My Take On Jesus

[Bruce Burleson]

I'd take on Jesus. I'd just yank his beard and karate chop his neck. HI-YA!

And he would have forgiven you.

Surely that would only apply if MCJ believed in him and did all that being-born-again stuff, wouldn't it? For such a forgiving guy, he was pretty exclusive in the ones he was going to save from hellfire.

This is as good a place as any to state my position on "hell." I do not think that Jesus taught the concept of eternal torment. The worst that could happen is annihilation, which is what you expect anyway. I'm not going to go into the specifics, as that is off-topic. But suffice it to say that eternal torment is not a teaching of Jesus, IMHO.

[goodboyCerberus]

My point is that style can get lost during translation. Or, more to the point, put there by the translator. Whether it was Aramaic, Koine Greek, or Japanese (I'm assuming you can't read any of these), you can't know how Paul originally intended them to be read by original-language readers.

I can read Koine Greek. Studied it in seminary on my way to getting an MDiv. Aramaic - very minimal exposure. Japanese - haven't a clue except for "konichiwa."

Remember, Paul was converted when Jesus appeared to him from heaven on the road to Damascus, and then started building the early church and writing his letters.

Right. But when he was converted is irrelevant to the fact that he had some personal knowledge of Jesus physically. He says as much in II Cor. 5:16. I'm not concerned with what the New International Version or the King James Version says. I can read the Greek, and I know that "according to the flesh" means "physically."

Firstly, you are not reading the original copy. No one has an original copy. If you do have an original copy, turn off your computer right now and go turn it into a museum or something!

You are reading a copy, a copy of a copy, even if in the original language. Meaning is lost in translation. Or -- like I've said before -- more to the point, meaning is inserted.

Secondly, look at the larger meaning of that verse. In the Old Testament, people just died and that was it, there was no Heaven or Hell. Then Jesus came and changed that. The very idea of normal people going up to Heaven when they died was a new concept. Prior to that, a few special people were brought up by God.

16 (NIV) So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
16 (KJV) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

"He's not really dead! He is a spirit! In Heaven!"

17 (NIV) Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
17 (KJV) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

"As seen on TV!"

This is saying, "Yeah, he died, just like most people do. We're accustomed to that. But he was really the son of God we know he's still around -- get this -- in a place called Heaven."

Also, you ignored my Galatians 1 quote.

11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

When?!

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased
16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

He persecuted the early church. No mention of ever bumping into Jesus. Not until his conversion.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.
22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.
23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."
24 And they praised God because of me.

(It seems silly that he waffles on the issue of whether he talked to anyone after his revelation. "I didn't talk to anyone! Oh, except Peter. But no one else! Er, except James. But you can trust me that I'm telling you the complete truth.")

[goodboyCerberus]

This is as good a place as any to state my position on "hell." I do not think that Jesus taught the concept of eternal torment. The worst that could happen is annihilation, which is what you expect anyway. I'm not going to go into the specifics, as that is off-topic. But suffice it to say that eternal torment is not a teaching of Jesus, IMHO.

Would you discount Matthew, who was supposedly with Jesus on the night before his crucifixion?

Matthew 24:

1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings.
2 "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

4 Jesus answered...

Matthew 25:

31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

...

To quote Robert G. Ingersoll at length:

From my childhood I had heard read, and read the Bible myself. Morning and evening the sacred volume was opened and prayers were said. The Bible was my first history, the Jews were the first people, and the events narrated by Moses and the other inspired writers, and those predicted by prophets were the all important things. In other books were found the thoughts and dreams of men, but in the Bible were the sacred truths of God.

Yet in spite of my surroundings, of my education, I had no love for God. He was so saving of mercy, so extravagant in murder, so anxious to kill, so ready to assassinate, that I hated him with all my heart. At his command, babes were butchered, women violated, and the white hair of trembling age stained with blood. This God visited the people with pestilence -- filled the houses and covered the streets with the dying and the dead -- saw babes starving on the empty breasts of pallid mothers, heard the sobs, saw the tears, the sunken cheeks, the sightless eyes, the new made graves, and remained as pitiless as the pestilence.

This God withheld the rain -- caused the famine -- saw the fierce eyes of hunger -- the wasted forms, the white lips, saw mothers eating babes, and remained ferocious as famine.

It seems to me impossible for a civilized man to love or worship, or respect the God of the Old Testament. A really civilized man, a really civilized woman, must hold such a God in abhorrence and contempt.

But in the old days the good people justified Jehovah in his treatment of the heathen. The wretches who were murdered were idolaters and therefore unfit to live.

According to the Bible, God had never revealed himself to these people and he knew that without a revelation they could not know that he was the true God. Whose fault was it then that they were heathen?

The Christians said that God had the right to destroy them because he created them. What did he create them for? He knew when he made them that they would be food for the sword. He knew that he would have the pleasure of seeing them murdered.

As a last answer, as a final excuse, the worshipers of Jehovah said that all these horrible things happened under the "old dispensation" of unyielding law, and absolute justice, but that now under the "new dispensation," all had been changed -- the sword of justice had been sheathed and love enthroned. In the Old Testament, they said, God is the judge -- but in the New, Christ is the merciful. As a matter of fact, the New Testament is infinitely worse than the Old. In the Old there is no threat of eternal pain. Jehovah had no eternal prison -- no everlasting fire. His hatred ended at the grave. His revenge was satisfied when his enemy was dead.

In the New Testament, death is not the end, but the beginning of punishment that has no end. In the New Testament the malice of God is infinite and the hunger of his revenge eternal.

The orthodox God, when clothed in human flesh, told his disciples not to resist evil, to love their enemies, and when smitten on one cheek to turn the other, and yet we are told that this same God, with the same loving lips, uttered these heartless, these fiendish words: "Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

These are the words of "eternal love."

No human being has imagination enough to conceive of this infinite horror.

All that the human race has suffered in war and want, in pestilence and famine, in fire and flood, -- all the pangs and pains of every disease and every death -- all this is as nothing compared with the agonies to be endured by one lost soul.

This is the consolation of the Christian religion. This is the justice of God -- the mercy of Christ.

This frightful dogma, this infinite lie, made me the implacable enemy of Christianity. The truth is that this belief in eternal pain has been the real persecutor. It founded the Inquisition, forged the chains, and furnished the fagots. It has darkened the lives of many millions. It made the cradle as terrible as the coffin. It enslaved nations and shed the blood of countless thousands. It sacrificed the wisest, the bravest and the best. It subverted the idea of justice, drove mercy from the heart, changed men to fiends and banished reason from the brain.

Like a venomous serpent it crawls and coils and hisses in every orthodox creed.

It makes man an eternal victim and God an eternal fiend. It is the one infinite horror. Every church in which it is taught is a public curse. Every preacher who teaches it is an enemy of mankind. Below this Christian dogma, savagery cannot go. It is the infinite of malice, hatred, and revenge.

Nothing could add to the horror of hell, except the presence of its creator, God.

While I have life, as long as I draw breath, I shall deny with all my strength, and hate with every drop of my blood, this infinite lie.

Nothing gives me greater joy than to know that this belief in eternal pain is growing weaker every day -- that thousands of ministers are ashamed of it. It gives me joy to know that Christians are becoming merciful, so merciful that the fires of hell are burning low -- flickering, choked with ashes, destined in a few years to die out forever.

For centuries Christendom was a madhouse. Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, monks and heretics were all insane.

Only a few -- four or five in a century were sound in heart and brain. Only a few, in spite of the roar and din, in spite of the savage cries, heard reason's voice. Only a few in the wild rage of ignorance, fear and zeal preserved the perfect calm that wisdom gives.

We have advanced. In a few years the Christians will become -- let us hope -- humane and sensible enough to deny the dogma that fills the endless years with pain. They ought to know now that this dogma is utterly inconsistent with the wisdom, the justice, the goodness of their God. They ought to know that their belief in hell, gives to the Holy Ghost -- the Dove -- the beak of a vulture, and fills the mouth of the Lamb of God with the fangs of a viper.

Why don't you reject these teachings altogether? Why do you pick and choose? How are you able to pick and choose?

[Oldskeptic]

I just sent this PM to Duckphup on RDF. I don’t know that he’ll get it or not since he hasn’t been logged in since Thursday. But if he does and he responds I think that we might find out that there is a bit of selective reading going on with Bruce.

Bruce wrote:
I agree with you. It wasn't a good analogy. We do tend to remember the hits and forget the misses. I'll give you another example from a discussion with an atheist named Duckphup (some other forum). He related an experience when he says that he knew when his father died, even though he was thousands of miles away. He confirmed the fact by contacting his family. This is different than the telephone analogy. Information was transmitted to him by some means that cannot be described by the Von Restorff effect. It wasn't by logic or reason or objective evidentiary analysis. It was "arational." Now, it could be confirmed by rational means (calling the family), but it was not received by rational means. It was immediate, proximate, and non-deductive. That is an example of revelation or intuition. Previously I have called it the "Duckphup Effect" in his honor, and will continue to do so.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 19#p372019

Just thought you’d like to know that a Christian is citing you.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You will have to come up with a far better example. Or have your friend Duckphup provide proof of his revelation that will convince me that he is not lying, mistaken, delusional or misquoted.

He wasn't my friend, and that is part of the point. He didn't like me and certainly didn't like Christianity, but in a moment of personal openness related this story. I'll see if I can find his post so that I can at least eliminate the hearsay aspect of this discussion. Of course, even if he comes here and relates the account directly to you, you will not be convinced that he is not a liar or a lunatic. But why would an atheist say something like this?

If you were convinced that Duckphup experienced what he said he experienced, would you be open to the possibility that information can be transmitted arationally, that is, apart from the deductive process and apart from objective analysis of evidence (i.e.; the scientific method)?

I am open to any possibility, even one as absurd as christianity, but I require that the balance of truth be tilted in favour of that possibility before I will accept it as a part of my working hypothesis of the way the world works.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (as I once heard someone say.) The Duckphup Effect is just such an extraordinary claim. I will not accept it based purely upon his recollection of events during an emotionally traumatic period of his life (and certainly not from a secondhand report of such recollections.) I would probably ascribe it to something akin to déja vu - a brainfart caused by the shock of his fathers death. It is possible that he phoned for some other reason but, upon hearing the news, his mind convinced itself that he had had a premonition - such things are not unknown. I find this far more likely than some unexplained mechanism of long-distance communication.

[Bruce Burleson]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (as I once heard someone say.) [/quote]

So says Carl Sagan, and his word is law. Appeals to authority are soooo unconvincing.

The Duckphup Effect is just such an extraordinary claim. I will not accept it based purely upon his recollection of events during an emotionally traumatic period of his life (and certainly not from a secondhand report of such recollections.) I would probably ascribe it to something akin to déja vu - a brainfart caused by the shock of his fathers death. It is possible that he phoned for some other reason but, upon hearing the news, his mind convinced itself that he had had a premonition - such things are not unknown. I find this far more likely than some unexplained mechanism of long-distance communication.

You are right to reject the Duckphup Effect, for the time being. If I can find him, I will ask him to come and repeat his claim, and you can evaluate his testimony for yourself. But once he realizes he is being used to support a Christian argument, I anticipate that he will backtrack. Such is the life of a trial attorney - the witness tells me one thing and then changes his story on the stand.

[Bruce Burleson]

Also, you ignored my Galatians 1 quote.

11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

When?!

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased
16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

He persecuted the early church. No mention of ever bumping into Jesus. Not until his conversion.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.
22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.
23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."
24 And they praised God because of me.

(It seems silly that he waffles on the issue of whether he talked to anyone after his revelation. "I didn't talk to anyone! Oh, except Peter. But no one else! Er, except James. But you can trust me that I'm telling you the complete truth.")

[/quote]

Actually, you have anticipated my third point, so I will respond to that in a separate post, which follows.

[Bruce Burleson]

Would you discount Matthew, who was supposedly with Jesus on the night before his crucifixion?

Matthew 25:
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
...
Why don't you reject these teachings altogether? Why do you pick and choose? How are you able to pick and choose?

I am able to pick and choose because I evaluate each passage objectively and rationally. Matthew is the least historical of the four gospels, but its recitation of Jesus' teachings is, IMO, essentially accurate. But you have to read those teachings in the language in which they were written (understanding that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and Matthew was written in Greek). Matthew 24:46 says kai apeleusontai outoi eis kolasin aionion, oi de diaioi eis zoen aionion. Assuming that aionion is properly translated as "eternal" (it could mean "age long"), the key word in the passage for purposes of this discussion is kolasin.. It means "punishment," but it does not imply torment. By analogy, a person condemned to capital punishment receives an "eternal" punishment in that he is eternally, physically dead after execution. That does not mean that he continues to experience pain and agony. He is simply and eternally dead, from a physical standpoint. So, eternal punishment does not equate eternal torment. It means annihilation.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (as I once heard someone say.)

So says Carl Sagan, and his word is law. Appeals to authority are soooo unconvincing.

The Duckphup Effect is just such an extraordinary claim. I will not accept it based purely upon his recollection of events during an emotionally traumatic period of his life (and certainly not from a secondhand report of such recollections.) I would probably ascribe it to something akin to déja vu - a brainfart caused by the shock of his fathers death. It is possible that he phoned for some other reason but, upon hearing the news, his mind convinced itself that he had had a premonition - such things are not unknown. I find this far more likely than some unexplained mechanism of long-distance communication.

You are right to reject the Duckphup Effect, for the time being. If I can find him, I will ask him to come and repeat his claim, and you can evaluate his testimony for yourself. But once he realizes he is being used to support a Christian argument, I anticipate that he will backtrack. Such is the life of a trial attorney - the witness tells me one thing and then changes his story on the stand.

Appeal to authority? Please credit me with better reasoning skills than to need to resort to such tactics. I find your strawman flimsy and prone to wind-damage. I used the quote because it summarises the allocation of burden of proof in such cases far more succinctly than I ever could. I do not revere it as some holy truth or chant it as a mantra - nor did I rely on it, other than as a tool to indicate the line of reasoning I was taking. I credited you with recognising that.

If you consider Duckphup such an unreliable a witness that he would change his story in order to scupper your arguments, it surprises me that you previously found him to be a reliable enough source to give as an example in the first place. You believed him when he agreed with you but think he will be lying if he subsequently changes his story. That one is called confirmation bias.

[Bruce Burleson]

Regarding the objective and rational prong of my argument, I have established that there are two eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus - that of Paul and that of John. For the third installment of my argument I will examine some of the statements of Paul, contemporary of Jesus who knew Jesus personally (albeit and admittedly before Paul's conversion). I reference the following historical statements of the eyewitness Paul which are contained in his essentially uncontroverted epistles (these are not the only such statements, but they are the only ones upon which I will rely in this argument):

1) Jesus was killed by the Judeans. (I Thessalonians 2:14-16)

2) Jesus was descended from David. (Romans 1:3)

3) Jesus was a physical person, born of a woman. (Galatians 4:4)

4) Jesus was a Jew (born under the Torah). (Galatians 4:4)

5) Jesus had a brother named James. (Galatians 1:19)

6) Jesus had apostles named Cephus (Peter) and John. (Galatians 1:18 to 2:10)

7) Jesus died by crucifixion. (Galatians 3:1; cf. I Corinthians 15:3)

8) Jesus was buried. (I Corinthians 15:3)

9) The resurrected Jesus appeared to Paul. (I Corinthians 15:8)

Paul also gives an account of resurrection appearance of Jesus to other people (I Corinthians 15:5-7), but since those are hearsay accounts, I will not consider them. I am only considering Paul's own firsthand personal testimony of seeing the resurrected Jesus. This is the available objective eyewitness evidence. I am not aware of any contrary contemporaneous evidence. If you are, please provide it in your response. Without any such contrary contemporaneous evidence, the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of all historical facts quoted above.

None of these facts are extraordinary by any means, other than the resurrection. There were may Jews who were crucified, died and were buried. Only the resurrection can be labeled "extraordinary." But why should that label be determinative of the issue? Hume would say that it is never reasonable to believe in the report of a miracle because the likelihood of the report being a falsehood is greater than the likelihood of it being correct. But that argument is based on assumptions of what is likely and what is not. The likelihood of someone traveling to the moon, measured by the knowledge of a man in 1850, would be practically zero. Yet, 119 years later, we were on the moon. We simply do not know what the likelihood something happening actually is. All we can do is weight the available evidence and come to a conclusion. With respect to the writings of Paul, we have a very clear and direct statement from an eyewitness that he saw the resurrected Jesus. Apart from a priori assumptions about what is reasonable or possible and what is not, there is no convincing reason to reject his testimony.

[Bruce Burleson]

Appeal to authority? Please credit me with better reasoning skills than to need to resort to such tactics. I find your strawman flimsy and prone to wind-damage. I used the quote because it summarises the allocation of burden of proof in such cases far more succinctly than I ever could. I do not revere it as some holy truth or chant it as a mantra - nor did I rely on it, other than as a tool to indicate the line of reasoning I was taking. I credited you with recognising that.

I accept your explanation. What I question is the assumption that an immediate transmission of knowledge is an extraordinary claim. Why is it extraordinary? Radios would have been considered "extraordinary" 100 years ago. Computers would have been considered impossible. Why is the concept that the brain could act as a receiver of information so extraordinary, given its great complexity?

If you consider Duckphup such an unreliable a witness that he would change his story in order to scupper your arguments, it surprises me that you previously found him to be a reliable enough source to give as an example in the first place. You believed him when he agreed with you but think he will be lying if he subsequently changes his story. That one is called confirmation bias.

Valid point. When Duckphup related his story, the circumstances were such that I accepted it as a valid account of a real experience. I should leave it at that and present him to you for cross-examination, if he ever surfaces again. However, the migratory behavior of ducks is such that I cannot predict if or where I will find him.

[Bruce Burleson]

I just sent this PM to Duckphup on RDF. I don’t know that he’ll get it or not since he hasn’t been logged in since Thursday. But if he does and he responds I think that we might find out that there is a bit of selective reading going on with Bruce.

Excellent. I hope he responds so he can set the record straight.

[Surendra Darathy]

Regarding the objective and rational prong of my argument, I have established ...

This is one, I haven't heard before. Is the notion of Paul and John being eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus a new and fashionable meme, now? I know they're considered great satirists and songwriters, who changed the history of rock 'n' roll, and the fact that the latter fellow was assassinated adds a layer of mystique to the whole business, but, um.... How come I haven't heard this contention before? Honestly, I would admit to having had it presented to me previously, because it is such an astounding claim. I have heard lots of argument about whether or not anything credible as an eyewitness account of anything is contained in the bibble. Or is this The Burleson Version?

[Surendra Darathy]

I just sent this PM to Duckphup on RDF. I don’t know that he’ll get it or not since he hasn’t been logged in since Thursday. But if he does and he responds I think that we might find out that there is a bit of selective reading going on with Bruce.

Excellent. I hope he responds so he can set the record straight.

In the end, all the records shall be set straight, and all the bent spoons unbent. I have spoken.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Appeal to authority? Please credit me with better reasoning skills than to need to resort to such tactics. I find your strawman flimsy and prone to wind-damage. I used the quote because it summarises the allocation of burden of proof in such cases far more succinctly than I ever could. I do not revere it as some holy truth or chant it as a mantra - nor did I rely on it, other than as a tool to indicate the line of reasoning I was taking. I credited you with recognising that.

I accept your explanation. What I question is the assumption that an immediate transmission of knowledge is an extraordinary claim. Why is it extraordinary? Radios would have been considered "extraordinary" 100 years ago. Computers would have been considered impossible. Why is the concept that the brain could act as a receiver of information so extraordinary, given its great complexity?

The transmission of radio waves is a natural phenomenon that is largely understood, predictable, measurable, repeatable and is fully integrated into the scientific theories that surround it. Your proposed mechanism on the other hand, is not even certain to exist, is manifestly unpredictable, has never been detected let alone measured, cannot be repeated at will under laboratory conditions and has no explanation that is in concord with current scientific knowledge.

A radio is as simple in principle as a lever in comparison to what you describe. I hold that it is therefore an extraordinary claim.

If you consider Duckphup such an unreliable a witness that he would change his story in order to scupper your arguments, it surprises me that you previously found him to be a reliable enough source to give as an example in the first place. You believed him when he agreed with you but think he will be lying if he subsequently changes his story. That one is called confirmation bias.

Valid point. When Duckphup related his story, the circumstances were such that I accepted it as a valid account of a real experience. I should leave it at that and present him to you for cross-examination, if he ever surfaces again. However, the migratory behavior of ducks is such that I cannot predict if or where I will find him.

So we are back to where we were. Your first two examples of gaining arational knowledge are, by your own admission, bad ones. Want to go for a third? Surely, you can provide something verifiable to demonstrate what is a bedrock of your argument?