On this suject i will cite Arthur Schopenhauer in The Art of Controversy : "But to speak seriously, the universality of an opinion is no proof, nay, it is not even a probability, that the opinion is right. Those who maintain that it is so must assume that length of time deprives a universal opinion of its demonstrative force, as otherwise all the old errors which were once universally held to be true would have to be recalled; for instance, the Ptolemaic system would have to be restored, or Catholicism re-established in all Protestant countries. They must assume that distance of space has the same effect; otherwise the respective universality of opinion among the adherents of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam will put them in a difficulty. When we come to look into the matter, so-called universal opinion is the opinion of two or three persons; and we should be persuaded of this if we could see the way in which it really arises. We should find that it is two or three persons who, in the first instance, accepted it, or advanced and maintained it; and of whom people were so good as to believe that they had thoroughly tested it. Then a few other persons, persuaded beforehand that the first were men of the requisite capacity, also accepted the opinion. These, again, were trusted by many others, whose laziness suggested to them that it was better to believe at once, than to go through the troublesome task of testing the matter for themselves. Thus the number of these lazy and credulous adherents grew from day to day; for the opinion had no sooner obtained a fair measure of support than its further supporters attributed this to the fact that the opinion could only have obtained it by the cogency of its arguments. The remainder were then compelled to grant what was universally granted, so as not to pass for unruly persons who resisted opinions which every one accepted, or pert fellows who thought themselves cleverer than any one else. When opinion reaches this stage, adhesion becomes a duty; and henceforward the few who are capable of forming a judgment hold their peace. Those who venture to speak are such as are entirely incapable of forming any opinions or any judgment of their own, being merely the echo of others' opinions; and, nevertheless, they defend them with all the greater zeal and intolerance. For what they hate in people who think differently is not so much the different opinions which they profess, as the presumption of wanting to form their own judgment; a presumption of which they themselves are never guilty, as they are very well aware. In short, there are very few who can think, but every man wants to have an opinion; and what remains but to take it ready-made from others, instead of forming opinions for himself? Since this is what happens, where is the value of the opinion even of a hundred millions? It is no more established than an historical fact reported by a hundred chroniclers who can be proved to have plagiarised it from one another; the opinion in the end being traceable to a single individual."
Affirmative arguments for the non-existence of Jesus
by WhatSexRU 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
quietlyleaving
Hi Lucretius
very interesting first post - how true and funny at the same time.
Welcome to JWD
-
Terry
King Arthur, Robin Hood, John Bunyon, etc. have quite a body of writings about them.
Was there an actual person somewhere/sometime who fits the mold?
It doesn't really matter.
Why?
We can't see them. We only have the embellishments?
-
AllAlongTheWatchtower
Not to detract from your point, which I tend to agree with...but who is John Bunyon? Or do you mean Paul Bunyan?
-
Lucretius
Thanks a lot quietlyleaving. :)
King Arthur, Robin Hood, John Bunyon, etc. have quite a body of writings about them. Was there an actual person somewhere/sometime who fits the mold? It doesn't really matter.
To believe in King Arthur or Jesus, it's not the same. Who puts his faith and future in King Arthur's hands ? The stake is very different. Compare Jesus and Julius Caesar. They belong to the same time. But the testimonies in favor of Caesar are more accurate (made by real historians and not apologetic) and credible (no miracle, no virginal birth). Remember the slogan repeated by David Hume : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Regards. PS : sorry i don't write english fluently.