What Is God Made From?

[BashfulAnthony]

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

http://bfy.tw/XUl - "Drive Archive Registrations"   

[Shaker]

Works just fine for me.

[Jack Knave]

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?

Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.

[Jack Knave]

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?

why are you lying?

I am not lying. No atheist will "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." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?

It didn't happen as described in the Bible. You can't prove the resurrection has any credibility!

So what did happen? Are you saying Jesus didn't die on the cross?

Alan, people said Ghandi healed the sick by just touching them. People get carried away when someone special comes along and start to exaggerate things to impress others about how special that person is to them. And again emotional needs play a part in all this; looking for meaning and security in one's life.

[torridon]

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

Such as?

have a look at this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG

Squares A and B are the same shade of grey, but they don't look it. What we see, what we hear, what we smell, has no agenda to be simply faithful to what is 'out there', the real agenda is what is most useful to us.  This is why science had to develop blind trials to get at the truth, this is why placebos work, this is why personal testimony or subjective experience is not always taken simply at face value.

[Jack Knave]

...
Belief is worthless, Alan, in this context of what is fact and true.

I was responding to your statement, "And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies." You made a point and I replied to it.

You're playing your games again, Alan - avoiding the issue the way politicians do.  And I replied to your reply that the status of your belief is not a factor in the acquisition of the truth of your claims about Christianity.

This is incorrect. I replied to your

And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.

I agree that the status of my "belief is not a factor in the acquisition of the truth of your claims about Christianity". I've not claimed that.

You wouldn't accept the beliefs of another religion to be proof that their religious claims where true, would you?

Correct, unless they could give me a good reason for why I should accept those beliefs. The other religions that I have looked at in depth are Islam, JWis and Mormonism and found no good reason for believing them to be true.

So what?

And. How do you square these disingenuous games of yours, applying one rule for others and another for your own faith, with your faith's supposed honesty, sincerity and truthfulness?

That's pretty serious claim. It assumes you understand what I've been arguing and you may not have. You've now accused me of sophistry and being disingenuous.

Or you have failed to understand my argument which is more fundamental to the issue at hand than yours is*, and is probably why you have missed the poignancy and subtleness of it. It does seem to me that you don't seem to have the perspicacity to see the gaping holes in your argument - no doubt blinded by your faith and personal convictions.

* Why go into the details of a case (as you like to do with your argument about the Christian manuscripts, NT and all that) when the foundational premise of the whole thing is flawed from a philosophical and logical standpoint?

Because you first brought it up. It seems to me that you heard something somewhere, quoted it and got out of your depth.

To your last point, what do you think I brought up and then got out of my depth with?

I have said you have failed to understand my point which undermines all your arguments because it is a philosophical foundational aspect of correct thinking. Or to put it another way you have been subject to a school boy's error.

[Jack Knave]

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?

And there it is again that lack of understanding of human nature and what people do on occasions. They did not think and perceive the world as we do with our western education. God and all that was a given and which coloured their views and outlook. They were looking for a messiah before this Jesus fellow came along.

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.

What makes you think that it happened at all? Do believe everything that people wrote in history?

Talking to someone? What this about?

[Alien]

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?

Why do you think they are not historically credible? Is it because there are contradictions? If so, please demonstrate them. If not, what is it please?

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.

That's correct. I don't think he was lying though. Lying is making an intentionally false statement.

As I mentioned earlier, I've started a separate thread on this.

[Alien]

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

We have the names of several witnesses there. What are the names of your people?

[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?

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.

Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.

[Alien]

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.

Er, that's what I've said.

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.

Or you haven't read what I and others have claimed. If you disagree, please find one of my posts which says that anyone dying for what they believed in means that belief was correct.

[Alien]

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.

You saw Jeremy's wife see it? Is that meant to be parallel to any Christian claim?

[Alien]

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.

Easy to fabricate? How would they do that? Please give us a viable scenario (since it would have been so easy).

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?

And their motive would have been what?

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?

Why would I need to collect and analyse supernatural data?

[Jack Knave]

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.

Your whole premise is based on speculation and your ability to correctly guess how all this came about. We just can't figure out with our limited minds all the possibilities involved here for why this came about. And these accounts were written 30 years after the claimed events. By that time all manner of myths could have been generated about the tomb and this and that...

Your questions are superfluous because they can't be answered with 100% confirmation, as all historical accounts can't be, else all historians past, present and future would all agree on the way historical events have proceeded. But they don't and there is a reason for this.

[Alien]

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?

Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.

So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?

[Alien]

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?

why are you lying?

I am not lying. No atheist will "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." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?

It didn't happen as described in the Bible. You can't prove the resurrection has any credibility!

So what did happen? Are you saying Jesus didn't die on the cross?

Alan, people said Ghandi healed the sick by just touching them. People get carried away when someone special comes along and start to exaggerate things to impress others about how special that person is to them. And again emotional needs play a part in all this; looking for meaning and security in one's life.

Same question as in the one immediately above.

[Alien]

...
To your last point, what do you think I brought up and then got out of my depth with?

I have said you have failed to understand my point which undermines all your arguments because it is a philosophical foundational aspect of correct thinking. Or to put it another way you have been subject to a school boy's error.

When you wrote

And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.

I gave an answer to you on that and then you replied that it was pointless talking about such stuff, stuff you had brought up.

[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.

Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.

You know these are claims and you are presenting them as facts which is a deliberate untruth.

[Alien]

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?

And there it is again that lack of understanding of human nature and what people do on occasions. They did not think and perceive the world as we do with our western education. God and all that was a given and which coloured their views and outlook. They were looking for a messiah before this Jesus fellow came along.

And he got killed.

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.

What makes you think that it happened at all? Do believe everything that people wrote in history?

Talking to someone? What this about?

When the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?

[Alien]

...
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.

Your whole premise is based on speculation

So you claim, but have not demonstrated.

and your ability to correctly guess how all this came about.

We just can't figure out with our limited minds all the possibilities involved here for why this came about.[/quote]The same goes for lots of things, e.g. in physics, yet we come to conclusions.

And these accounts were written 30 years after the claimed events. By that time all manner of myths could have been generated about the tomb and this and that...

How?

Your questions are superfluous because they can't be answered with 100% confirmation, as all historical accounts can't be, else all historians past, present and future would all agree on the way historical events have proceeded. But they don't and there is a reason for this.

100%? I agree. However, I take it you accept that things like the Armada and the Battle of Hastings and the Roman invasion of Britain happened. Why so unsure on this one (apart from, perhaps, it making great claims on you personally if it is true)?

[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?

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.

Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.

You know these are claims and you are presenting them as facts which is a deliberate untruth.

I believe the claims about Christianity are correct, that they are true, that the core things of Jesus' life, death and resurrection actually happened. I might be wrong, but that is what I believe. Therefore, I may be wrong, but I am not lying.

[Gordon]

When the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?

That it may not be true, to the extent of being propaganda added decades later: propaganda happens, so this is a possibility.

The problem you seem unable to even comprehend is that the resurrection claims in the NT may be not be true, and that trotting out claims as facts is special pleading pure and simple.  You may believe this on a personal basis but you do so without good grounds until you deal, as opposed to gloss over, the very real problem of human artifice. 

[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.

Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.

You know these are claims and you are presenting them as facts which is a deliberate untruth.

I believe the claims about Christianity are correct, that they are true, that the core things of Jesus' life, death and resurrection actually happened. I might be wrong, but that is what I believe. Therefore, I may be wrong, but I am not lying.

You are presenting them as facts, not claims that you believe. That is a deliberate untruth

[Alien]

When the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?

That it may not be true, to the extent of being propaganda added decades later: propaganda happens, so this is a possibility.

The problem you seem unable to even comprehend is that the resurrection claims in the NT may be not be true, and that trotting out claims as facts is special pleading pure and simple.  You may believe this on a personal basis but you do so without good grounds until you deal, as opposed to gloss over, the very real problem of human artifice.

So how did there come to be reports, largely independent, by at least 5 authors of people on about a dozen occasions being convinced they had seen and sometimes eaten with Jesus after his death. Come on, Gordon. Give us some specifics of how we may reasonably have got those accounts. You keep telling me I am wrong. Give us a plausible route to us having those accounts and them not being true.

[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?

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.

Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.

You know these are claims and you are presenting them as facts which is a deliberate untruth.

I believe the claims about Christianity are correct, that they are true, that the core things of Jesus' life, death and resurrection actually happened. I might be wrong, but that is what I believe. Therefore, I may be wrong, but I am not lying.

You are presenting them as facts, not claims that you believe. That is a deliberate untruth

I believe them to be true; you do not. That does not make me a liar.