"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150580326.598241.75700@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Kurt Nicklas wrote:

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:1150537965.156820.242290@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:1150494972.499358.16830@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:1150452980.185595.223060@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:1150409209.292326.259560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:1150407584.393129.73870@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

There's no reason for anyone to believe you rather than
them.

And if we all agreed, would it make a difference to you?

Yes.

If all the Christian stories started converging on a single
interpretation,
that would suggest that they might be examining something
real.

So you have not ruled out the possibility that God could
exist
and
Christianity could be true?

No. I am a default atheist. I lack the belief in gods because
nothing
has
been presented to me that would cause me to believe in them.

So seeing all Christians unified with precisely the same
beliefs
would
give
you a reason to believe?

Yes, it would constitute a strong datapoint in their favor.

That's a logical fallacy, you know? Argumentum ad populum .

That's not the argument I'm using.

Of course it is. You are pretending that the fact that others hold to
a
belief that the belief must be valid.

No. That's not my argument at all. Figures you wouldn't get it.

It is observed that descriptions of real things tend to converge on a
single
representation, and it is observed that descriptions of imaginary
things
tend to diverge from a single representation.

"It is observed"? By whom? By you? By groups of people?

Science depends on that effect. If all the experiments designed to falsify a
hypothesis wind up converging on a single narrow conclusion, then that
conclusion is granted a high level of confidence.

I don't think you're really capable of using English with sufficient
precision to
talk about these subjects, you know.

So I am not say that the number of people who believe a thing
determines its
validity, I am saying that the congruency of the accounts is an
indicator of
validity.

That's simply saying the same thing in other words.

No.

Was the "congruity of accounts" in early 1930s Germany "an indicator"
of the validity
of the Nazi view of the world?

He didn't say it makes it true. He said (several posts back now) it's a
strong datapoint in their favor. Suppose two thousand different people
have two thousand disparate accounts of an object or event they all
claim to have seen. That is, they all believe it to be the same
objects, but the details differ so widely that they cannot possibly be
talking about the same thing. The lack of consistency gives you no
reason to believe that they saw this object or event or that it was
ever there to see. Now if the majority of them had extremely consistent
claims, while it would not be a proof, it would *suggest* that they
might have actually seen something real, and further investigation
would be warranted.

Is that clear enough?

He'll ask you the names of the 2000 people, and claim that the fact you
don't have those names means you are incapable of using English with
sufficent precision to discuss these issues.

If you actually had 2000 names, he would require a transcript of the
stories.

If you had those transcripts, he would demand to meet them all personally
before he would grant your premise. If even then.

Basically, his method of argument is Argumentum ad Split-Hair. Or Argumentum
ad Literal.

Chris Johnson wrote:

Kurt Nicklas wrote:

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:1150537965.156820.242290@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:1150494972.499358.16830@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:1150452980.185595.223060@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in message
news:1150409209.292326.259560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Kurt Nicklas" <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> wrote in
message
news:1150407584.393129.73870@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

There's no reason for anyone to believe you rather
than them.

And if we all agreed, would it make a difference to
you?

Yes.

If all the Christian stories started converging on a
single
interpretation,
that would suggest that they might be examining something
real.

So you have not ruled out the possibility that God could
exist
and
Christianity could be true?

No. I am a default atheist. I lack the belief in gods
because
nothing
has
been presented to me that would cause me to believe in them.

So seeing all Christians unified with precisely the same
beliefs
would
give
you a reason to believe?

Yes, it would constitute a strong datapoint in their favor.

That's a logical fallacy, you know? Argumentum ad populum .

That's not the argument I'm using.

Of course it is. You are pretending that the fact that others hold
to a
belief that the belief must be valid.

No. That's not my argument at all. Figures you wouldn't get it.

It is observed that descriptions of real things tend to converge on a
single
representation, and it is observed that descriptions of imaginary
things
tend to diverge from a single representation.

"It is observed"? By whom? By you? By groups of people?

I don't think you're really capable of using English with sufficient
precision to
talk about these subjects, you know.

So I am not say that the number of people who believe a thing
determines its
validity, I am saying that the congruency of the accounts is an
indicator of
validity.

That's simply saying the same thing in other words.

Was the "congruity of accounts" in early 1930s Germany "an indicator"
of the validity
of the Nazi view of the world?

He didn't say it makes it true. He said (several posts back now) it's a
strong datapoint in their favor. Suppose two thousand different people
have two thousand disparate accounts of an object or event they all
claim to have seen. That is, they all believe it to be the same
objects, but the details differ so widely that they cannot possibly be
talking about the same thing. The lack of consistency gives you no
reason to believe that they saw this object or event or that it was
ever there to see. Now if the majority of them had extremely consistent
claims, while it would not be a proof, it would *suggest* that they
might have actually seen something real, and further investigation
would be warranted.

Is that clear enough?

Clear enough to know that YOU don't know what you're talking about. It
remains
a use of the opinion of "two thousand people" or "a large group of
people" or "a majority" or a "significant number of persons".

If several million people chose to look the other way while several
million other people were gassed and burned would that constitute "a
strong datapoint" indicating that the first group is right in what they
did?

But of course this is all understandable. It's understandable why
argumentum ad populum makes sense to an atheist...you guys don't really
have any other standard, do you?