Why only three days

[Nearly Sane]

If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"

That man would have real credibility in my eyes!

Why would you want people to do that?

It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.

It would be refreshing to not have people's beliefs caricatured once in a while.

while I would agree, there is a problem here in that you see thus as manufacturing but it seems to me how johnjil actually sees your views and of other theists. You can, as I am doing, argue that he is wrong but in assuming that it is a caricature, I.e. a deliberate distortion, falls into the same problem

[floo]

I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!

Your impression?

At least I often put imo after my posts, which is more honest than those who state stuff in the Bible is true with no evidence at all to back it up.

You forgot to put "IMO" at the end there, floo.

So how does working off your off only your impression make it valid, even if you stick "IMO" on the end?

There is NO verifiable evidence to back up much of the stuff in the Bible, FACT, not just my opinion!

[Alien]

I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!

Your impression?

At least I often put imo after my posts, which is more honest than those who state stuff in the Bible is true with no evidence at all to back it up.

You forgot to put "IMO" at the end there, floo.

So how does working off your off only your impression make it valid, even if you stick "IMO" on the end?

There is NO verifiable evidence to back up much of the stuff in the Bible, FACT, not just my opinion!

That was not what we were discussing. We were discussing your, "So if as some contend if many people believe in a faith it must be true, you should think Islam is the business too?"

Who are these who "contend if many people believe in a faith it must be true"? That was what I asked. Who are they?

[jjohnjil]

If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"

That man would have real credibility in my eyes!

Why would you want people to do that?

It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.

It would be refreshing to not have people's beliefs caricatured once in a while.

while I would agree, there is a problem here in that you see thus as manufacturing but it seems to me how johnjil actually sees your views and of other theists. You can, as I am doing, argue that he is wrong but in assuming that it is a caricature, I.e. a deliberate distortion, falls into the same problem

I don't think I'm wrong, NS, because I think most people who use this forum have a great deal of common sense.  There are one or two exceptions but the majority wouldn't believe a report that sounded incredible to them.  If it was reported that Charlie Chaplin, whose body disappeared not long after its burial, had been seen talking and eating with a crowd of fans, they would immediately say it was a con or a mistake.  If someone told them Elvis had just left the building, they would laugh - as we all would.  But they then say they actually believe Jesus was resurrected!

I'm sure it's really that they hope there is a god, who will save them from the thing most people dread - death and oblivion.  To hang on to that hope they have to convince themselves that this was the one exception that proves the rule.

That they dismiss the incredible tales in other holy books but can't dismiss those in their own holy book just shows that they have to ditch their common sense in order to keep those hopes alive.

[Shaker]

Great post, jj 

I do find it tremendously fascinating on a psychological level as to why otherwise modern-minded people living in modern homes in 2015 with all that that entails - wireless connections and smartphones and microwaves and what have you - would, if they heard of an alleged resurrection of someone in the next nearest town or village, presumably disbelieve it and bring to bear all the critical scepticism of which they're capable, whereas the same sort of thing sketchily written about in old documents compiled by ignorant people in a long-past pre-scientific and highly superstitious time is taken as read.

Nowt so queer as folk.

[Alien]

...

I don't think I'm wrong, NS, because I think most people who use this forum have a great deal of common sense.  There are one or two exceptions but the majority wouldn't believe a report that sounded incredible to them.  If it was reported that Charlie Chaplin, whose body disappeared not long after its burial, had been seen talking and eating with a crowd of fans, they would immediately say it was a con or a mistake.  If someone told them Elvis had just left the building, they would laugh - as we all would.  But they then say they actually believe Jesus was resurrected!

But your scenario is incomplete. Jesus came into a situation where a people, Israel, had a history where they saw God at work. Jesus healed people and even raised people from the dead. He predicted his own death and resurrection, which was something the Jews did not expect. The only resurrection they anticipated was at the end of time.

Something convinced people, including skeptics like his own brother James, that he really had died and had been raised to life. That's were it is fundamentally different to your Charlie Chaplin/Elvis scenarios.

I'm sure it's really that they hope there is a god, who will save them from the thing most people dread - death and oblivion.

Why are you sure? Are you trained in psychoanalysis (or whatever the appropriate discipline would be? Do you know us well enough personally to know our motivations? I don't know you well enough to be sure of your motivations and you as sure as hell don't know me well enough to know my motivations.

To hang on to that hope they have to convince themselves that this was the one exception that proves the rule.

N/a.

That they dismiss the incredible tales in other holy books but can't dismiss those in their own holy book just shows that they have to ditch their common sense in order to keep those hopes alive.

Some of us believe stuff in "other holy books" is wrong, because we have looked at them in depth at some point.

[Alien]

Great post, jj 

Naive post.

[Shaker]

Great post, jj 

Naive post.

You would say that. It was a great post regardless.

[Alien]

Great post, jj 

Naive post.

You would say that. It was a great post regardless.

You would say that. Your post was naive regardless.

[Shaker]

You're really not very good at this debating business at all, are you? At least when Monty Python did the "No it isn't - yes it is" sketch it was meant to be comedy.

[cyberman]

But Islam competes with Christianity in religious popularity. So if as some contend if many people believe in a faith it must be true, you should think Islam is the business too?

Nobody claims that

[Alien]

You're really not very good at this debating business at all, are you? At least when Monty Python did the "No it isn't - yes it is" sketch it was meant to be comedy.

You would say, that wouldn't you.

[Shaker]

A perfect illustration.

[Alien]

A perfect illustration.

You would say that, wouldn't you.

The post you spoke of (jjohjil's) was badly wrong, yet you said it was a great post. Did you think about the post before you made that comment? There were some glaring problems with it, yet you just came up with "Great post".

[Alien]

Great post, jj 

I do find it tremendously fascinating on a psychological level as to why otherwise modern-minded people living in modern homes in 2015 with all that that entails - wireless connections and smartphones and microwaves and what have you - would, if they heard of an alleged resurrection of someone in the next nearest town or village, presumably disbelieve it and bring to bear all the critical scepticism of which they're capable, whereas the same sort of thing sketchily written about in old documents compiled by ignorant people in a long-past pre-scientific and highly superstitious time is taken as read.

Nowt so queer as folk.

See #130.

[Shaker]

Yes, of course I thought about it. I didn't see any problems with it - it was well put, well argued and concisely written.

[Shaker]

See #130.

Why? It doesn't add anything much less rebut anything I said; it simply contains Alan Burns-like levels of bald assertion.

[jjohnjil]

...

I don't think I'm wrong, NS, because I think most people who use this forum have a great deal of common sense.  There are one or two exceptions but the majority wouldn't believe a report that sounded incredible to them.  If it was reported that Charlie Chaplin, whose body disappeared not long after its burial, had been seen talking and eating with a crowd of fans, they would immediately say it was a con or a mistake.  If someone told them Elvis had just left the building, they would laugh - as we all would.  But they then say they actually believe Jesus was resurrected!

But your scenario is incomplete. Jesus came into a situation where a people, Israel, had a history where they saw God at work. Jesus healed people and even raised people from the dead. He predicted his own death and resurrection, which was something the Jews did not expect. The only resurrection they anticipated was at the end of time.

Something convinced people, including skeptics like his own brother James, that he really had died and had been raised to life. That's were it is fundamentally different to your Charlie Chaplin/Elvis scenarios.

I'm sure it's really that they hope there is a god, who will save them from the thing most people dread - death and oblivion.

Why are you sure? Are you trained in psychoanalysis (or whatever the appropriate discipline would be? Do you know us well enough personally to know our motivations? I don't know you well enough to be sure of your motivations and you as sure as hell don't know me well enough to know my motivations.

To hang on to that hope they have to convince themselves that this was the one exception that proves the rule.

N/a.

That they dismiss the incredible tales in other holy books but can't dismiss those in their own holy book just shows that they have to ditch their common sense in order to keep those hopes alive.

Some of us believe stuff in "other holy books" is wrong, because we have looked at them in depth at some point.

 Perhaps you misunderstand me, Alan, I can well understand the people of that time and age believing it all, after all they had no reason to disbelieve stuff they were told by their elders. I would have believed it myself if I had been around in those days.  Now we have learnt that those sort of things just don't happen - Charlie and Elvis for instance.

You say Jesus raised people from the dead ... healed a few ... predicted his death and resurrection etc.  No, what you should have said is a few people said all that happened - but a score of years later at least!  Not convincing to me and I very much doubt you would believe a report in tomorrow's DM of the same thing happening in 1995 Israel!

And as for the Koran and other holy books that you claim that you have 'looked at in depth' and found them unbelievable - that proves my point!

For you to say Shaker's post was naïve, after all the fantasies you come out with all the time, is the joke of the year!

[Hope]

There is NO verifiable evidence to back up much of the stuff in the Bible, FACT, not just my opinion! in my opinion

FIFY, Floo

[Alien]

Yes, of course I thought about it. I didn't see any problems with it ...

Yes, I can see that.

[Alien]

See #130.

Why? It doesn't add anything much less rebut anything I said; it simply contains Alan Burns-like levels of bald assertion.

What is there of yours to rebut?

[Hope]

I don't think I'm wrong, NS, because I think most people who use this forum have a great deal of common sense.  There are one or two exceptions but the majority wouldn't believe a report that sounded incredible to them.  If it was reported that Charlie Chaplin, whose body disappeared not long after its burial, had been seen talking and eating with a crowd of fans, they would immediately say it was a con or a mistake.  If someone told them Elvis had just left the building, they would laugh - as we all would. 

As Shaker says, a great post, jj.  A 'great' straw man argument.

As you say, most people would not believe in a story such as those you listed above, because they might be aware that Elvis was buried, twice, in 1977.  Once in Forest Hill Cemetery, and then - on October 3rd - in Graceland.  For both of these burials there is documentary evidence (though it is true that the documentary evidence for why the second took place is confusing).  Furthermore, at no point in his mlife, did Elvis claim deity.  The latter also applies to Chaplin.

However, Jesus it seems claimed to be God on a number of accasions prior to his death - either why what he said or by what he did.  One can either dismiss what he said and did and state that any resurrection was therefore impossible, (in which case one can't try to argue that what he taught was something that we should take some sort of notice of, as many people do); or one has to take those claims into account when making one's choices. 

[/quote]But they then say they actually believe Jesus was resurrected![/quote]As noted above, the context of this is completely different to that claimed in the straw man argument you have tried so hard to construct. 

I'm sure it's really that they hope there is a god, who will save them from the thing most people dread - death and oblivion.  To hang on to that hope they have to convince themselves that this was the one exception that proves the rule.

You seem to have a vcery good idesa what others believe, jj.  Perhaps it matches your ideas.  It certainly doesn't match my faith, or that of Christians I know.

That they dismiss the incredible tales in other holy books but can't dismiss those in their own holy book just shows that they have to ditch their common sense in order to keep those hopes alive.

Oddly enough, the 'incredible stories in other holy books' tend not to refer to the same kind of thing as the Biblical 'stories', thus making your argument rather tortuous.

[jjohnjil]

Oh, come on, Hope!  If you can't think of a decent argument, why bother!

So if I tell you I'm deity, that means I am deity, does it?  There are countless people who claim they are Napoleon, does that ean they all are?  This "Jesus said he was deity and Elvis didn't" is the poorest reason to believe it all that I can imagine! 

And as for the 'incredible stories in other holy books' tend not to refer to the same kind of thing as the Biblical 'stories'!  Incredible stories come in all shapes and sizes, Hope, but what they all have in common is they are incredible!

[ippy]

You're really not very good at this debating business at all, are you? At least when Monty Python did the "No it isn't - yes it is" sketch it was meant to be comedy.

I think you mean the £5 argument scketch.

ippy

[Alien]

You're really not very good at this debating business at all, are you? At least when Monty Python did the "No it isn't - yes it is" sketch it was meant to be comedy.

I think you mean the £5 argument scketch.

ippy

Five minutes sketch? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y