Happy Atheist Forum

I stole this topic from epi406's post on WWGHA, but we have some christians on this forum who I would like to answer it. Here's the link (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=1695.0;topicseen) to the WWGHA thread.

epi406: There doesn't seem to be any firsthand written knowledge of Christ. Some early scholars such as Tacitus and Pliney the Younger make refrences to Christ and of course there is the New Testament. But there seems to be a complete lack of firsthand knowledge in any literature or records. Why do you think this is and what impact does this have on your view of Christainity?

John Not the Baptist: Quite simply, because Christ never existed. If he did exist, he didn't have any impact on society. It took a myth to grow into a legend before there was any impact on society at all. If such a person actually existed, others would have sought him out and written about him.

The fact that no reference to Christ exists outside of the New Testament proves that Christ didn't exist. Such tumultuous events would have been recorded elsewhere. It wasn't a remote part of the planet that was isolated for centuries at a time.The victors write the history. If the Romans successfully squelched Jesus (at least for a time) they would have written about it. It never happened.

Josephus and other contemporary historians referred to Christ in their writings.  Also the dead sea scrolls, the essence of which I don't believe, nonetheless mention Christ and His influence on society.  Many other archeological evidence also bears witness to Christ.   It is said (by secular historians, I may add), that there is more historical and archeological evidence for Christ than there is for Alexander the great and other historical figures.

Also, my belief in Christ is centered mainly on my own experience of His power and love in my life personally.  Purely historical, boring texts and writings would have meant nothing to me were it not for my own experiences in today's world, in my life.

That is the factor which clinches it for me.

Onlyme, some sources? I'm not just going to take your word for it that "It is said by secular historians that there is more historical and archeological evidence for Christ than there is for Alexander the great and other historical figures." Yup, feeling a little doubtful about that information.
Don't spout history without something to back it up. I could tell you that historians don't believe Elvis existed, but what does it mean if I can't tell you who and where they said it?

First there is very little information from first-century sources to begin with. Not much has survived the test of time from A.D. 1 to today. Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire (other than those of Philo) which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are:

An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.

An inscription that mentions Pilate.

Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.

Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.

From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.

From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]

LIST OF LINKS:

Highly reliable sources. There are two of these: Tacitus (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html) and Josephus. (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html).

Moderately reliable sources. We find three: Thallus (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/thallus.html), Pliny (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/pliny.html), and Lucian (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/lucian.html).

Marginally reliable or unreliable sources. Three are in this class: Suetonius (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/suey.html), Mara Bar-Serapion (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/serapion.html), and the Talmud (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/talmud.html).

QuoteIf the Romans successfully squelched Jesus (at least for a time) they would have written about it. It never happened.

This assertion seems to presume quite a bit about how and why the Romans would have categorized Jesus' life or death.  I find it hard to believe that the Romans kept a detailed list of every person they reprimanded or executed.  This argument looks back in hindsight taking the relative popularity of Jesus today in comparison with what his popularity was then and you can't compare the two.

Not to mention Court, there are "historians" who claim the Holocaust never happened. Just because it says "historians say" does not make it automatically true.

Well then.  We just shouldn't read or believe anything anyone says, it's safer that way, unless they agree with us that is.

Quote from: "iplaw"This assertion seems to presume quite a bit about how and why the Romans would have categorized Jesus' life or death.  I find it hard to believe that the Romans kept a detailed list of every person they reprimanded or executed.  This argument looks back in hindsight taking the relative popularity of Jesus today in comparison with what his popularity was then and you can't compare the two.

This is actually a very good point. He would have been just another crazy loon trying to start a new religion from the foundation of Judaism to them.

Quote from: "iplaw"Well then.  We just shouldn't read or believe anything anyone says, it's safer that way, unless they agree with us that is.

Well Ass-master, read my post again and really think about what I said before you try to put your word-dildo's in my mouth. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you're cool, and fuck you I'm out!

What's with the hostility? Posting primarily emotional has been a significant factor in the death of every good forum. Unless you are just joking around, but tone is hard to judge in text.

He drew first blood, I just want to return the favor by ripping out his heart and giving it to Kalima!

He put words in my mouth, nothing pisses me off more than having things attributed to me that I didn't say nor do.

But that's to be expected from Christians. They build things up that aren't there. Man where are some lions and collesiums when you need them?

Quote from: "Big Mac"But that's to be expected from Christians.

"Putting words in your mouth" is wrong (I agree) but a few sweeping generalizations are okay?

My philosophy is simple, kill one our guys, we kill 10 of yours. A head for an eye. A fist for a finger, a life for an injury.

Yawn...can we get back to the topic now.  Jassman, I think you get my point that it's like trying to reverse engineer historical context.  If you look into it, you will see that relatively little was recorded before and during the first century, and often even great historical figures were not written of until years, even decades after their passing.  Written historical mediums were not valued as greatly as they are today and oral repetitive history was the norm of the time.  Think about it...most people didn't even have the ability to read, what good were books back then?

http://www.godlessbastard.com/user/GB%2 ... 006-03.mht (http://www.godlessbastard.com/user/GB%20Virginia%20Monologues%202006-03.mht)

I've seen some of these before.  Here is a link to a guy who offers rebuttals to these copycat stories.

Christian Copycat Myths (http://tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html)

I love this story about the myth of Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln never existed (http://www.tektonics.org/af/abemyth.html)

Wow, that's long. I'll need to finish it later...

It's damn long and full of details.  Every myth is dealt with though.  I haven't read many of them other than Mithra.

Good grief,

I despair, I really do.

Hang on a minute.....no I don't

Woopeee!

Apparently you didn't realize that the Greeks and Romans created libraries and records. However when the Germanic tribes finally overran Rome and smashed everything, they also destroyed much of the documents that Romans had created. Hence we have the Dark Ages (which were perpetuated by Religion, by restricting the study of sciences and medicine and burning anyone who developed new ideas like Da Vinci and Copernicus). Now while many people did not know how to read, the ones who did tended to keep fairly accurate records. Otherwise we wouldnt' have things like the Illiad and the Odyssey.

Also on the Lincoln story, if it was the year they stated, by then they wouldn't be speaking the English we know today. Languages evolve quite often through the centuries. Look at American English, Aussie English, and English English. These creatures have many different usages of the same word. Of course I'm kind of  nit-picking here but also Lincoln was never attributed the same things as Jesus (walking on water, creating loaves of bread and fish out of only a few, healing the blind with his spit in dirt, etc.). So that story is rather moot.

You've raised some very good points here iplaw. I also wondered  that no historical "evidence" existed about Pilate until the early 1960's, when they found a plate with his name on it. I believe that Pilate was a much important man for the Romans than Jezus in those days. Nethertheless no written records were found about Pilate either. This doesn't prove however that Jezus truly existed (or not).

FIRST:
I don't know whether it was a simple typo or was on purpose but I am getting increasing irritated with the "Jezus" and "Burble" type comments.  They are fairly low-browed and disrespectful.  I don't go around saying
Ga(y)theist or athi(DUUH)st or "anti-god lover" or anything else of that caliber so let's step up the respect level for one another's beliefs.

SECOND:
Pilate's existence was also included in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus are considered good indicators of the physical existence of a person named Jesus especially since Tacitus didn't care for Christians.  Tacitus (c. 56 – c. 117) wrote two paragraphs on the subject of Christ and Christianity in 116. The first states that Christians existed in Rome in Nero's time. The second states that Christianity arose in Rome and Judea, and that "Christ" was sent to death by "the procurator Pontius Pilate". Tacitus' description of Christianity is decidedly negative, as he calls it a "dangerous superstition" and "something raw and shameful," which makes it improbable that the text was interpolated by later Christians.  Tacitus simply refers to "Christ" - the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah", rather than the name "Jesus", and he refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator", a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held - prefect or governor. In this instance the Gospel account is supported by archaeology, since a surviving inscription states that Pilate was prefect.  It is also possible that Pilate held both offices, which was common.

Seems funny to me that this person who some say never existed seems to inconveniently persist so well through the last 2000 years of human history.

Personally, I think Jesus was probably a real person...I'm just skeptical of the miraculous events etc. contributed to him.

I think most honest people who are not grasping at straws are probably in your camp.  There are probably other more convincing proofs to debating the deity of a human than are in debating their physical existence anyways.

Oh I think Jesus existed, but I doubt he could do anything that was attributed to him. Jesus is more of Cult of Personality. People freak out over him like they would if they were Moonies and his was Reverend Moon or Scientologist and he was Hubbard, or if they were in North Korea and he was Kim Jung Il.

Or if they were the UN and he was Hans Brix.

Exactly!

I don't remember Jesus busting anyones balls though like Mr. Brix.

He had Simon carry his cross. That's a pretty shitty thing to do.

Quote from: "Big Mac"He had Simon carry his cross. That's a pretty shitty thing to do.

Why is that, Bigmac?

Quote from: "onlyme"

Quote from: "Big Mac"He had Simon carry his cross. That's a pretty shitty thing to do.

Why is that, Bigmac?

YOu'd think the son of God could carry his own cross.....right?

Well, Bigmac, according to the bible, He carried everybody's sins, (not His own, for He was guiltless) and was cut off from God for doing so, as well as suffering abuse, hunger, persecution, injustice, betrayal, etc.  Do you really think that carrying a wooden cross for a few hundred yards would have really meant that much of a difference?  I think He allowed this, though, to give Simon of Cyrene an opportunity to partake in His sufferings.  Just my take on things, by the way.

There are several points, as outlined in "The God Who Wasn't There" that do bear some thought, mostly to do with timelines. It runs like this(I paraphrase):

Jesus is born. Dies 33 years later. The average age of people in those days was 35. The first gospel, mark? was written, at the very earliest, according to biblical scholars in A.D 70. It is unlikely (although not impossible) that someone could have witnessed Jesus birth story and lived until Ad 70. So the first gospel writers were not witnesses but passed on.

After Jesus is killed; what happens? Nothing. The church of Jerusalem (his family) consider his 'messianic' mission a failure and we hear nothing about him or the spread of christianity until Paul. In AD 40-45? who never met Jesus and appears to know nothing about Jesus life or any of his history. The birth, escape, Egypt, the miracles; nothing. All Paul mentions is the events leading to his arrest and the resurrection. Yet the Paulian story was passed onto the gospel writers. A man who never met Jesus onto men who never met Jesus and were the first to write the story down.

To this day, Christians find it difficult to explain what happened to Christianity post Jesus and pre-Paul.

No One else mentions Jesus throughout his life. He is walking round Galilee, curing people, raising the dead and it never attracts any attention from anyone. A historian during Tiberius reign mentions the christian movement(afterwards); nothing more.

The (convenient) references to Jesus by Josephus are now thought to be false and added later by the history writers. Biblical scholarship is in general agreement of this. Plus, (I think) Josephus refers to Jesus as the Messiah. Big mistake. Josephus was a Jew and as such did not recognise a Messiah.

We hear little about him from anyone until the gospels are accumulating, probably by now second hand if not third hand stories; nearly all originating from Paul - who was the first incidentally to credit Jesus with deity. it appears he thought he knew the spiritual Jesus better than his family who lived with him.

After that, Jesus becomes more and more an article of committee, finally acheiving full god like status at the Nicea meeting 325 years after his death. A God by committee.

Finally, the character of jesus dots all the 'i's and crosses all the 't''s to be a God. He gets born of a virgin (which is always a good career move for a God), born on 25th Dec. and of Royal lineage. Of course he is . Measured against all the other has been and never was Gods, he scores fewer than Mithras, Osiris, Dyonysus and all these other Gods that just happen to have the same impressive, repetetive, C.V.

When all the dead rose up and walked around Jerusalem city after Jesus died, no one, not the Romans, or the jews, or indeed the scant few members of the cult itself, happened to mention it. Not even the Jerusalem Times! That is very strange; one would think it would attract somones attention but no.

During the time jesus was said to be alive, there were several Jesus's and many accredited miracle workers, including one called Simon Magus who did far more impressive miracles than our Jesus character, and it seems better recorded.

One can certainly make a case for Jesus having never existed; his physical existence never drew the attention of anyone at all. This is without even drawing on the fallacies of his existence, such as Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt, being chosen to die instead of Barabbas etc.

Beleivers attempt to draw parallels with other 'historical' characters, tempted to state that we doubters accept the reality of another person with far less demands of fact. But the fact is, there are extraordinary claims made about the character of Jesus. Whether Socrates was a real person or a literary tool for Plato, is irrelevant. No one, least of all Plato, makes extraordinary claims about Socrates.

It is not impossible that jesus was a real person and if that were that; so be it. But the claims made about him, never made by him, or written down by him or recorded by anyone else during the time he was said to be alive are just far fetched and exactly in accordance with the dreams of writers intent on starting (yet another) new cult.

Holy shit. Sorry for the long post.

To nit pick:  Jesus actually wasn't born on the 25th of December...it was moved to that date in order to make it easier to convert pagans to Christianity.

Here's an explanation of how his actual stated birth date can be found in the bible:  http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/birthday.htm (http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/birthday.htm)

I realise that; I am saying that the date was selected; just as it was for Mithras and a few others. The date had pre-pagan significance indeed. It was another element that was utilised, later, to fit the profile.

In other words. He wasnt born then. They made it up.

Quote from: "Huxley"I realise that; I am saying that the date was selected; just as it was for Mithras and a few others. The date had pre-pagan significance indeed. It was another element that was utilised, later, to fit the profile.

In other words. He wasnt born then. They made it up.

I get what you were saying now.

I am going to start posting this link (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godthere.html) whenever I see people post "facts" from that movie.  Atheists should use better material containing some actual scholarship as opposed to stuff like this.  There are far better sources like Oppy (http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/phil/department/Oppy/)  who actually make decent arguments.  Reminds me of the movie "loose change, second addition" though.

Unfortunately for believers these 'points' are neither born out of or exclusive to the movie. Most have been part of the theological argument ever since it became illegal to burn someone for considering them.

QuoteUnfortunately for believers these 'points' are neither born out of or exclusive to the movie.

Ahhh, so this makes them true?  I watched the movie, have you actually read any of the material I linked to?  If you disagree with Holding please tell me where and why.

Here is an even better one from Mike Licona. Link (http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=87)

I'm interested in hearing your response.

I do not claim it makes them true; I state these points are not exclusive to the film and are debated by Biblical scholarship and theologists for many a year. It would be remiss of me to base an assumption on one set of writing.

That's a bit of a stretch.  There are some far out scholars who are on the fringes of scholastic debate who propose these ideas but most involved in the Jesus-myth are not the typical biblical scholar or theologist by any stretch of the imagination.  Which other scholarly writings composed by theologians or biblical scholars would you have us to read to back up your assertion?  There is such a raging debate between scholars after all.

I wouldnt recommend anything by a biblical scholar.

Cute.





Probably haven't read anything by one either.  I just want you to give me some texts where biblical scholars or theologians extol the Jesus-myth.  

Maybe if you actually read books by people who don't share your opinions you would broaden your horizons instead of smoke your own dope.  It's refreshing to hear an atheist come out and admit they read only books that support their ideas and never challenge their beliefs.  Sounds a little fundie to me... At least I have the guts to read Hume and Russell.

Nice Lawyer moves there. You are intentionally causing hostility in order to later point the finger and go "See, you non-believers are so hostile and close-minded." And I've read your "greatest" (I use the term loosely) source: the Bible. It's all laid out right there in all of its cultiness.

By the way, very Christian of you to be rude and condescending. He who is first shall be.......last, right?

QuoteYou are intentionally causing hostility

Hmmmm...not exactly sure what you are even talking about.  The point I was clearly making was that it's quite typical of fundie atheists not to read material that contradicts or challenges their concrete positions just like christians who don't read anything other than material that reinforces dogmatic ideology.  But nice conspiracy theory Big Mac.

Either way, you're trying to get people pissed off. I'm wise to you, Tex,  and your soulless kin. Lawyers are the scum of humanity.  That and Nazis and Dance Dance Revolution homos.

You have contradicted yourself here. Mommasquid pointed it out and you conveniently ignored her. Coincidence, innit?

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewto ... ight=#2142 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2142&highlight=#2142)

Quote from: "Big Mac"Lawyers are the scum of humanity.

Hey, not all lawyers are bad.


Anyway, um, play nice.

I don't see your point.   Nothing here is contradictory and I responded to her points directly.  Who am I trying to piss off?  Show me my words.  I think you don't like the fact that I get the best of you so you are trying attack me instead of my arguments.

Quote from: "iplaw"I don't see your point.   Nothing here is contradictory and I responded to her points directly.  Who am I trying to piss off?  Show me my words.  I think you don't like the fact that I get the best of you so you are trying attack me instead of my arguments.

Eh, I'm just wise to you.

I was being obviously hyperbolic when I said Lawyers are the Scum of Humanity. I'm getting a rise out of you. Come on, bite, bite.

I agree. I hate lawyers.

Quote from: "iplaw"I agree. I hate lawyers.

I thought you are one.

Quote from: "Big Mac"You have contradicted yourself here. Mommasquid pointed it out and you conveniently ignored her. Coincidence, innit?

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewto ... ight=#2142 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2142&highlight=#2142)

Thanks for noticing, Big Mac.  However, I am willing to let that topic die.  I proved my point and I know I'm right.

What did I ignore from you, I still don't see it.  I am more than willing to take on any argument you can muster.  I don't ignore any points to avoid debate, you should know this by now.

Right, and Jesus walked on water.

What do you mean, first hand accounts of Christ are missing?

I have given you my first hand account of Christ, at least in part.   This is a 20th century account, by the way.  What good would 1st century accounts be, if they didn't translate into modern, real, everyday life?

I Know that Jesus is alive.  I also know that you don't believe me.   Whether it be 1st century accounts, or 21st century accounts, you don't believe.  The witness has been here all along.

Quote from: "onlyme"I have given you my first hand account of Christ, at least in part.   This is a 20th century account, by the way.

Can't........stop........laughing!    :lol:

Wow, and L. Ron Hubbard is going to battle Xenu.

glad I made you laugh, mommasquid.

BTW, your signature about 'Dubya' Bush......

you don't think he is really a Christian, do you?  Or a patriot?

Maybe he's not a Real Christian (TM) like you. Judge not lest.......ye be judged yourself?

Here is a link to a debate about issues related to this topic that was held at Holy Cross university within the last few months.  It was between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Bart D. Ehrman.  Ehrman did not want the debate published for reasons that will become obvious as you read the transcript.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/cr ... script.pdf (http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf)

Hey Mommasquid...it might be helpful if you clarified that sig by noting that the anti-atheist comment was said by George H.W. Bush...the current Bush's father.

It's been kinda bothering me. You're attrubuting the quote to the wrong guy.

MikeyV

No, mommasquid is not attributing the quote to the wrong guy.  It's my mistake.  I should have looked at the date of the quote.

Still, original question stands, do you think he (bush senior and junior), is a Christian? And a patriot?

Quote from: "iplaw"Here is a link to a debate about issues related to this topic that was held at Holy Cross university within the last few months.  It was between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Bart D. Ehrman.  Ehrman did not want the debate published for reasons that will become obvious as you read the transcript.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/cr ... script.pdf (http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf)

No, it's not that obvious. I could understand if Dr. Craig didn't want it published, though.

His 4 historical "facts":

• Jesus' burial
• The discovery of his empty tomb
• His post-mortem appearances
• The origin of his disciples' belief in his resurection

are in no way, shape or form "facts". They are conjecture. So, he's using conjecture to "prove" the hypothetical resurection. Not to mention the simple fact that to believe any of it, you must first believe in god. So, he starts with an unproven premise, moves onto four conjectures that he labels "fact" and uses them to "prove" a hypothesis.

Then he poo-poo's the inconsistencies. So, he's even worse than an apologist. He doesn't even make a stab at reconciliation. He just brushes them off as irrelevant to the basic story.

Then, he moves into probabilities. Is he really expecting people to buy this? Does he really think he's mathematicaly proven the resurection? I can understand most of the audience buying it, they are the "choir" after all, but come on. Based on that ridiculous line of argumentation, I will be winning Powerball 8 times this month, without even buying a ticket. He has proven nothing.

Quote from: "onlyme"MikeyV

No, mommasquid is not attributing the quote to the wrong guy.  It's my mistake.  I should have looked at the date of the quote.

Still, original question stands, do you think he (bush senior and junior), is a Christian? And a patriot?

Well, yeah, she is. It was said by George H.W. Bush the former President of the United States, not George W. Bush, the current President of the US.

In any case, I think that maybe it would be a good idea if you Americans came and invaded England, in order to restore a democratic government here, which we seem to be lacking at present.

What do you think of the idea?

Quote from: "onlyme"In any case, I think that maybe it would be a good idea if you Americans came and invaded England, in order to restore a democratic government here, which we seem to be lacking at present.

What do you think of the idea?

Meh, we only invade countries that have something better than tea to give us. Like oil.

Read my post more carefully.  I never stated that this debate was one about non-cannonical literataure.  I said it was a related topic.

QuoteThey are conjecture. So, he's using conjecture to "prove" the hypothetical resurection. Not to mention the simple fact that to believe any of it, you must first believe in god.

Obviously he's debating a fellow PHD in theology who happens to disbelieve in the deity of Christ not his actual existence.  The actual life of Christ is only denied by a few fringe individuals and groups, most of whom aren't qualified to speak on the topic of historicity.  Neither man are fringe enough to debate whether 3 out of 4 of those topics actually happened.   Only #3 is actually debated amongst current scholars.  So the fact that you think they are "conjecture" just depends on which side of the fence you sit.

QuoteHe doesn't even make a stab at reconciliation. He just brushes them off as irrelevant to the basic story.

No he specifically states that those topics cannot be covered within the time frame given.  They are a debate in and of themselves and peripheral to the main point, one's which he has nevertheless debated ad nauseam in other forums.

QuoteThen, he moves into probabilities. Is he really expecting people to buy this? Does he really think he's mathematicaly proven the resurection? I can understand most of the audience buying it, they are the "choir" after all, but come on. Based on that ridiculous line of argumentation, I will be winning Powerball 8 times this month, without even buying a ticket. He has proven nothing.

Did you read why he moved into the probabilities argument?  He was directly atttacking the heart of Ehrman's assertions.  Ehrman was relying on Hume's misunderstanding of the statistical probability of miracles.  Bayesian probability is a commonly used and well accepted method for determining probabilities; whether the theory was applied correctly can be argued though.  Although I don't think he needed the expansive proof it was enough to say that Hume was ignoring fundamental aspects of probability theory.  As for your example you have to show me how you made your calculations before I can make a judgment about your analogy.

Quote from: "Big Mac"My philosophy is simple, kill one our guys, we kill 10 of yours. A head for an eye. A fist for a finger, a life for an injury.

To quote Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof
"Very good, then the whole world will be blind and toothless" in reply to someone saying
"an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth"  

Quote from: "Thiest"

Quote from: "Big Mac"My philosophy is simple, kill one our guys, we kill 10 of yours. A head for an eye. A fist for a finger, a life for an injury.

To quote Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof
"Very good, then the whole world will be blind and toothless" in reply to someone saying
"an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth"  

Well that's nice and all, but in war, you cannot be nice. It's all about who is willing to go all the way and take who out. That's why I love guerrilla warfare (aka asymmetrical warfare). It's all about that seemingly last-ditch effort.