Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

TheLurker

RikuoAmero wrote: »

They probably exist, but I don't believe your claim that they are textually the same. Which is why I want evidence. I can't believe this claim unless I'm provided these documents to examine.

None of the surviving documents from this period are textually the same. No idea how that idea popped up on this thread.

RikuoAmero

TheLurker wrote: »

None of the surviving documents from this period are textually the same. No idea how that idea popped up on this thread.

Given that, then hinault is talking out of his...ya know...when he makes this claim of textual identically. Without examination, what basis does he have?

hinault

RikuoAmero wrote: »

They probably exist, but I don't believe your claim that they are textually the same

So you accept that the documents exist but you don't accept that the documents are textually the same.

https://carm.org/illustration-bible-text-manuscript-tree-and-variant-readings

silverharp

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think it's surprising at all that the Jews didn't follow Jesus en masse. It is consistent with what we know about crowds and their behaviour. Jesus did not meet their expectations of what the Messiah would be. the experience of one crowd in Galilee was hardly going to dictate the actions of an entire nation.

I'm sorry but it doesn't take much in the way of miracles to get crowds into hysteria. You only have to look at non moving moving statues in Ireland to see that anything regarded as supernatural would move a crowd. Have Jesus feeding 5000 and on a second occasion feeding 4000 and he would have had an army of histerical followers
I would also suggest that Paul didn't believe that Jesus did miracles as per his Corinthian's "Jews demand signs.."

RikuoAmero

hinault wrote: »

So you accept that the documents exist but you don't accept that the documents are textually the same.

https://carm.org/illustration-bible-text-manuscript-tree-and-variant-readings

Hinault, that site's statement of faith is just like AnswersinGenesis. In other words, I can't trust ANYTHING on that site, nothing whatsoever. This includes their claim of these documents and manuscripts being textually identical.

You've just massively shot yourself in the foot there, by not checking out who wrote that and what they profess.

The reason I can't trust Matt Slick (of all the people you had to link to, MATT SLICK?) or his site there is because they start out with predetermined conclusions and then work backwards from there, accepting only evidence that supports their conclusion and ignoring and rejecting all evidence that contradicts it.

hinault

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Hinault, that site's statement of faith is just like AnswersinGenesis. In other words, I can't trust ANYTHING on that site, nothing whatsoever.

You've just massively shot yourself in the foot there, by not checking out who wrote that and what they profess.

The reason I can't trust Matt Slick (of all the people you had to link to, MATT SLICK?) or his site there is because they start out with predetermined conclusions and then work backwards from there, accepting only evidence that supports their conclusion and ignoring and rejecting all evidence that contradicts it.

That's the argument that you'll put out regardless.

Here's another site to consider reading

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

marienbad

hinault wrote: »

I disagree.

Can you cite other texts within the region controlled by the Roman Empire, produced throughout diverse locations in that region during the 1st century which replicate exactly their textual content?

I don't understand what you are trying to say ? Are you saying Christian missionaries and travellers couldn't have carried them or what ?

The roman roads network was the most sophisticated up to that time and relatively speaking quite safe to travel , similarly with shipping lanes and such

RikuoAmero

hinault wrote: »

That's the argument that you'll put out regardless.

Here's another site to consider reading

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

Their site looks like it was designed in the early 90's and hasn't been updated since then. I know, not really a point against what they say, but from a first look perspective, it's a bit unsettling.

Also, I have to ask. You do understand that the claims of the religion of christianity are extraordinary, don't you? The claims of a man who can walk on water, conjure food into existence and later rise from the dead. For that, wouldn't you want extraordinary evidence?
So given that, wouldn't the evidence we require HAVE to be in the form of original manuscripts, not copies dated decades after? Even if we did in fact have original manuscripts for Mark, would that be enough in and of itself to satisfy the "extraordinary evidence" claim? After all, Mark is estimated to have been written 30 years after the event, more than enough time for people's memories of the events (if they actually happened) to have gotten muddled.
Why is it that this extraordinary claim for you is satisfactorily explained by what is in my view not really extraordinary evidence?

As for "that's the argument I'd put out"...what does that mean? That I would have made mention of Matt Slick's site's statement of faith even if it hadn't been there?

silverharp

marienbad wrote: »

I don't understand what you are trying to say ? Are you saying Christian missionaries and travellers couldn't have carried them or what ?

The roman roads network was the most sophisticated up to that time and relatively speaking quite safe to travel , similarly with shipping lanes and such

If the romans were able to carry out an empire wide census , I wouldn't have thought a chest of documents would be much of an issue

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Do you need to say things like this flat out? Can we not infer that this is your view, this is what you belief, based on what you say here?

What you infer is none of my concern.

I am addressing what people post in this thread, not what I imagine or infer their beliefs to be.

If you or someone else posts something in this thread that is demonstrably unreasonable or illogical then I have a perfect right to challenge that belief. I do not intend to be dragged off track by obfuscation about what you imagine I believe. I will keep on topic and see if you can actually admit that what you said was unreasonable or illogical.

I think this actually helps people to see through the larger claims that you and others make in this thread. If you will say things that are obviously not supportable, and go through various mental and verbal gymnastics to avoid admitting an error in a small thing, then that will obviously lead the unbiased reader to make a reasonable deduction about whether they can trust you when make larger claims - such as about the non-existence of God.

That is why I challenged your claim the other day that Paul had eaten bad mushrooms. At no point did I argue the case for the existence of God, or indeed for the accuracy of Paul's claims. I confined myself to pointing out that you were making a claim with zero evidence. Your inability to admit that helps others to assess your reliability when you make other claims.

Similarly, another poster today argued that, when it comes to knowing what happened in the 1st Century, a fourth Century text with no evidence of utilising earlier sources is relevant to assessing the historical value of a 1st Century text which relies on sources that are early enough to be contemporary with eye-witnesses. At no point have I argued that either text is true. I have simply concentrated on demonstrating that no reputable historian would support such a statement. The way you and others have rushed to deny that obvious truth, one poster going so far as to quite untruthfully accuse me of gross misrepresentation, speaks volumes when others assess your reliability in other claims you might make.

galljga1

hinault wrote: »

No.

I'm saying that manuscripts containing the exact same text, written contemperaneously, in diverse locations, separated by hundred (thousands) of miles from each other in the first century.

How do you explain this given the logistical circumstances that pertained (scarcity of ink/papyrus, few if any people being able to read/write, communication of the gospel orally but transcribed exactly textually across diverse locations) in the 1st century?

Isn't it reasonable to suggest that the fact that, for example, St Marks gospel written in Rome in 1st century, appears to be textually exactly the same as St Marks gospel written at the same time in Antioch, or Palestine, or Libya, that this is a incredible given the logistical hurdles?

On a separate point, no one can say if any of those surviving texts are the original gospel manuscripts. The thinking is that they are copies of an original document called the gospel. And I accept that.

However this doesn't take away from the fact that each copy, each edition, each manuscript, of St.Marks gospel hand written in one location is a textual replica of St Marks gospel written at the same time hundred of miles away.

Jesus H.C. (not often I use that term) please explain what your definition of 'contemperaneously' is. How do you know when they ere written or by whom? They could have been copies written in one place and distributed, copied again, redistributed ad nauseum. Stop this nonsense about logistical circumstances, people travelled and materials for the creation of these documents existed and were used.

TheLurker

Nick Park wrote: »

Similarly, another poster today argued that, when it comes to knowing what happened in the 1st Century, a fourth Century text with no evidence of utilising earlier sources is relevant to assessing the historical value of a 1st Century text which relies on sources that are early enough to be contemporary with eye-witnesses. At no point have I argued that either text is true. I have simply concentrated on demonstrating that no reputable historian would support such a statement. The way you and others have rushed to deny that obvious truth, one poster going so far as to quite untruthfully accuse me of gross misrepresentation, speaks volumes when others assess your reliability in other claims you might make.

As you are no doubt well aware (since I've already repeated it back to you), that was not the claim that was made.

You seem to spend most your time in this threat just trawling posters comments waiting to find a gotcha that you think you can discredit them with. You tried earlier with the magic mushroom comment, ignoring that no reasonable reading of the comment would infer that it was a statement to be taken as literally as you choose to.

And here you have purposefully flip the sarcastic tone of the original comment, taking it literally as well in order to argue against something no one said.

galljga1

hinault wrote: »

So you accept that the documents exist but you don't accept that the documents are textually the same.

https://carm.org/illustration-bible-text-manuscript-tree-and-variant-readings

Notice the re-occurrence of the word copies?

RikuoAmero

TheLurker wrote: »

As you are no doubt well aware (since I've already repeated it back to you), that was not the claim that was made.

You seem to spend most your time in this threat just trawling posters comments waiting to find a gotcha that you think you can discredit them with. You tried earlier with the magic mushroom comment, ignoring that no reasonable reading of the comment would infer that it was a statement to be taken as literally as you choose to.

And here you have purposefully flip the sarcastic tone of the original comment, taking it literally as well in order to argue against something no one said.

Exactly. I wasn't saying "magic mushrooms is THE explanation for Paul", I was mentioning it as a possible explanation for what Paul experienced. I mentioned how we know it's possible due to the access to said mushrooms in that era.
Basically, I was looking at this story of magic visions, and mentioning possible natural explanations that can suffice. Do I actually have evidence of mushrooms? No, but neither does Nick for his belief that Paul actually did see Jesus.
I would have done the exact same thing if in the middle of the night my daughter came up to me and said she saw Jesus. I would have looked at natural explanations first and the possible evidence supporting them e.g. dreams, hallucinations, fabrications.
If Nick wants to dismiss my natural hypothesis of bad mushrooms due to zero evidence...fine. I have no problem with that. That just leaves him at the null hypothesis. Paul's vision is now at the point of being unexplained. There's no evidence for bad mushrooms, and no evidence it was a real divine experience, thus no reason to take it seriously.

TheLurker

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Exactly. I wasn't saying "magic mushrooms is THE explanation for Paul", I was mentioning it as a possible explanation for what Paul experienced. I mentioned how we know it's possible due to the access to said mushrooms in that era.
Basically, I was looking at this story of magic visions, and mentioning possible natural explanations that can suffice. Do I actually have evidence of mushrooms? No, but neither does Nick for his belief that Paul actually did see Jesus.
I would have done the exact same thing if in the middle of the night my daughter came up to me and said she saw Jesus. I would have looked at natural explanations first and the possible evidence supporting them e.g. dreams, hallucinations, fabrications.
If Nick wants to dismiss my natural hypothesis of bad mushrooms due to zero evidence...fine. I have no problem with that. That just leaves him at the null hypothesis. Paul's vision is now at the point of being unexplained. There's no evidence for bad mushrooms, and no evidence it was a real divine experience, thus no reason to take it seriously.

In my experience a common phenomena among religious believers is that they are more than happy with the idea that they cannot support their beliefs but get very defensive at the idea that something demonstrates their beliefs are probably wrong.

So they would be more than happy with it being pointed out that there is no reason to suppose Paul actually saw Jesus as opposed to any of the other natural explanations, but get annoyed if any of those natural explanations are put forward (then the cry 'no evidence!' comes). I made this point a few posts ago but it seems to have not been picked up upon.

RikuoAmero

TheLurker wrote: »

In my experience a common phenomena among religious believers is that they are more than happy with the idea that they cannot support their beliefs but get very defensive at the idea that something demonstrates their beliefs are probably wrong.

So they would be more than happy with it being pointed out that there is no reason to suppose Paul actually saw Jesus as opposed to any of the other natural explanations, but get annoyed if any of those natural explanations are put forward (then the cry 'no evidence!' comes). I made this point a few posts ago but it seems to have not been picked up upon.

Let's go back to my daughter saying she saw Jesus. Now, let's pretend that for whatever reason, I am unable to examine her bedroom. This is analogous to us being unable to examine the scene of Paul's experience.
Do I have evidence for drugs? No.
Do I then rule it out completely, like what Nick is doing? Nope, I do not. I still know that drugs/bad mushrooms can and do cause hallucinations like what Paul described. Since it remains as a possible explanation, I cannot move forward and say "Yeah, my daughter did see Jesus"/"Paul did see Jesus". I need to be able to dismiss all possible natural explanations for this claim or any other similar claim before I can move forward to a supernatural one.

orubiru

Nick Park wrote: »

I think this actually helps people to see through the larger claims that you and others make in this thread.

such as about the non-existence of God.

That is why I challenged your claim the other day that Paul had eaten bad mushrooms. At no point did I argue the case for the existence of God, or indeed for the accuracy of Paul's claims. I confined myself to pointing out that you were making a claim with zero evidence. Your inability to admit that helps others to assess your reliability when you make other claims.

This is exactly why you are accused of misrepresentation.

Anyone could see that there was no CLAIM that Paul had eaten bad mushrooms. It was clearly a suggestion that you decided to interpret as the poster literally saying "Paul had just eaten some bad mushrooms".

Nobody here is saying that God does not exist.

The pattern seems to be that you make a claim "Paul had an encounter with the resurrected Christ". Then someone says maybe it was a seizure, sun stroke, dehydration, drug use, bad mushrooms, hallucination, whatever. You then say "Ha! You are making a claim now too! Since you were not there your claim (except it wasnt a claim) is just as valid (or not) as mine."

Much like some other posters, you are trying to drag reasonable questions or suggestions into an argument that goes round and round in circles until someone just gives up.

Its REALLY dishonest and its a pretty shameful and embarrassing way to defend your faith.

TheLurker

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Let's go back to my daughter saying she saw Jesus. Now, let's pretend that for whatever reason, I am unable to examine her bedroom. This is analogous to us being unable to examine the scene of Paul's experience.
Do I have evidence for drugs? No.
Do I then rule it out completely, like what Nick is doing? Nope, I do not. I still know that drugs/bad mushrooms can and do cause hallucinations like what Paul described. Since it remains as a possible explanation, I cannot move forward and say "Yeah, my daughter did see Jesus"/"Paul did see Jesus". I need to be able to dismiss all possible natural explanations for this claim or any other similar claim before I can move forward to a supernatural one.

Or to use an event more basic example, if you see a man on the street slumped over burping and ranting a light post your first thought will be "he's drunk" rather than "the lamp post is telling him something about the nature of reality"

The idea that Paul's claim of having a vision of Jesus warrants about as much attention. I feel as concerned to prove he was having a hallucinating than I do to prove the guy on O'Connell Street isn't communing with a ghost in the lamp post.

But again Christians are happy that I don't believe Paul so long as we don't start asserting he was not really seeing Jesus. I guess this is a psychological thing, it is easy to dismiss us for not believing, but as soon as we start asserting possible alternatives we risk disrupting the cognitive dissonance required to actually believe Paul was talking to Jesus.

Or to put it another way, they know it is silly, you don't have to participate, but please don't point this out. It breaks the collective spell if we talk about how silly all this is. The blood starts to boil at this point. I guess by actually discussing these alternatives out loud it becomes harder to pretend.

orubiru

hinault wrote: »

No.

I'm saying that manuscripts containing the exact same text, written contemperaneously, in diverse locations, separated by hundred (thousands) of miles from each other in the first century.

How do you explain this given the logistical circumstances that pertained (scarcity of ink/papyrus, few if any people being able to read/write, communication of the gospel orally but transcribed exactly textually across diverse locations) in the 1st century?

Isn't it reasonable to suggest that the fact that, for example, St Marks gospel written in Rome in 1st century, appears to be textually exactly the same as St Marks gospel written at the same time in Antioch, or Palestine, or Libya, that this is a incredible given the logistical hurdles?

On a separate point, no one can say if any of those surviving texts are the original gospel manuscripts. The thinking is that they are copies of an original document called the gospel. And I accept that.

However this doesn't take away from the fact that each copy, each edition, each manuscript, of St.Marks gospel hand written in one location is a textual replica of St Marks gospel written at the same time hundred of miles away.

Sorry, maybe I am misunderstanding you.

My understanding of what you are saying is that we have 2 documents.

Document A was written at Location A in Year X.
Document B was written at Location B, also in Year X.

?

So your argument is that if Document A and Document B are very similar then the event described in the documents surely happened?

I am OK with this.

BUT if Document A was written in Year X and Document B was written in Year X + 2 then we have a problem because there is no reason whyYthe document writer could not travel from A to B or no reason why the tale could not be passed on from person to person and no reason why a copy of the document couldnt be made and transported.

Now, if the dates were very specific then I would have no reason to doubt.

So, how specific are the dates on these two documents?

orubiru

TheLurker wrote: »

Or to use an event more basic example, if you see a man on the street slumped over burping and ranting a light post your first thought will be "he's drunk" rather than "the lamp post is telling him something about the nature of reality"

The idea that Paul's claim of having a vision of Jesus warrants about as much attention. I feel as concerned to prove he was having a hallucinating than I do to prove the guy on O'Connell Street isn't communing with a ghost in the lamp post.

But again Christians are happy that I don't believe Paul so long as we don't start asserting he was not really seeing Jesus. I guess this is a psychological thing, it is easy to dismiss us for not believing, but as soon as we start asserting possible alternatives we risk disrupting the cognitive dissonance required to actually believe Paul was talking to Jesus.

Or to put it another way, they know it is silly, you don't have to participate, but please don't point this out. It breaks the collective spell if we talk about how silly all this is. The blood starts to boil at this point. I guess by actually discussing these alternatives out loud it becomes harder to pretend.

Amen to that!

galljga1

TheLurker wrote: »

Or to use an event more basic example, if you see a man on the street slumped over burping and ranting a light post your first thought will be "he's drunk" rather than "the lamp post is telling him something about the nature of reality"

The idea that Paul's claim of having a vision of Jesus warrants about as much attention. I feel as concerned to prove he was having a hallucinating than I do to prove the guy on O'Connell Street isn't communing with a ghost in the lamp post.

But again Christians are happy that I don't believe Paul so long as we don't start asserting he was not really seeing Jesus. I guess this is a psychological thing, it is easy to dismiss us for not believing, but as soon as we start asserting possible alternatives we risk disrupting the cognitive dissonance required to actually believe Paul was talking to Jesus.

Or to put it another way, they know it is silly, you don't have to participate, but please don't point this out. It breaks the collective spell if we talk about how silly all this is. The blood starts to boil at this point. I guess by actually discussing these alternatives out loud it becomes harder to pretend.

Lurker,

That was me at the lampost. Stone cold sober. Was having a wee chat with Xenu. He legged it down Middle Abbey Street but is coming back on Sunday week.

hinault

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So given that, wouldn't the evidence we require HAVE to be in the form of original manuscripts, not copies dated decades after? Even if we did in fact have original manuscripts for Mark, would that be enough in and of itself to satisfy the "extraordinary evidence" claim?

Why is it that this extraordinary claim for you is satisfactorily explained by what is in my view not really extraordinary evidence?

The original manuscripts are not in circulation. Where are they?

Does it matter that the original texts are not available? I don't know.

The sceptic would suggest that they does matter, while not acknowledging the extraordinary fact that 99% of New Testament manuscripts/editions/copies textually replicate each other during the 1st century and all the logical obstacles that go with that replication.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

As for "that's the argument I'd put out"...what does that mean?

It means, Rik, that even when evidence is presented that you're predisposed to disregard all evidence that does not fit your worldview.
That's what it means.

RikuoAmero

that 99% of New Testament manuscripts/editions/copies textually replicate each other during the 1st century

Last time I ask this. Provide me evidence of this, and no, not a site that blatantly says it disregards evidence it doesn't like.

It means, Rik, that even when evidence is presented that you're predisposed to disregard all evidence that does not fit your worldview.

Remind me again which one of us linked to a website that blatantly disregards evidence that doesn't fit their pre-determined conclusion?

orubiru

hinault wrote: »

The original manuscripts are not in circulation. Where are they?

Does it matter that the original texts are not available? I don't know.

The sceptic would suggest that they does matter, while not acknowledging the extraordinary fact that 99% of New Testament manuscripts/editions/copies textually replicate each other during the 1st century and all the logical obstacles that go with that replication.



It means, Rik, that even when evidence is presented that you're predisposed to disregard all evidence that does not fit your worldview.
That's what it means.

No it doesn't matter. We know all about Gilgamesh, for example, even today.

The issue here is why do you folks need to insist that your Jesus mythology is real? Why is it important to insist that it really happened?

Are the teachings of Jesus invalidated if His miracles are just stories? I don't think so.

Nick Park

orubiru wrote: »

The pattern seems to be that you make a claim "Paul had an encounter with the resurrected Christ". Then someone says maybe it was a seizure, sun stroke, dehydration, drug use, bad mushrooms, hallucination, whatever. You then say "Ha! You are making a claim now too! Since you were not there your claim (except it wasnt a claim) is just as valid (or not) as mine."

Much like some other posters, you are trying to drag reasonable questions or suggestions into an argument that goes round and round in circles until someone just gives up.

Its REALLY dishonest and its a pretty shameful and embarrassing way to defend your faith.

Really? You have just accused me of a pattern of behaviour, citing a specific example, and accused me of dishonesty in doing so.

Now I'm going to call you out on that.

In post number 1014, posted at 11.18 on the 9th of March, RikuoAmero made his claim about the magic mushrooms. He didn't say "maybe it was a seizure, sun stroke, dehydration, drug use, bad mushrooms, hallucination, whatever" as you falsely claim. He said, and I quote him verbatim, "He's a guy who as far as I'm able to determine ate some bad mushrooms and tripped out in the desert".

So that's untruth number one in your account of things.

Now for untruth number two. You have asserted that RikuoAmero made that claim in response to me claiming that Paul had an encounter with the risen Christ.

Really? That should be quite easy for you to prove shouldn't it? So do it. You can easily use the search function, or you can click on my name and see all the posts I have made over the last few weeks. Please link to the place where, in this thread prior to 11.18am on the 9th of March, I made a claim that Paul had an encounter with the risen Christ.

I am asking you to demonstrate where that happened. When you find that you can't, then I would ask you to have the common decency to apologise for making false statements about me. It would be nice if you also acknowledged the bare-faced hypocrisy of accusing me of dishonesty in a post where you have actually falsely misrepresented what Rikuoamero said and then made a false and scurillous accusation against me. That really takes the biscuit.

RikuoAmero

"He's a guy who as far as I'm able to determine ate some bad mushrooms and tripped out in the desert".

Huh. I left out the word probably. I've got to be more careful with what I write.

Nick Park

TheLurker wrote: »

In my experience a common phenomena among religious believers is that they are more than happy with the idea that they cannot support their beliefs but get very defensive at the idea that something demonstrates their beliefs are probably wrong.

So they would be more than happy with it being pointed out that there is no reason to suppose Paul actually saw Jesus as opposed to any of the other natural explanations, but get annoyed if any of those natural explanations are put forward (then the cry 'no evidence!' comes). I made this point a few posts ago but it seems to have not been picked up upon.

Instead of throwing out lazy stereotypes about religious believers, will you please cite the post where I made a gross misrepresentation as you claim.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Huh. I left out the word probably. I've got to be more careful with what I write.

I think the word 'probably' would have been a slight improvement. Of course it would still have left you open for criticism for saying something was probable based on zero evidence. But I guess we should be grateful for improvements, no matter how small.

A far more sensible thing to say would have been, "There are any number of hypotheses as to what could have happened. He could have had sunstroke, been drunk, or even have eaten bad mushrooms." I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelid at that - you're perfectly entitled to your beliefs.

But when you made a statement that could not be supported by a single shred of evidence, then you opened the door. I simply went through it.

orubiru

Nick Park wrote: »

Really? You have just accused me of a pattern of behaviour, citing a specific example, and accused me of dishonesty in doing so.

Now I'm going to call you out on that.

In post number 1014, posted at 11.18 on the 9th of March, RikuoAmero made his claim about the magic mushrooms. He didn't say "maybe it was a seizure, sun stroke, dehydration, drug use, bad mushrooms, hallucination, whatever" as you falsely claim. He said, and I quote him verbatim, "He's a guy who as far as I'm able to determine ate some bad mushrooms and tripped out in the desert".

So that's untruth number one in your account of things.

Now for untruth number two. You have asserted that RikuoAmero made that claim in response to me claiming that Paul had an encounter with the risen Christ.

Really? That should be quite easy for you to prove shouldn't it? So do it. You can easily use the search function, or you can click on my name and see all the posts I have made over the last few weeks. Please link to the place where, in this thread prior to 11.18am on the 9th of March, I made a claim that Paul had an encounter with the risen Christ.

I am asking you to demonstrate where that happened. When you find that you can't, then I would ask you to have the common decency to apologise for making false statements about me. It would be nice if you also acknowledged the bare-faced hypocrisy of accusing me of dishonesty in a post where you have actually falsely misrepresented what Rikuoamero said and then made a false and scurillous accusation against me. That really takes the biscuit.

I will apologise for saying that you claimed Paul encountered Christ. You did not claim that and you do not claim that so I am sorry. Sorry.

However, you should be clever enough to know that RikuoAmero was not claiming that Paul had eaten bad mushrooms. I, and everyone else, assumed it was just a joke and not a serious claim. You'd need to ask RikuoAmero about that but I saw it as not actually being a claim that Paul had eaten bad mushrooms.

You basically misinterpreted the post as a specific claim when the clear intention was to state that Paul was probably experiencing a natural phenomenon, not supernatural.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Let's go back to my daughter saying she saw Jesus. Now, let's pretend that for whatever reason, I am unable to examine her bedroom. This is analogous to us being unable to examine the scene of Paul's experience.
Do I have evidence for drugs? No.
Do I then rule it out completely, like what Nick is doing? Nope, I do not. I still know that drugs/bad mushrooms can and do cause hallucinations like what Paul described. Since it remains as a possible explanation, I cannot move forward and say "Yeah, my daughter did see Jesus"/"Paul did see Jesus". I need to be able to dismiss all possible natural explanations for this claim or any other similar claim before I can move forward to a supernatural one.

Again, you are misrepresenting me. Where did I rule out completely the possibility of drugs? Please cite the post where I did that. There's a search function and a quote function here. It shouldn't be hard to locate the place where I allegedly ruled it out completely.