. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 14, 2017 4:54:25 GMT
In that case we have alleged eye-witness accounts that were written decades after the supposed events by unknown authors with no way of checking the veracity of either the authors or the supposed witnesses. For a detective to pretend that this rises to the level of reliable eyewitness testimony is extraordinary. I'd rather say that it's sadly ordinary for otherwise rational, skilled, intelligent, knowledgeable, evidence-based people to drop all standards for reason and evidence when it comes to religion while still trying to pass off their beliefs as complying with those standards. I don't know how much of this is due to honest ignorance--as in they don't know they're being irrational and applying different standards--versus them being dishonest apologists looking for an angle. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 5:50:01 GMT
I hope someone is following up on this guy's 'detective' work, wouldn't want him working a murder case for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Dec 14, 2017 16:15:16 GMT
For a detective to pretend that this rises to the level of reliable eyewitness testimony is extraordinary. I'd rather say that it's sadly ordinary for otherwise rational, skilled, intelligent, knowledgeable, evidence-based people to drop all standards for reason and evidence when it comes to religion while still trying to pass off their beliefs as complying with those standards. I don't know how much of this is due to honest ignorance--as in they don't know they're being irrational and applying different standards--versus them being dishonest apologists looking for an angle. I think self deception plays a big role. There's a strong motivation for that (fear of separation from God/loss of salvation). That enables ordinarily rational people to suspend their judgement when God/faith come into the picture. |
|
