The absurdity of 'The Impossible Faith'

[lilpixieofterror]

Woah! Easy on the ad hominems there boy-o! For a start, my critical faculties (shape of my mind) are not necessary to work at McDonald's. I never stated that I had anything below my shoulders, no hands or working digits which are necessary. The resume I gave would have been terrible for McDonald's

I wouldn't doubt it.

I had no need to head into detail because my rebuttal was a broad one that attacked the argument's foundations, not its crenellations. I called them propsesteous because that was my opinion. Whether there is much of a difference between that opinion and simple dislike is another matter.

Maybe if you actually understood the foundation and actually develop an argument nobody would of made fun of you, but it's the fact that no where has JPH said he had any kind of 'special access' and the fact that 70% of the world still lives under the honor/shame society and collectivist is proof that JPH's sources are not talking out of their rear end, but have some real life examples to make their case. So this objection that JPH and his sources have some kind of 'special access' is absurd.

Of course your sources weren't privileded, but you treated them as if they were.

How on earth is writing about a society that is not unlike most of the world today 'privileged information'? Ever actually traveled or lived outside of a western country before buddy or are you just thinking that the entire world functions just like we do here in the west? Actually, the reality is that westerns society is not only smaller, but newer. No special access needed to study something that still exist today.

You studied the material and drew up what could only ever be a provisional list of things that would make a religion appealing or unappealing. That's fine. But it seems a little silly when you can go one better. We've got a complete specimen of a religion that actually did succeed waiting for you to study. You wanna work out what got people going back then? You look at that. Instead of doing this, you put together a hypothesis that made, retrospectively, a false prediction. That was not very clever.

I see that the density of your skull is close to that of a block of concrete, so far you haven't answered a thing and just blathered on like a fool. Please, name three religions, that started just like Christianity, in that same society, that are still around thousands of years latter. Can you? Bet you can't name them... I'm sure we'd all like to hear what you got.

[jpholding]

Woah! Easy on the ad hominems there boy-o! For a start, my critical faculties (shape of my mind) are not necessary to work at McDonald's

OIC. You're the doorstop there.

I kinda figured that from the quality of your...."arguments"....like this:

You wanna work out what got people going back then? You look at that. Instead of doing this, you put together a hypothesis that made, retrospectively, a false prediction. That was not very clever.

May I make a suggestion?

Try for coherence first. Then work on arguments.

[lilpixieofterror]

May I make a suggestion?

Try for coherence first. Then work on arguments.

Oh JP, be serious, he can't even understand that most of the world is not like where he lives, you really expect him to be coherent?

[aisiantonas]

If one wished to know what whipped people up into a religious fervour back then, I suggest you study that. Quite unwisely, you opted instead to put together a hypothesis based on your own sociological and anthropological understanding of a people that lived twenty centuries ago and with it made, retrospectivcely, a false prediction.

Understand that, or should I find a bigger font?

[jpholding]

If one wished to know what whipped people up into a religious fervour back then, I suggest you study that. Quite unwisely, you opted instead to put together a hypothesis based on your own sociological and anthropological understanding of a people that lived twenty centuries ago and with it made, retrospectivcely, a false prediction.

Understand that, or should I find a bigger font?

What we understand is that you have nothing of substance of say, but want to take the time to say it anyway.

I already know what got "religious fervor" going back then....Christianity scored a zero on that. Too bad for you.

Thank you. Now feel free to go back to the daycare before your mommy misses you.

[aisiantonas]

Maybe if you actually understood the foundation and actually develop an argument nobody would of made fun of you, but it's the fact that no where has JPH said he had any kind of 'special access' and the fact that 70% of the world still lives under the honor/shame society and collectivist is proof that JPH's sources are not talking out of their rear end, but have some real life examples to make their case. So this objection that JPH and his sources have some kind of 'special access' is absurd.

That was never my objection. I will spell out my objection:

From his understanding of anthropology and sociology JPH has drawn up a list of features which would kill any religion in first century Judea before it got of the ground.

Christianity has these features

Ergo Christianity's rise was an impossible one. Ergo the only explanation for its success is divine intervention.

Objection: Maybe JPH is wrong. Maybe those features aren't as debilatating as he thought and it was possible, if improbable, for Christianity to have gotten where it has today.

This would neuter the force of the argument entirely, reducing it from a proof of Christianity's claims to a statement of belief about the spread of the faith. To reclaim the argument as knock-out blow for the heathens would require an assertion of JPH's infallibility. It is this infallibility that I was referring to when I spoke of 'privilege'. My second objection, the one which I mentioned at the start, is this: on what grounds does he claim that privilege?


Oh and by the way, girl with a head sculpted entirely of breeze-block, the 'model' religion I was talking about was Christianity itself. Idiot.

[T-Shirt Ninja]

Objection: Maybe JPH is wrong. Maybe those features aren't as debilatating as he thought and it was possible, if improbable, for Christianity to have gotten where it has today.

Dear Mr. Vague,

Could you please give some EXAMPLES of how those features couldn't be as debilitating as JP thought?

[jpholding]

That was never my objection. I will spell out my objection:

I understood your objection. It's still a whole lot of jabberjawing without a lick of substance -- typical of your here from Day Uno.

To reclaim the argument as knock-out blow for the heathens would require an assertion of JPH's infallibility. It is this infallibility that I was referring to when I spoke of 'privilege'. My second objection, the one which I mentioned at the start, is this: on what grounds does he claim that privilege?

Um, it's called, "scholarship."

It's a shame your self-esteem is taking such a beating here, but your personal shortcomings are not our problem....nor much of an argument. Though I guess it would be the best one you have.

Oh and by the way, girl with a head sculpted entirely of breeze-block, the 'model' religion I was talking about was Christianity itself. Idiot.

Well, there's yet another statement from you in which coherence takes a priority backseat to shouting loud. Do you want to show us the entire collection now and save some time?

[Eric Schmidt]

That was never my objection. I will spell out my objection:

From his understanding of anthropology and sociology JPH has drawn up a list of features which would kill any religion in first century Judea before it got of the ground.

Christianity has these features

Ergo Christianity's rise was an impossible one. Ergo the only explanation for its success is divine intervention.

Objection: Maybe JPH is wrong. Maybe those features aren't as debilatating as he thought and it was possible, if improbable, for Christianity to have gotten where it has today.

And the reason to think JPH might be wrong is... what? Just suggesting he might be isn't enough.

This would neuter the force of the argument entirely, reducing it from a proof of Christianity's claims to a statement of belief about the spread of the faith. To reclaim the argument as knock-out blow for the heathens would require an assertion of JPH's infallibility. It is this infallibility that I was referring to when I spoke of 'privilege'. My second objection, the one which I mentioned at the start, is this: on what grounds does he claim that privilege?

We'll talk about "reclaiming" the argument once you've managed to raise a serious objection to it (if you ever do).

[jpholding]

Dear Mr. Vague,

Could you please give some EXAMPLES of how those features couldn't be as debilitating as JP thought?

Aw, sheesh, NOW look what you did! You scared the poor guy:

[T-Shirt Ninja]

If he can't take the heat, he can just stay out of the kitchen.

[lilpixieofterror]

If one wished to know what whipped people up into a religious fervour back then, I suggest you study that.

That is what the Impossible faith article does or are you just too stupid to notice that?

Quite unwisely, you opted instead to put together a hypothesis based on your own sociological and anthropological understanding of a people that lived twenty centuries ago and with it made, retrospectivcely, a false prediction.

Ummm no, I have read all of these factors in other books, The Impossible Faith simply combines all of these factors into one article. Do keep trying and maybe one day you'll convince somebody that your incredible stupidity is intelligence, but it's not going to work here.

Understand that, or should I find a bigger font?

The bigger the font, often times, the smaller the brain; although your brain is already pretty small to start with.

[lilpixieofterror]

That was never my objection. I will spell out my objection:

From his understanding of anthropology and sociology JPH has drawn up a list of features which would kill any religion in first century Judea before it got of the ground.

Yes it was your objection and if you actually have done your homework like your claim you have done instead of shouting on like a fool, you'd know your own words and argument. It seems your confusion did not end here and just kept going with the next sentence:

Christianity has these features

Ergo Christianity's rise was an impossible one. Ergo the only explanation for its success is divine intervention.

:strawman:

That right there is a strawman argument because anybody who read his article would find:

I propose that there is only one, broad explanation for Christianity overcoming these intolerable disadvantages, and that is that it had the ultimate rebuttal -- a certain, trustworthy, and undeniable witness to the resurrection of Jesus, the only event which, in the eyes of the ancients, would have vindicated Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

In other words twit, he concluded that Christian succeed because it was true, not because of some supernatural intervention. Right here this shows you either did not read the article, or just read a few paragraphs and didn't bother to read the rest. However; for amusement I will answer the rest of your ranting and even further your own shame...

Objection: Maybe JPH is wrong. Maybe those features aren't as debilatating as he thought and it was possible, if improbable, for Christianity to have gotten where it has today.

Too bad that isn't what the evidence says nor what his argument has said, huh? Do you always make up these stupid objections where you misunderstand the person's argument (or don't actually read their entire article) and just make an objection based upon your poor reading comprehension? Might want to go back to school and take a reading comprehension class because it seems you need one.

This would neuter the force of the argument entirely, reducing it from a proof of Christianity's claims to a statement of belief about the spread of the faith. To reclaim the argument as knock-out blow for the heathens would require an assertion of JPH's infallibility. It is this infallibility that I was referring to when I spoke of 'privilege'. My second objection, the one which I mentioned at the start, is this: on what grounds does he claim that privilege?

It would only destroy his claim if you can actually produce examples, but so far you can't and all you can do is throw up is "Duh! Maybe JPH is totally wrong!" That isn't an argument in the real world little boy and you must actually produce examples and not just ranting on and on like a fool.

Oh and by the way, girl with a head sculpted entirely of breeze-block, the 'model' religion I was talking about was Christianity itself. Idiot.

I'm the idiot and yet you can't even read an entire article and properly represent the person who wrote it. That's pretty amusing, I will enjoy you trying to bury this error because I have a feeling that just like many fundy atheist I run into... you're unable to admit when you are wrong.

[jpholding]

The bigger the font, often times, the smaller the brain;

I agree. He needs to start using fonts

THIS BIG.

[aisiantonas]

Irony is something you are all rather fond of, isn't it? Along with an abject failure to grapple with ideas or listen to your those who question you. You also seem utterly incapable of opening your mouths for anything other than curses and jibes. No matter. I will continue unabashed

Points I would like to pick up on: lilpixie of terror, you are quite right; talking about divine intervention was wrong and I was getting ahead of myself. Of course, this means you in turn were wrong when you claimed that I couldn't admit to being wrong, but I think I'll let you off on that one. Anyway, for now we will content ourselves with 'Ergo: Christianity could only have succeeded if it were true'. But in the end the difference is negligible - the divine imposed upon human affairs and miracles happened. Whether it was malicious or not, the result of it is that you are in the curious position of having made a straw man out of a straw man.
T-shirt Ninja, and all others who made similar demands, I'm afraid that I don't actually need to provide examples. My argument holds true for even the possibilty of a mistake on JPH's behalf. I will reformulate it once again, as a defence against a non-specific template of Impossible Faith mould Christological arguments:

From sociological and anthropological investigation, we can draw up a list of features that would ensure any religion possesing them in first century Judea would be a surefire dud.

Christianity possesed these features

Ergo: Christianity's rise should have been impossible. Ergo: The only explanation for Christianity's success was that it was true.

Objection: There is another possibility, one which the argument refuses to admit - our scholarship was imperfect, and the list we compiled was by no means infallible. The burden of proof is on you, not only to demonstrate how people might have been expected to behave, but how they had to behave. Unless one can make and justify a claim to complete infallibility, the argument can reach either conclusion.

So, we are left with two choices. Accept that Jesus was Son incarnate and that he died and rose again, or admit that what we can know about the minds of people who lived millenia ago has its limits.

I happen to have more faith in the fundamental unpredictability of human behaviour than I do in God, though I understand that you might think differently. But I defy you to offer an unequivacle proof that you think correctly