Mary

[ippy]

Well yes in a way I was talking to a close relative of mine that's a Dr of psychology,...

and we all know that hearsay isn't evidence.

Whether you believe me that's up to you, but that's about it, I'm sure there'll be something about cognitive dissonance is on Wikki somewhere.

Cognitive dissonance is all about " ... the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism.  In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.

There you are Hope you've just demonstrated it in this post of yours, thanks.

ippy

[Gordon]

As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism.  In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.

So, based on currently known science about death, we can now dismiss claims that a dead Jesus was resurrected as being ancient superstitious and impossible nonsense, so that we can quickly 'move on'; good to know that you've moved on from believing such unreconstructed bollocks.

[Dicky Underpants]

What if the 'teachings' of Jesus weren't reported correctly all those years after his demise, or invented by the gospel writers? There is no verifiable proof that what was written down actually came out of the mouth of Jesus.

That's been tried before, Floo.  It didn't float for very long.

According to whom? Are you referring to just this forum? As far as I'm aware this kind of question has been at the centre of critical discussion in Christianity for over 200 years, beginning with such figures as Samuel Reimarus and David Friedrich Strauss. There's no sign of any diminution in scholarly debate as far as I can see, or as far as anyone with enquiring minds can see (to quote your own words in another thread back at you.)

[Dicky Underpants]

Cognitive dissonance is all about " ... the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism.  In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.

Cognitive dissonance is perhaps most easily perceived among fundamentalists (in the religious camp) - hence the frantic appeals to 'science' to justify their literal approach to Genesis etc. It can of course exist in a host of other fields of human experience, as you say, but its appearance in religious belief is particularly obvious. In fact, it was in the context of religious discussion that I first came across the term, in the long testimony of a former evangelical minister who had lost his faith, and went through a heart-searching process of deconstruction of his former belief-system, and all the trauma associated with the realisation that, as regards religion's supernatural claims, he'd been on a wild-goose chase.

[ippy]

Looks like you've got a forte for speaking languages Hope.

ippy

[Hope]

According to whom? Are you referring to just this forum? As far as I'm aware this kind of question has been at the centre of critical discussion in Christianity for over 200 years, beginning with such figures as Samuel Reimarus and David Friedrich Strauss. There's no sign of any diminution in scholarly debate as far as I can see, or as far as anyone with enquiring minds can see (to quote your own words in another thread back at you.)

I understood that it had been questioned by folk long before Reimarus and Strauss, perhapos as far back as the 1st century AD.  I appreciate that they seem to have been the ones who managed to gather all the loose ends that existed till then, but there doesn't seem to have been a great deal of success in supporting the claim.

At the same time, the idea has been floated here on more than one occasion, and iirc, Jim nailed at least one such argument to the floor within posts of the thread being started.

[Dicky Underpants]

According to whom? Are you referring to just this forum? As far as I'm aware this kind of question has been at the centre of critical discussion in Christianity for over 200 years, beginning with such figures as Samuel Reimarus and David Friedrich Strauss. There's no sign of any diminution in scholarly debate as far as I can see, or as far as anyone with enquiring minds can see (to quote your own words in another thread back at you.)

I understood that it had been questioned by folk long before Reimarus and Strauss, perhapos as far back as the 1st century AD.  I appreciate that they seem to have been the ones who managed to gather all the loose ends that existed till then, but there doesn't seem to have been a great deal of success in supporting the claim.

At the same time, the idea has been floated here on more than one occasion, and iirc, Jim nailed at least one such argument to the floor within posts of the thread being started.

Well, if you think that everything that Jesus is supposed to have said in the gospels is exactly what he did say, and there are valid reasons for believing this is so, I'd like you to "show your working" that brought you to this conclusion. Very few Christian scholars, apart from evangelical ones, think that Jesus' words in John's gospel are straight reportage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism.  In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.

So, based on currently known science about death, we can now dismiss claims that a dead Jesus was resurrected as being ancient superstitious and impossible nonsense, so that we can quickly 'move on'; good to know that you've moved on from believing such unreconstructed bollocks.

Something wrong with being ancient, that's a) opinion and b) a fallacy.
Impossible....Not for God and maybe not for man in the future either.

[Gordon]

As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism.  In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.

So, based on currently known science about death, we can now dismiss claims that a dead Jesus was resurrected as being ancient superstitious and impossible nonsense, so that we can quickly 'move on'; good to know that you've moved on from believing such unreconstructed bollocks.

Something wrong with being ancient, that's a) opinion and b) a fallacy.
Impossible....Not for God and maybe not for man in the future either.

The time in which the Jesus story is set is often referred to as 'antiquity', so 'ancient' seems a reasonable term to use.

As for impossible: that seems accurate as opposed to fallacious (ask any undertaker about changes to dead bodies over 2/3 days). Interesting that you think that perhaps one day science will have developed so as to do the equivalent of resurrection - for now though, and for the middle-east of antiquity, resurrection of the 2/3 days dead is impossible and, as such, the claims in relation to Jesus can just be dismissed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism.  In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.

So, based on currently known science about death, we can now dismiss claims that a dead Jesus was resurrected as being ancient superstitious and impossible nonsense, so that we can quickly 'move on'; good to know that you've moved on from believing such unreconstructed bollocks.

Something wrong with being ancient, that's a) opinion and b) a fallacy.
Impossible....Not for God and maybe not for man in the future either.

The time in which the Jesus story is set is often referred to as 'antiquity', so 'ancient' seems a reasonable term to use.

As for impossible: that seems accurate as opposed to fallacious (ask any undertaker about changes to dead bodies over 2/3 days). Interesting that you think that perhaps one day science will have developed so as to do the equivalent of resurrection - for now though, and for the middle-east of antiquity, resurrection of the 2/3 days dead is impossible and, as such, the claims in relation to Jesus can just be dismissed.

Impossible for man, yes......impossible for God?

So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.

[Nearly Sane]

Impossible for man, yes......impossible for God.

So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.

Which is actually contradictory to your privileging of experience because of the problem of hard solipsism - sorry but you aren't even in a position to resort to argumentum ad populum here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Impossible for man, yes......impossible for God.

So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.

Which is actually contradictory to your privileging of experience because of the problem of hard solipsism - sorry but you aren't even in a position to resort to argumentum ad populum here.

I'm not sure I did, I think that's in your head.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As such, it no more applies to religious belief as it does to atheism.  In fact, it is a pretty common aspect of live as we are all 'confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values' on a nigh-on daily basis as society, politics, scientific discoveries, etc. move on so quickly.

So, based on currently known science about death, we can now dismiss claims that a dead Jesus was resurrected as being ancient superstitious and impossible nonsense, so that we can quickly 'move on'; good to know that you've moved on from believing such unreconstructed bollocks.

Something wrong with being ancient, that's a) opinion and b) a fallacy.
Impossible....Not for God and maybe not for man in the future either.

The time in which the Jesus story is set is often referred to as 'antiquity', so 'ancient' seems a reasonable term to use.

As for impossible: that seems accurate as opposed to fallacious (ask any undertaker about changes to dead bodies over 2/3 days). Interesting that you think that perhaps one day science will have developed so as to do the equivalent of resurrection - for now though, and for the middle-east of antiquity, resurrection of the 2/3 days dead is impossible and, as such, the claims in relation to Jesus can just be dismissed.

I wouldn't use the world impossible in this context and neither can any materialist since ''life'' is merely the arrangement of the media.

What you meant to say is that it was extremely improbable. We can agree on that.

You also said you don't think it happened, that is fair enough. What did?

You also implied that you couldn't believe it, why not?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure I did, I think that's in your head.

Sorry, I've experienced you telling me.  It's true, or rather it is given your 'methodology'.

[Nearly Sane]

I wouldn't use the world impossible in this context and neither can any materialist since ''life'' is merely the arrangement of the media.

What you meant to say is that it was extremely improbable. We can agree on that.

You also said you don't think it happened, that is fair enough. What did?

You also implied that you couldn't believe it, why not?

Oh at last, Vlad's discivered the problem of induction - it's like he just said 'dada'.

[Hope]

Well, if you think that everything that Jesus is supposed to have said in the gospels is exactly what he did say, and there are valid reasons for believing this is so, I'd like you to "show your working" that brought you to this conclusion. Very few Christian scholars, apart from evangelical ones, think that Jesus' words in John's gospel are straight reportage.

I notice that you choose the Gospel that is furthest from the life and time of Jesus (with a generally accepted authorship date of between 80 and 100).  How about the earlier Gospels?

Whilst I wouldn't suggest that what is written in the Gospels is necessarily word for word what Jesus said, it seems likely that he repeated a lot of his teachings; this would mean that whilst the actual recorded words may not be precise, the meanings behind them are.  At the same time, it should be remembered that in an age of greater reliance on oral commun ication than now, repetition would help individuals and communities to memorise the underlying truths if not the exact words.

[Gordon]

So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.

Propaganda + a dollop of credulity + a splash of confirmation bias + a dash of wishful thinking = an ability to believe absolute nonsense.

[Shaker]

Impossible for man, yes......impossible for God?

Invent gods and literally anything goes, Vlad; but as Hope reminds us on a regular basis, "If God, therefore magic" is the death of any rational view of the world.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.

Propaganda + a dollop of credulity + a splash of confirmation bias + a dash of wishful thinking = an ability to believe absolute nonsense.

I don't think you have established that your dismissal doesn't boil down to anything more than your belief in philosophical naturalism since you misunderstand the history, are historically revisionist and your use of the word impossible in this context. Your analysis is also riddled with the genetic fallacy.

Given all of that there is one word left that describes your analysis............Dollop.
 

[Gordon]

So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.

Propaganda + a dollop of credulity + a splash of confirmation bias + a dash of wishful thinking = an ability to believe absolute nonsense.

I don't think you have established that your dismissal doesn't boil down to anything more than your belief in philosophical naturalism since you misunderstand the history, are historically revisionist and your use of the word impossible in this context. Your analysis is also riddled with the genetic fallacy.

Given all of that there is one word left that describes your analysis............Dollop.
 

It is indeed a splendid word, Vlad: here is another 'induction', now toddle off to your nearest undertaker and let us know how many resurrections you encounter over, say, the next 6 months.

Alternatively, you could accept that 2/3 dead corpses really do stay dead (and will do no matter how long you haunt the undertaker) and avoid wasting your time on silly notions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Impossible for man, yes......impossible for God?

Invent gods and literally anything goes, Vlad; but as Hope reminds us on a regular basis, "If God, therefore magic" is the death of any rational view of the world.

Not really since a rational view of the world presumably includes recognition that a resurrection is not something science would term as impossible. That it was not observed is uncertain.

Given that it is undeniable that the resurrection has also been an embarrassment since the start it is a wonder it hasn't been supressed by the church or at least the church as portrayed by antitheists.

If God, therefore magic I don't see how it is any more dangerous to a rational view of the world than the universe either being an uncaused effect or an uncaused cause.

Perhaps you'd like to justify your thesis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So Jesus died but the disciples and the 500 thought he was resurrected and the disciples were convinced he ascended into heaven. Christians have subsequently encountered Christ in the 2000 years subsequently.

Propaganda + a dollop of credulity + a splash of confirmation bias + a dash of wishful thinking = an ability to believe absolute nonsense.

I don't think you have established that your dismissal doesn't boil down to anything more than your belief in philosophical naturalism since you misunderstand the history, are historically revisionist and your use of the word impossible in this context. Your analysis is also riddled with the genetic fallacy.

Given all of that there is one word left that describes your analysis............Dollop.
 

It is indeed a splendid word, Vlad: here is another 'induction', now toddle off to your nearest undertaker and let us know how many resurrections you encounter over, say, the next 6 months.

Alternatively, you could accept that 2/3 dead corpses really do stay dead (and will do no matter how long you haunt the undertaker) and avoid wasting your time on silly notions.

I don't expect to see any resurrections ever and there may never be any again although if it's right that life is merely due to the configuration of matter a resurrection strikes me as a technological possibility. I may not though prepared to accept that it is impossible since square circles are the sort of things which are impossible and this isn't in that category.

I have no reason to revise the accidental historical points flagged up in the epistles and I have experienced Christ spiritually so no I don't think you can absolutely trust that dead men never get up. I can tell that your argument boils down to a philosophically naturalist given the historical, categorical, scientific misunderstandings your analysis is prone to.

I'm also waiting for a proton to decay.

[Shaker]

If God, therefore magic I don't see how it is any more dangerous to a rational view of the world than the universe either being an uncaused effect or an uncaused cause.

Perhaps you'd like to justify your thesis.

The short version runs approximately as follows:

My methodology for understanding the world and sorting the true from the false has a number of factors built into it as factory standard which make it self-correcting. We've never come up with anything even remotely as consistently accurate and successful at delivering reliable results literally every single day.

You have nothing. We know this because you keep being asked to show your methodology and you have no answer - just 'philosophical materialism' stuck on auto-repeat.

There's a longer version that I'd be glad to go into after supper if I have the time.

[Gordon]

I don't expect to see any resurrections ever and there may never be any again although if it's right that life is merely due to the configuration of matter a resurrection strikes me as a technological possibility.

In that case expect to be head-hunted by any number of biology departments: provide the method and you'll make a killing.

I may not though prepared to accept that it is impossible since square circles are the sort of things which are impossible and this isn't in that category.

I suspect that square circles and the resurrection of 2/3 day dead bodies in antiquity are similar - in that both are impossibilities.

I have no reason to revise the accidental historical points flagged up in the epistles and I have experienced Christ spiritually so no I don't think you can absolutely trust that dead men never get up.

Then you'd be dead wrong.

I can tell that your argument boils down to a philosophically naturalist given the historical, categorical, scientific misunderstandings your analysis is prone to.

Of course you do - it is your dreary mantra.

I'm also waiting for a proton to decay.

Super - is that what you are having for dinner this evening?

[jeremyp]

Given that it is undeniable that the resurrection has also been an embarrassment since the start it is a wonder it hasn't been supressed by the church or at least the church as portrayed by antitheists.

Why would the resurrection be an embarrassment?  Obviously the death of somebody claiming to be the Messiah would be an embarrassment, but that just gives us a possible motive for the invention of the resurrection.