What Is God Made From?

[Alien]

"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.

So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?

It's called gossip and towing the party line, besides other things.

Such an "explanation" sounds a bit naive to me. Which party line? As defined by whom?

You seem to have a poor understanding of human nature (which is what my reply was based on) or a naïve belief that the early Christians must have been good and honest.

No, this is incorrect. I do not believe "the early Christians must have been good and honest."  I am not so naive. What I do believe is that there is no good reason to believe that their reports were other than substantially what they honestly believed. As I have asked someone earlier, what motive could they have had for making it all up?

People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is.

Absolute guarantee? No,of course not, but let's try to think this through. What reason could they realistically have had to have made it all up?

You also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.

So what made people think the tomb was empty? You don't need to believe in God to tell that a tomb is empty. What made them think they were talking to someone? You don't need to believe in God to do that.

[Alien]

Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.

That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.

Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?

Who knows, and that is the point.

The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
     

Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?

But that is the point, we don't know and yet your 'mighty' God expects us to surmise and speculate on such very flimsy accounts written down 2000 years ago by some less than reliable minds. On your account and beliefs "Alice Through The Look Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years time based on your less than logical and coherent thinking.

Why do you think he expects us to surmise and speculate? Why do you think that the accounts were flimsy? Why do you think they were written down by "less than reliable minds"? You seem to have made your mind up beforehand.
Why do you think "Alice Through The Looking Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years' time? You keep bunging out these claims, but never seem to back them up.

Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.

What a load of old tosh. Seriously, it is. Come on, what would have been their motives for making it all up? How would they have managed to handle it with so many people? How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie? It just doesn't add up.

Was the tomb empty or not? Did people claim to have seen Jesus on about a dozen occasions or not? Those are the questions which need answering and if you answer them honestly, as I hope you will, it will turn your life upside down.

[Alien]

In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)

You have alleged multiple times that what I have claimed to be true is untrue. So what? You alleging stuff doesn't thereby make you correct and turn me into a liar. Do you really not understand that?

[jeremyp]

So how would Peter lying to everyone produce the other records of people meeting Jesus, e.g. the women at the tomb, the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus appearing to James and so on?

What records?  Do you mean the stories in the Bible?  You do understand they are not historically  credible, don't you?

Are you saying he was lying to the class?  It sounds like you watched the lecture.  Which part was wrong?

No, I am not saying he was lying? Why do think I was saying that?

Your last post implied you didn't think he was convincing.

[jeremyp]

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

Thirteen of my mates saw you.  Also five hundred and one other people.  Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.

That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.

[BeRational]

There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!

OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.

Why will no atheists show me how this was done?

Simple.

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

And their names are?

Why do you need names?

You do not want to check or something.

You accept claims of witnesses in the bible without being able to check

[Nearly Sane]

In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)

You have alleged multiple times that what I have claimed to be true is untrue. So what? You alleging stuff doesn't thereby make you correct and turn me into a liar. Do you really not understand that?

and he lies again. I have told you multiple times that arguing claims as true is a lie, if you continue to do it, and you continue to do it and then you lie about that.

[BashfulAnthony]

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

Thirteen of my mates saw you.  Also five hundred and one other people.  Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.

That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.

Nonsense.

[Shaker]

How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?

What is really going on with the people who so regularly wheel out this vapid tosh? I mean, given how often it's employed as some sort of killer point, I find it impossible to believe that any reasonably intelligent, normally-constituted adult human being can be unaware of the counter to such a feeble point - people don't as far as I'm aware die for something they know to be a lie (that's to say a conscious and deliberate untruth), but we've abundant evidence of people dying for what they sincerely believe to be true but about which we consider them to be mistaken or otherwise misinformed. Sincerity of belief does not, has never and will never be any hallmark of correctness of belief.

This has been pointed out so many, many times, by me and by numerousothers, that I can only surmise what when somebody proffers this perfectly reasonable point, some sort of intellectual roller shutter door comes down in the brains of certain religionists such that they don't see it or are unable to process it, and can be found shortly thereafter using it all over again as though they'd never encountered any challenge to it whatever.

Perhaps somebody can comment on what's going on, because I for one am heartily sick of seeing this zombie pseudo-point pop up time after time.

[Shaker]

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

Thirteen of my mates saw you.  Also five hundred and one other people.  Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.

That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.

I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.

[Gordon]

Alan

You are special pleading for Jesus again and are failing to address to possibility that all the elements that you keep trotting out, and are highly credulous about, could be a wholly fictional narrative written at the earliest decades post-hoc by biased or credulous people - for instance your comment about 'We have 5 apparently independent reports of Jesus' death and appearances to people.' would be easy to fabricate, so to accept this narrative as it stands is a faith position because the narrative contains only claims.

Another point you mention is the motives of the NT writers - how do you know that their motive wasn't create propaganda about their inconveniently dead leader?

Since you mention probability you'll need to explain how you collect and analyse supernatural data: for instance is the investigation of miracles best suited to parametric or non-parametric statistical tests, or are you using probability as code for what you would like to be true?

[BeRational]

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

Thirteen of my mates saw you.  Also five hundred and one other people.  Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.

That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.

Nonsense.

Yes the resurrection of Jesus  is nonsense.

Well done

[BashfulAnthony]

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

Thirteen of my mates saw you.  Also five hundred and one other people.  Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.

That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.

I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.

Imbecilic comments always attract like!

[BeRational]

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

Thirteen of my mates saw you.  Also five hundred and one other people.  Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.

That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.

I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.

Imbecilic comments always attract like!

Why is that you are sceptical of my claims but accept the same claims from the bible?

What extra information do you get from the bible

[BashfulAnthony]

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

Thirteen of my mates saw you.  Also five hundred and one other people.  Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.

That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.

I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.

Imbecilic comments always attract like!

Why is that you are sceptical of my claims but accept the same claims from the bible?

What extra information do you get from the bible

I prefer to accept Biblical testimony than your amateur take..

[Shaker]

On what basis?

[BashfulAnthony]

On what basis?

On the same basis on which so much of history, ancient history at any rate,is accepted: the testimony of reliable witnesses.

[Shaker]

On what basis?

On the same basis on which so much of history, ancient history at any rate,is accepted: the testimony of reliable witnesses.

On what basis is it decided that witnesses are reliable?

[Nearly Sane]

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

Thirteen of my mates saw you.  Also five hundred and one other people.  Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.

That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.

I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.

Imbecilic comments always attract like!

Why is that you are sceptical of my claims but accept the same claims from the bible?

What extra information do you get from the bible

I prefer to accept Biblical testimony than your amateur take..

actually you don't, because you want to throw out 4/5  of the Bible

[jeremyp]

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

Thirteen of my mates saw you.  Also five hundred and one other people.  Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.

That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.

Nonsense.

You believed Paul when he said it of Jesus.  In fact, in his case it was only twelve, 500 and Paul himself (not his wife).  My story is therefore more credible.

[BashfulAnthony]

On what basis?

On the same basis on which so much of history, ancient history at any rate,is accepted: the testimony of reliable witnesses.

On what basis is it decided that witnesses are reliable?

"The Bible relies on eyewitness accounts to construct its narratives, so it becomes a very reliable source. Luke has been called a historian of the first rate by some modern historical scholars. Eyewitness testimony may be more subjective than other types of legal evidences, but the fact remains that it is strong enough to be admitted as evidence in a court of law. It is not conjectural or circumstantial evidence. Even all newspaper reporters are taught to interview eyewitnesses in order to corroborate their stories. We don't consider them as unnecessary in these instances, but important support."

Come Reason.

[Shaker]

And are you familiar with the reams of evidence which demonstrates how scarily unreliable so-called eyewitness testiony actually is?

[BashfulAnthony]

I died last week for 3 days and came back.

There were hundreds of witnesses.

Thirteen of my mates saw you.  Also five hundred and one other people.  Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.

That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.

I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.

Imbecilic comments always attract like!

Why is that you are sceptical of my claims but accept the same claims from the bible?

What extra information do you get from the bible

I prefer to accept Biblical testimony than your amateur take..

actually you don't, because you want to throw out 4/5  of the Bible

I dismiss what is obviously inaccurate or wrong: I accept testimony which does not fall into that category.

[BashfulAnthony]

And are you familiar with the reams of evidence which demonstrates how scarily unreliable so-called eyewitness testiony actually is?

Such as?

[Shaker]

And are you familiar with the reams of evidence which demonstrates how scarily unreliable so-called eyewitness testiony actually is?

Such as?

http://bfy.tw/XUl