Comments on: Center of Attention http://themoderatevoice.com/11146/center-of-attention-36/ An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:31:05 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: C Stanley http://themoderatevoice.com/11146/center-of-attention-36/comment-page-1/#comment-55360 C Stanley Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:35:20 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/media/blogging/center-of-attention-36/#comment-55360 Gray, Good points about the criticism of the odds calculation. However, I didn't find Polimom's statement to be a smear against faith. I felt she was simply saying that faith doesn't rely on probabilities. We would believe even if the odds were proven to be against it, because that's the nature of faith and that's its strength, not a weakness. It's like having faith in a person even if he or she has screwed up 1000 times you never give up on him. Faith simply ignores the odds and believes anyway, and that's a good thing. Gray,
Good points about the criticism of the odds calculation. However, I didn’t find Polimom’s statement to be a smear against faith. I felt she was simply saying that faith doesn’t rely on probabilities. We would believe even if the odds were proven to be against it, because that’s the nature of faith and that’s its strength, not a weakness. It’s like having faith in a person even if he or she has screwed up 1000 times you never give up on him. Faith simply ignores the odds and believes anyway, and that’s a good thing.

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/11146/center-of-attention-36/comment-page-1/#comment-55317 Gray Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:14:02 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/media/blogging/center-of-attention-36/#comment-55317 "And only fanatics wanting to smear christian beliefs would spread it." Oops, no misunderstanding, pls. This wasn't aimed at you, Mike. I wanted to target those who triumphantly report this as if it has some scientific value, with the intention to hurt Christians at one fo their core beliefs. “And only fanatics wanting to smear christian beliefs would spread it.”

Oops, no misunderstanding, pls. This wasn’t aimed at you, Mike. I wanted to target those who triumphantly report this as if it has some scientific value, with the intention to hurt Christians at one fo their core beliefs.

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/11146/center-of-attention-36/comment-page-1/#comment-55316 Gray Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:10:43 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/media/blogging/center-of-attention-36/#comment-55316 "Gray: rest asured - it’s not my opinion, I simply quote from the article." That's how I understood it. I didn't want to make it sound as if I think you endorsed this, sry, Mike. But I wonder about Polymom's stance: "600 to 1 odds aren’t nearly long enough to overturn faith. And frankly, they shouldn’t be. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be faith, would it?" Besides citing the incorrect calculation of the odds, what does Polymom want to say to us here? That faith is foolish? :-/ “Gray: rest asured – it’s not my opinion, I simply quote from the article.”

That’s how I understood it. I didn’t want to make it sound as if I think you endorsed this, sry, Mike. But I wonder about Polymom’s stance:

“600 to 1 odds aren’t nearly long enough to overturn faith. And frankly, they shouldn’t be. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be faith, would it?”

Besides citing the incorrect calculation of the odds, what does Polymom want to say to us here? That faith is foolish?
:-/

]]> By: Michael van der Galien http://themoderatevoice.com/11146/center-of-attention-36/comment-page-1/#comment-55291 Michael van der Galien Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:01:32 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/media/blogging/center-of-attention-36/#comment-55291 Gray: rest asured - it's not my opinion, I simply quote from the article. Gray: rest asured – it’s not my opinion, I simply quote from the article.

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/11146/center-of-attention-36/comment-page-1/#comment-55224 Gray Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:48:25 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/media/blogging/center-of-attention-36/#comment-55224 "press ‘1′ for English" Makes perfect sense to me. English is the #1 language in the US, so press '1'. What do those folks want? They prefer '6'? :P “press ‘1′ for English”

Makes perfect sense to me. English is the #1 language in the US, so press ‘1′. What do those folks want? They prefer ‘6′?
:P

]]> By: Gray http://themoderatevoice.com/11146/center-of-attention-36/comment-page-1/#comment-55217 Gray Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:26:37 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/media/blogging/center-of-attention-36/#comment-55217 "The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb." Nonsense. The only interesting point is the 'Jesus son of Joseph' inscription, and the 'Discovery' story says it "appeared once out of 190 times". In other reports, Archaelogists say they found hundreds of 'Jesus' graves so far, so it's perfectly normal that at least one of them had a father named Joseph. What's the big deal? The point is, there's no evidence whatever that Jesus ever married, so it's absurd to make believe that a tomb for a 'Jesus son of Joseph' and 'Mariamne' together has any significance. All this tomb shows is that 'Jesus' and 'Joseph' were quite common names during that time. The idiotic calculation (1:600) only makes sense if other, unconnected evidence suggests that this combination of names was what we were looking for before the grave was found. It's sloppy usage of the calculus of probabilities. It would be the same as if I asked you, Mike, for the names of your close relatives, calculated the chances for such a combination, and then declared how very impropable your very existence is. Of course, this would be nonsense, since after hearing the names from you I have to know that the chance is actually 100%. Also, think about the fact that the 'Mariamne' here was the only one whose tomb was additionally marked with a greek inscription. Yeah, sure, that's how I guess they buried Jesus: Simply as the son of Joseph, with his 'wife' being praised as 'master'. Really makes sense, right? Only total idiots would believe such a story. And only fanatics wanting to smear christian beliefs would spread it. “The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb.”

Nonsense. The only interesting point is the ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ inscription, and the ‘Discovery’ story says it “appeared once out of 190 times”. In other reports, Archaelogists say they found hundreds of ‘Jesus’ graves so far, so it’s perfectly normal that at least one of them had a father named Joseph. What’s the big deal?

The point is, there’s no evidence whatever that Jesus ever married, so it’s absurd to make believe that a tomb for a ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ and ‘Mariamne’ together has any significance. All this tomb shows is that ‘Jesus’ and ‘Joseph’ were quite common names during that time. The idiotic calculation (1:600) only makes sense if other, unconnected evidence suggests that this combination of names was what we were looking for before the grave was found. It’s sloppy usage of the calculus of probabilities. It would be the same as if I asked you, Mike, for the names of your close relatives, calculated the chances for such a combination, and then declared how very impropable your very existence is. Of course, this would be nonsense, since after hearing the names from you I have to know that the chance is actually 100%.

Also, think about the fact that the ‘Mariamne’ here was the only one whose tomb was additionally marked with a greek inscription. Yeah, sure, that’s how I guess they buried Jesus: Simply as the son of Joseph, with his ‘wife’ being praised as ‘master’. Really makes sense, right?

Only total idiots would believe such a story. And only fanatics wanting to smear christian beliefs would spread it.

]]>