Page 35 of 76 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 757

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #341
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,135
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    *sigh* . You're hanging your hat on the presumption that magic is "reasonable." That's simply unsupportable all on its own, so you've already self-defeated long before the gish gallop.
    Silly Koy. You assess possibilities to determine the conclusions.
    Remez knows to start with the conclusions. That way, possibilities that do not lead to the right conclusions can be eliminated, or even mocked as implausible. Much more efficient.
    Hope springs eternal. It's Crosby who died young.

  2. Top | #342
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    880
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,679
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    *sigh* . You're hanging your hat on the presumption that magic is "reasonable." That's simply unsupportable all on its own, so you've already self-defeated long before the gish gallop.
    Silly Koy. You assess possibilities to determine the conclusions.
    Remez knows to start with the conclusions. That way, possibilities that do not lead to the right conclusions can be eliminated, or even mocked as implausible. Much more efficient.
    I suspect Remez has seen or read about some apologetic defense that starts with the presupposition that the resurrection story is true, and then attempts to place the burden on the skeptic to demonstrate that the people allegedly involved in the story were lying. At least, that is how Remez has been framing his argument in this thread. This is a fools errand that might work in Sunday school, but is unlikely to fool skeptics who have the ability to think rationally.

    In my arguments with Remez, I have repeatedly pointed out that his presuppositions are not valid until they are supported by evidence. So far, Remez has not attempted to make a case to establish the historicity of the resurrection claim, but has kept repeating this single argument based on his presupposition that the claim is true. This is likely because he realizes that the evidence to corroborate these claims does not exist, or that modern historians are not aware of the existence of such corroborating evidence. Lacking evidence, he turns to bluster and the cockatoo defense, repeating his arguments over and over while ignoring the opposing arguments.

    Remez has agreed that skepticism is or should be the rational response to claims that involve reanimated flying corpses. In order to argue that the specific Biblical claims regarding flying reanimated corpses, Remez needs to demonstrate why this skepticism should be waived or set aside. This is not an easy task, and instead of actually making the case for the historicity of the claim, Remez has chosen to take the easy way out. So he keeps asking us to speculate on the motives of the characters in the story, instead of providing evidence to demonstrate that the claim should be considered plausible, or even credible.

  3. Top | #343
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,782
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,282
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    I suspect Remez has seen or read about some apologetic defense that starts with the presupposition that the resurrection story is true, and then attempts to place the burden on the skeptic to demonstrate that the people allegedly involved in the story were lying.
    From what I can see, it seems to me like he assumes that the stories are true, and asks 'what other explanation could there be?'

    When someone suggests 'it could be made up,' he reads that as 'The stories ARE made-up!'

    Then demands that someone provide positive proof for the claim that they're lies.

    Then opponents would have to spend a lot of time recovering the same ground, in restating what they actually did and did not claim... As usual.

    I honestly could never be sure if he intentionally attacked strawmen, or just has some sort of reading disability preventing the following of anyone else's narrative.

  4. Top | #344
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    880
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,679
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    I suspect Remez has seen or read about some apologetic defense that starts with the presupposition that the resurrection story is true, and then attempts to place the burden on the skeptic to demonstrate that the people allegedly involved in the story were lying.
    From what I can see, it seems to me like he assumes that the stories are true, and asks 'what other explanation could there be?'

    When someone suggests 'it could be made up,' he reads that as 'The stories ARE made-up!'
    They probably are made up, but there is a possibility that the authors (Paul and Mark) sincerely believed what they wrote. But it makes no difference to the credibility of the claim because humans are easily fooled, and evidence of sincere belief in a claim says very little about the credibility of the claim.

    The bottom line is this: As long as naturalistic explanations cannot be ruled out, you cannot reasonably consider supernatural explanations to be credible. That is a very high standard, and consistent with the extraordinary nature of the claim. Corpses don't reanimate themselves after days of being dead and fly up into the sky under their own power; such claims go against everything we know about reality. Apologists like Lumpy and Remez are unwilling to recognize the fact that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to support them.

    Then demands that someone provide positive proof for the claim that they're lies.
    That is because Remez is trying to shift the burden. After having agreed that claims regarding reanimated flying corpses should be treated with skepticism. Instead of trying to establish the foundational basis for the claims using evidence, he is trying to lure skeptics into a discussion of the motives of the characters in the story. After presupposing that the stories are factual.

    As an example, if a Muslim apologist was trying to establish that Allah existed and that he sent an angel to Muhammad to tell him about himself, he might come up with something like this:
    "Why would Muhammad lie about receiving revelations from an angel sent by Allah?", or
    "Why would someone lie about Muhammad flying up to heaven on a winged horse?".
    Its the same argument, but I am willing to bet that Christian apologists would not accept the claims of the Quran to be credible based on such arguments.

    Then opponents would have to spend a lot of time recovering the same ground, in restating what they actually did and did not claim... As usual.
    I don't need to know the precise details of who, when and why as to how the Jesus mythology came to exist to be skeptical of the supernatural claims made in the mythology. And Remez has agreed that my position is reasonable. He has nothing else to offer, so he makes a lot of noise and repeats the same nonsense that has been debunked over and over. What else can he do?

    My opinion is that the story is a fabrication. It is the simplest naturalistic explanation, and consistent with the historical context of the time and place in which the Jesus mythology developed. Stories about personal savior dead-and-risen messiahs, or messiahs who had conquered death after undergoing a great passion are not uncommon in this historical context - one might be tempted to say they were quite the fad. It just so happens that the version of the Jesus mythology promoted by the author of Mark won out, and billions of people today believe this nonsense.

    I honestly could never be sure if he intentionally attacked strawmen, or just has some sort of reading disability preventing the following of anyone else's narrative.
    From his posts I would speculate that Remez is a native English speaker who has no problems understanding other people's posts.

  5. Top | #345
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,135
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Remez has agreed that skepticism is or should be the rational response to claims that involve reanimated flying corpses. In order to argue that the specific Biblical claims regarding flying reanimated corpses, Remez needs to demonstrate why this skepticism should be waived or set aside. This is not an easy task, and instead of actually making the case for the historicity of the claim, Remez has chosen to take the easy way out. So he keeps asking us to speculate on the motives of the characters in the story, instead of providing evidence to demonstrate that the claim should be considered plausible, or even credible.
    That and he keeps bizarrely insisting that proximity of authorship somehow ensures that anecdotes are not reliable evidence of the thing itself. All an anecdote can tell us is that someone thought they saw or experienced a particular thing. It doesn't matter if that anecdote is told first person ten seconds after whatever they saw or experienced, it can't serve as evidence that the thing seen or experienced was in fact what the individual thought it was.

    This is just a brute fact and people like Remez take for absolute granted in regard to just about any other claim, but when it comes to scientology mormonism astrology mithraism islam any-other-cult-but-theirsism beliefs in magic it all just gets flushed down the toilet.

    What's so weird about it, of course, is the Freudian slippery slope of it all. He's not desperately torturing logic--all the while insisting that only he is applying reason--for our sake after all.

    Cult member, deprogram thyself.

  6. Top | #346
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,948
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,004
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    And in 1 Corinthians, but the problem is, both are (allegedly) written by Paul. Those are Paul's guesses about what happens. But he has no authority to say anything at all definitively. His only claim to any kind of authority is that he allegedly had a "vision." Aka, "hallucination," if, in fact, it ever happened and he wasn't simply lying about it and/or it wasn't the evidently common result of some form of epilepsy or other brain disorder, that we know today to cause all manner of religiously themed hallucinations in the similarly afflicted.
    It is widely accepted by biblical scholars that Paul DID write 1 Corinthians, not forgetting your friend Bart Erhman believes this also.

    But with Paul we have additional evidence that he was not speaking with any kind of authority in the facts that, (1), he was never trusted by any of the actual disciples and was in fact relegated to only tending to the far less important gentile and "hellenized" Jews while the OG disciples ministered to the real Jews (that we curiously know almost nothing about, no less); (2) not even his own congregates believed his opinions (hence the letters in the first place and their repeated insistence that followers had to believe his version or else there was no religion and no salvation and no prize off the top shelf).

    Far from being an authority, Paul was a pariah and his opinions on Jesus' death not believed or adhered to by the fringe followers most likely to believe such pagan nonsense to begin with.

    Regardless, there is still the problem with Thomas insisting that he would not believe it was actually Jesus unless and until he could physically stick his fingers into the actual wounds.

    But why would that be the requirement? Think about it for two seconds. A friend of yours dies in, say, a car accident. You go to the funeral. You see him buried. You walk away and start to mourn. A few days later, your buddies come to you and say, "Dude! Bob resurrected from the dead! Come see him!"

    Aside from being astounded, why would your first thought be: I won't believe it's Bob unless I can stick my hands in his wounds! . Are your friends capable of somehow finding a body double for Bob and then pretending that he resurrected to play some sort of elaborate and horrific practical joke on you or something? Is it a common occurrence for you to be tricked by people you thought were dead only to find out, nope! All a ruse!
    Not an issue at all. Just because of one disciple, who has not yet been convinced where as the others have been? And in context, Thomas was "not" with the rest of the disciples when Jesus "first" came to them shown below :

    John 20:24-27
    24 Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

    But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

    26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”


    And why in the world wouldn't just seeing Bob alive and talking to you be more than sufficient for you to believe he's no longer dead? Why would you need to physically stick your hands into his wounds in order to believe it really was Bob?
    You would believe straight away, most likely just as the disciples did. As I mentioned to above, the situation is different with Thomas who only "first" heard about the appearance of Jesus from the others.

    As I pointed out, the only reason to make up this sequence and add it into this latter account is because--as with Paul's letters evidencing disbelief in Corinthia--clearly the followers some forty-fifty years after Paul's letters still did not buy the notion of Jesus resurrecting. So embellishments were evidently called for, either by the author (whoever he was) or by the then "church elders" (whoever they were).

    Iow, Doubting Thomas was intended as apologetics; to cover up a hole in the mythology that clearly had persisted in spite of Paul's earlier attempts to dissuade it and were big enough of a concern to warrant this patch.
    The "only" reason - you say with much certainty. I'll borrow Remez's line here, "Your confidence is as misplaced as your aim".

    But, like all patches, it doesn't hold water under pressure. The whole point of sticking the fingers in (which he does, no less, so it's not just an idle requirement) is to physically confirm that this is, in fact, that same flesh and blood Jesus that was crucified by the Romans (for no explicable reason) and died and was entombed and then was brought back to life by Jehovah, no question about it.
    As the previous above and goes for the rest of your post, its for Thomas satisfaction "only" to get that confirmation, since he wasn't there the first time around.

  7. Top | #347
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,412
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,358
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    I suspect Remez has seen or read about some apologetic defense that starts with the presupposition that the resurrection story is true, and then attempts to place the burden on the skeptic to demonstrate that the people allegedly involved in the story were lying.
    From what I can see, it seems to me like he assumes that the stories are true, and asks 'what other explanation could there be?'

    When someone suggests 'it could be made up,' he reads that as 'The stories ARE made-up!'

    Then demands that someone provide positive proof for the claim that they're lies.

    Then opponents would have to spend a lot of time recovering the same ground, in restating what they actually did and did not claim... As usual.

    I honestly could never be sure if he intentionally attacked strawmen, or just has some sort of reading disability preventing the following of anyone else's narrative.
    It's to force the discussion in a direction he's familiar with. The 4 "minimal facts" are paraphrased from Habermas. There's a "who would die for a lie?" within Habermas's argument. So probably, when he thought he saw someone calling the apostles liars, he thought he had a chance to present Habermas' argument or something very close to it. So he assigned atrib to take the "it's lies" position, to force the discussion to go where he wanted.

    I don't think it's reading disability. It's more an inability to see the other's POV for not reading posts with the principle of charity in mind. Rather, with just his intention for the thread in mind.

  8. Top | #348
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,135
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    It is widely accepted by biblical scholars that Paul DID write 1 Corinthians
    And? Whether something is "widely accepted" as true and actually is true are two entirely different things, particularly when we're talking about providence of two thousand year old writings, many of which (including those historically attributed to Paul) we know have also been revised and otherwise tampered with by subsequent generations, if not outright frauds/plagiarisms.

    Not an issue at all.
    Oh, well, I guess that settles it then.

    Just because of one disciple, who has not yet been convinced where as the others have been? And in context, Thomas was "not" with the rest of the disciples when Jesus "first" came to them shown below
    I'm glad you mentioned "context." Let's quote the opening sequence of John 20 before we get to your cherry-pick:

    20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

    3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)
    So, right there we see that Jesus evidently bodily arose (or was taken as Mary logically believes), since, you know, his body wasn't there. The cave was open already just as it was in Mark, yet there is no young man or utterly pointless two angels (at this point) just hanging out for no reason inside the tomb where the body was and for some unknown reason, neither Peter nor the other disciple (supposedly "John" bizarrely writing in the third person) "still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead."

    Not that he did resurrect, but that he had to resurrect.

    But even more curious is the fact that the author makes note that the "other disciple" "saw and believed." Well, saw and believed what?

    Picture the scene. You and Peter are just having breakfast when Mary--Jesus' beloved Mary--comes running toward you to tell you that the tomb has been opened and Jesus' body has been taken. You go to investigate and you find, indeed, that the tomb is open and Jesus' body is gone. All that remains are the burial linens/cloth. At that point, you do not believe or "understand" anything about Jesus resurrecting. The author of John (or somebody at some point in time) makes that a particular point by placing it in parentheses.

    So, what is it that you suddenly "believe" after a trusted friend and likely lover of Jesus' tells you the tomb was opened and the body stolen; you investigate and confirm the tomb was open and you see no body, just his linens on the ground? Do you believe, you know, that just like Mary said, someone stole the body? Or that Jesus maybe wasn't actually dead and he got up at some point and took off the linens--like you would--and discarded them in a haze and opened the tomb to go find everyone?

    Remember, "John" is also the one who tells us that one of the soldiers stabbed Jesus in the side to confirm that he was dead, so apparently that was a common enough occurrence (the appearance of death when in fact not actually dead) for that soldier to even think of doing such a thing in the first place.

    Because either of those perfectly logical events are sure as shit what I would believe, especially if, in the moments leading up to all of that I held no belief or "understanding" that Jesus had to resurrect (whatever that would mean).

    But let's go further into context. The very next line is:

    10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.
    What? They are told by Mary the body has been taken, they see an open tomb, no Jesus and his linens left behind (as if either someone hastily unwrapped the body or he just woke up and took them off himself). They didn't believe or "understand" anything about Jesus resurrecting, but the "other disciple" just suddenly now "believed" something not made clear. It is presumed to be that he suddenly and for no apparent reason just believed that Jesus rose from the dead, but this is not actually based on anything coherent.

    He saw exactly what Mary said. Open tomb; body taken; linens on the ground. That's it.

    So what do they do with this now miraculous news? Eh. They just go back to where they were staying, leaving Mary apparently to weep and wonder where her man went:

    11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

    13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

    “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.”
    And that's the sole purpose of those two angels that suddenly appeared for no reason. Just that. You know. Like you do. Hanging out in the tomb in order to have some idle chit chat with Mary.

    14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

    15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

    Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

    16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

    She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

    17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

    18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
    So, now suddenly two angels appear AND Jesus, but he doesn't look like Jesus for some unknown reason. And he makes a point of instructing Mary not to touch him, because he hasn't ascended to heaven. Whatever the fuck that means. I guess Mary can't touch him, but Thomas can? Must be a vagina thing.

    Onward christian soldiers:

    19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
    Ok, so, again, picture the scene. Presumably, Peter and the "other disciple" (not to mention Mary) told all of the other disciples about the open tomb and the linens and how one of them suddenly "believed" in something by that evening, considering that all happened just after day break, right? Jesus suddenly just pops into existence somehow (doors locked after all for "fear of the Jewish leaders" for some unknown reason) and yet that fact alone evidently isn't enough for his own disciples--to see Jesus suddenly appear out of nowhere standing in front of them. No, he then makes a point of showing them his hands and side as physical proof that it's him.

    Popping into existence inside a locked room and looking exactly like Jesus is not enough. Hey, guys, no, seriously, see? Hands? Side? You know, the Big Jeez!? Didn't Peter and that other guy tell you they found my tomb open and the linens on the ground? Mary thought someone had stolen my body. Women.

    Oh, yeah, and now, apparently, the disciples all have the "holy spirit" infused into them and have magical powers to forgive sins, so at this point they can heal the sick, raise the dead and forgive sins.

    So why aren't they still walking the earth? But I digress.

    Now we get to the part you cherry-picked, but let's go full context:

    24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

    But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

    26 A week later his disciples were in the house again
    Wait, what? A week later? Ok...I guess Jesus had some vaca time and wanted to wonder around or something. Anywho...

    and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
    So he did the sudden pop-in trick again. And then:

    27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

    28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

    29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
    But, it wasn't just that he had "seen" Jesus and believed (even, again, after Jesus just magically appeared inside a locked room just like the disciples presumably told Thomas had happened previously). No, it was he saw Jesus and had to stick his hand into Jesus' side wound (that for some strange reason is still there, or there at all for that matter, for something that can dematerialize and rematerialize inside a locked room as well as change their entire appearance such that a beloved concubine can't recognize him in one instant and then seconds later fully recognizes him for again no apparent reason whatsoever; I mean was Jesus hiding from the fuzz in the shape of a gardener and if so why then does he suddenly change back to Jeebus and, more importantly, why wasn't all of that just projected into Mary's and the disciples' heads, but I digress again).

    Quote Originally Posted by Learner
    Quote Originally Posted by Koy
    And why in the world wouldn't just seeing Bob alive and talking to you be more than sufficient for you to believe he's no longer dead? Why would you need to physically stick your hands into his wounds in order to believe it really was Bob?
    You would believe straight away, most likely just as the disciples did.
    No, evidently neither myself nor they would if that account is to be at all believed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Learner
    Quote Originally Posted by Koy
    As I pointed out, the only reason to make up this sequence and add it into this latter account is because--as with Paul's letters evidencing disbelief in Corinthia--clearly the followers some forty-fifty years after Paul's letters still did not buy the notion of Jesus resurrecting. So embellishments were evidently called for, either by the author (whoever he was) or by the then "church elders" (whoever they were).

    Iow, Doubting Thomas was intended as apologetics; to cover up a hole in the mythology that clearly had persisted in spite of Paul's earlier attempts to dissuade it and were big enough of a concern to warrant this patch.
    The "only" reason - you say with much certainty.
    Yep. And that certainty hasn't wavered by your sophistry.

    I'll borrow Remez's line here, "Your confidence is as misplaced as your aim".

    Quote Originally Posted by Learner
    Quote Originally Posted by Koy
    But, like all patches, it doesn't hold water under pressure. The whole point of sticking the fingers in (which he does, no less, so it's not just an idle requirement) is to physically confirm that this is, in fact, that same flesh and blood Jesus that was crucified by the Romans (for no explicable reason) and died and was entombed and then was brought back to life by Jehovah, no question about it.
    As the previous above and goes for the rest of your post, its for Thomas satisfaction "only" to get that confirmation, since he wasn't there the first time around.
    Oh, I see! You mean a week ago, when his buddies were all talking about how they had seen Jesus suddenly pop into existence inside a locked room (and did a little show and tell of his own to likewise prove that it was really him and not some imposter that had the power to just poof into existence, like that was a common enough occurrence that so many times before had fooled these disciples by false pop-ins or something)?

    Yeah, sure, that makes perfect sense. No one--not even a disciple--who has the power to heal the sick, raise the dead (and now) forgive sins like God does--STILL would need to get that personal confirmation by sticking his hand into the stab wound (that bizarrely still exists) before he would believe that Jesus had resurrected from the dead.

    That's a tough crowd. Empty tomb (with linens all around)? Nope, not enough. Appear to his girlfriend as somebody else for no explicable reason only to then suddenly change back to good ol' Jesus (and angels, no less; fucking angels now for some reason hanging out in the tomb)? Nope, not enough. Magically pop into existence? Nope, not enough. Magically pop into existence inside a locked room (twice)? Nope, not enough. Gotta see those wounds, Jeeby. Gotta stick my hands inside those wounds! Fool me once, fool me twice. I won't get fooled again.

    Yeah, so that's all utterly ridiculous, but why should that stop you? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. So I guess they're all screwed.

    ETA: Almost forgot. Why does Jesus admonish Mary from touching him but not Thomas? Again, if it's a vagina thing, then that's just absurd and speaks entirely to the human stupidity behind the mythology.

    Regardless, the apparent point to ALL of this embellishment is, once again, that the gentiles evidently still were not buying the whole resurrection nonsense. John was supposedly written around 100 CE. Paul's letter to Corinthians around 55 CE. Nobody bought it in his time and some half a century later they evidently still weren't buying it.

    Thus the whole proximity to an event nonsense is rendered what it always was; nonsense.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 06-19-2019 at 04:19 PM.

  9. Top | #349
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,135
    Rep Power
    10
    Oh yeah, several other points that didn't hit me until after the deadline for editing. First, why was the tomb open at all? Jesus had the ability to just magically appear *POPP!* inside two...count them two locked rooms, but he needed to physically move the stone in front of the tomb? Why?

    So that he could play a prank on his followers and make them think that someone had stolen his dead body?

    Especially since, without his burial linens he would have been nekkid as a jay. So are we to assume that Jesus resurrected from the dead, removed his burial linens and then--naked--pushed open the rock in front of the cave because he didn't yet know he could just magically pop into and out of locked rooms at that point? Was there a learning curve?

    Is that what was going on with Mary? He was using her as a test of his new found powers that he hadn't perfected before leaving the cave?

    And then, why wouldn't he stay wrapped in the linens? Wouldn't that be a far more effective form of proof to show up all mummy-like (but with his head uncovered or maybe covered and then *POOF* he swipes it off his head for the big reveal)?

    Physical proof was evidently a very big deal. It's noted twice; first with him popping into existence inside the first locked room he insists on showing the disciples his wounds and then again when he popped into existence inside the second locked room a full week later for some unknown reason (poor Thomas).

    Three times, actually, if you count his completely unnecessary shapeshifting "experiment" with Mary where she somehow does not realize it's the love of her life come back from supposedly having died yesterday, standing right in front of her.

    So, was he naked in front of Mary? She probably would have noticed that (and his wounds). Did he have to physically move the rock--as part of his learning curve--go out and find some gardener and take his clothes and then somehow discovered at that point that he could shape shift and/or just magically pop into and out of existence and at long distances?

    For a magical being that can pop in and out of locked rooms from a distance, you'd think that a very important detail in the story would be that the tomb was NOT open. That in fact, it was very difficult to open (but we know is not the case, since one old rich Jew could do it on his own).

    Sealed tomb and when opened Jesus' body is not there? Now THAT would be a mystery. Even better mystery? Sealed tomb with Jesus' body still in there at the same time that he appears right in front of Mary and/or pops into locked rooms with the disciples.

    Now THAT would be a miracle and more in keeping with Paul's blathering nonsense about their being two separate and distinct types of bodies; one that is made out of flesh and blood and one that isn't. But in John we evidently have a flesh and blood body, with wounds that can be penetrated and a physical form that can evidently be defiled by the touch of a woman (but not the touch of a man for some ludicrous ancient man-made nonsense that couldn't possibly apply to beings like an omni-capable creator of all things, including and especially vajajays).

    Open cave after a guy (having awakened from a coma and desperately taking off his premature burial linens) had pushed it open in a terrified frenzy to go find his friends to tell him what the hell happened to him and why he was sealed up in a cave with burial linens on and/or someone opening the cave and stealing the dead body (as supposedly feared and for this exact reason) that later gets turned into an apocryphal story of resurrection (that no one is buying some 25 years after the alleged event, let alone another 70 or 80, and so the stories have to be embellished with additional apologetic nonsense to try and cover up the obvious flaws)?

    Not so miraculous.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 06-19-2019 at 07:34 PM.

  10. Top | #350
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    711
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    3. The gospels do not all agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    If all of your witnesses were in perfect agreement, wouldn’t you suspect the fix was in? The historical concept is called dissimilarity. Look it up, it’s a good read. It is a strength not a detriment.
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    There are NO witnesses that attested to seeing Jesus' miracles, only a few much later writers offering hearsay at best. That is my understanding... if I am misinformed then name two witnesses.
    You are conflating witnesses with authors/reporters. A witnesses need not be the author and an author reporting on witness testimony does not infer there were no witnesses. We still today read of reporter accounts of witness testimonies. Think of all the reporting of Watergate or the Simpson trial. Bob Woodard, Carl Bernstein and deep throat. So yes there were testimonies of eyewitnesses reported by authors that were even pre-Gospel.
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    if testimony alone is sufficient to determine truth,
    It's not. Here................
    Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction 105: Witnesses.

    You alone must judge the credibility or believability of the witnesses. In deciding whether testimony is true and accurate, use your common sense and experience. You must judge the testimony of each witness by the same standards, setting aside any bias or prejudice you may have. You may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and decide how much of it you believe.

    In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider are:
    * How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?
    * How well was the witness able to remember and describe what happened?
    * What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?
    * Did the witness understand the questions and answer them directly?
    * Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone
    involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided?
    * What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about testifying?
    * Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?
    * How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?
    * [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?]
    * [Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]
    * [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]
    * [Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]
    * [Has the witness engaged in [other] conduct that reflects on his or her believability?]
    * [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?]

    Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently.

    [If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the witness’s character for truthfulness is good.]
    [If you do not believe a witness’s testimony that he or she no longer remembers something, that testimony is inconsistent with the witness’s earlier statement on that subject.]

    [If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.]

Similar Threads

  1. Theological Fine Tuning
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
  2. fine tuning argument
    By BH in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 05-06-2018, 05:45 PM
  3. How would you debate this argument
    By NobleSavage in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 07:12 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 10:05 PM
  5. The argument for eating dog
    By Potoooooooo in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 07:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •