Why the state must stop funding faith schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not uncommon, but typically it's only used to justify commonplace events or events where there's non-documentary (archaeological, say) evidence.

It's more feasible than them being true, certainly. As a comparison I offer you Joseph Smith - he wrote letters concerning aspects of a faith that nobody knew about, now there are millions of them. Is it feasible... yes, I'd say it most certainly is.

O.

That would be Mormonism the Christian heterodoxy........

[wigginhall]

I thought that 'sightings' of Elvis, and even photos of him after death, demonstrate popular credulity about life after death.    I suppose you could say that some people don't want Elvis to be dead, or maybe they have some other reason, to wish him alive.

Doesn't this offer some insight into how such legends arise?   We also know that many people, after bereavement, have very strong experiences of their loved one still being around, part of mourning I guess.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought that 'sightings' of Elvis, and even photos of him after death, demonstrate popular credulity about life after death.    I suppose you could say that some people don't want Elvis to be dead, or maybe they have some other reason, to wish him alive.

Doesn't this offer some insight into how such legends arise?   We also know that many people, after bereavement, have very strong experiences of their loved one still being around, part of mourning I guess.

Yes but you are talking about close relatives and lifelong friends all people who you are intimate with.Did Jesus have anybody like that? Maybe a couple of Dozen. Unless of course................

Where does Elvis resurrectionism stand now I wonder.

[wigginhall]

I just suppose that there is a spectrum of 'wishful resurrection', ranging from still seeing a dead relative around in the house, (a very common experience), to sightings of Elvis, and other famous figures.   I think Michael Jackson sightings are now common.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes but you are talking about close relatives and lifelong friends all people who you are intimate with.Did Jesus have anybody like that? Maybe a couple of Dozen. Unless of course................

But this is exactly the position with Jesus - the only evidence we have is that it was basically his followers (his closest friends, confidants etc) who believed in the resurrection initially. And of course believing this was an 'act of faith' that they wanted to believe and may have been taught would happen and to believe. So a charismatic leader tells his followers something will happen after his death, and guess what his followers want it to be true, so make out it is true. Problem is that the rest of the population at the time shrugged their shoulders muttering 'whatever' and got on with their lives not believing a word of it.

Where does Elvis resurrectionism stand now I wonder.

It doesn't - Elvis is dead.

[Gordon]

Where does Elvis resurrectionism stand now I wonder.

Shoulder to shoulder with Jesus, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But this is exactly the position with Jesus - the only evidence we have is that it was basically his followers (his closest friends, confidants etc) who believed in the resurrection initially. And of course believing this was an 'act of faith' that they wanted to believe and may have been taught would happen and to believe. So a charismatic leader tells his followers something will happen after his death, and guess what his followers want it to be true, so make out it is true. Problem is that the rest of the population at the time shrugged their shoulders muttering 'whatever' and got on with their lives not believing a word of it.
It doesn't - Elvis is dead.

So Elvis resurrectionism has fallen because Elvis is dead and Jesus resurrectionism took off because er, Jesus is dead...............how does that work?

[ProfessorDavey]

So Elvis resurrectionism has fallen because Elvis is dead and Jesus resurrectionism took off because er, Jesus is dead...............how does that work?

Elvis is dead, Jesus is dead.

In both cases some believe believe that they are alive, others want to believe they are alive, others still think they are 'metaphorically' still alive (i.e. remain important even after death). But in both cases they are dead, there is no resurrection.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Elvis is dead, Jesus is dead.

In both cases some believe believe that they are alive, others want to believe they are alive, others still think they are 'metaphorically' still alive (i.e. remain important even after death). But in both cases they are dead, there is no resurrection.

Yes but what I want to know is , is Elvis resurrectionism on the Up or on the down ?given we are now 40 years into it.

[Gordon]

Yes but what I want to know is , is Elvis resurrectionism on the Up or on the down ?given we are now 40 years into it.

Well, since you mentioned it surely you must know the answer, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, since you mentioned it surely you must know the answer, Vlad.

Well according to anti theism it should be on the way down while anti theism says it should be on the way up.

[Gordon]

Well according to anti theism it should be on the way down while anti theism says it should be on the way up.

Is this the 'Grand Old Duke of York' approach, Vlad: when it is up it is up, and when it is down it is down?

Personally I'd go for the third option: neither up nor down.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes but what I want to know is , is Elvis resurrectionism on the Up or on the down ?given we are now 40 years into it.

I have no idea - but that is argumentum ad populum. It wouldn't make any difference if tomorrow the last person in the world who believed in Elvis' resurrection died, or if tomorrow the last person who did not believe it converted - Elvis would still be dead.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no idea - but that is argumentum ad populum.

No it would mean there were other factors involved than just being dead and famous.After all isn't there meant to be a reason for all things?

A parody on the misuse of ad populism as the fit all accusation is available on another thread.

[ProfessorDavey]

No it would mean there were other factors involved than just being dead and famous.

Indeed, there would probably be the need for successful propagation of 'cult following' mentality - but again that has no bearing on whether Elvis or Jesus are dead.

After all isn't there meant to be a reason for all things?

No - where on earth did you get that idea?

A parody on the misuse of ad populism as the fit all accusation is available on another thread.

Why is that relevant - your example was classic (and classically flawed) argumentum ad populum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed, there would probably be the need for successful propagation of 'cult following' mentality - but again that has no bearing on whether Elvis or Jesus are dead.
No - where on earth did you get that idea?
Why is that relevant - your example was classic (and classically flawed) argumentum ad populum.

No it,s about you and others building a theory on the success of resurrectionism only to have to come up with an opposing one for when it fails.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

So Elvis resurrectionism has fallen because Elvis is dead and Jesus resurrectionism took off because er, Jesus is dead...............how does that work?

Wallop! And our Vlad blunders straight back into the survivor fallacy. This is like opening a window for the fly to escape, only to watch it endlessly banging its head against the closed window next to it...

It "works" like any other example - start with similar suites of circumstances and eventually a small number will thrive and many will not, not because of some inherent "truth" in the winners but because of entirely extraneous influences. Had not for example Constantine plumped for Christianity rather for one of the other embryonic faiths, it's entirely possible that it would have fallen away and a different faith would have taken its place. 

Essentially you're trying to imply that there must be something special about lottery winner Fred because he won the lottery, but not about about Mary because she did not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

Wallop! And our Vlad blunders straight back into the survivor fallacy. This is like opening a window for the fly to escape, only to watch it endlessly banging its head against the closed window next to it...

It "works" like any other example - start with similar suites of circumstances and eventually a small number will thrive and many will not, not because of some inherent "truth" in the winners but because of entirely extraneous influences. Had not for example Constantine plumped for Christianity rather for one of the other embryonic faiths, it's entirely possible that it would have fallen away and a different faith would have taken its place. 

Essentially you're trying to imply that there must be something special about lottery winner Fred because he won the lottery, but not about about Mary because she did not.

Absolutely Bonkers reply Hillside.although for whatever reason Constantine was invoked,I still think you could have worked in the sheik of Araby ,the duke of Earl and even The lullaby of Broadway.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

Absolutely Bonkers reply Hillside.although for whatever reason Constantine was invoked,I still think you could have worked in the sheik of Araby ,the duke of Earl and even The lullaby of Broadway.

Your dull incomprehension is noted. No doubt you'll be along any time now to explain why survivor bias is "bonkers" then won't you.

Constantine was "invoked" because he picked Christianity and, being the emperor and all, that was enough to give it the leg up it needed and to encourage the competitors to whither away. Had he picked something else, you'd be espousing now whatever alternative proto faith had caught the wind and taken off instead.

That's the point - any manner of chance factors along the way can determine the winners and the losers with no significant characteristics in any of them that make them more true, better etc. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

Your dull incomprehension is noted. No doubt you'll be along any time now to explain why survivor bias is "bonkers" then won't you.

Constantine was "invoked" because he picked Christianity and, being the emperor and all, that was enough to give it the leg up it needed and to encourage the competitors to whither away. Had he picked something else, you'd be espousing now whatever alternative proto faith had caught the wind and taken off instead.

That's the point - any manner of chance factors along the way can determine the winners and the losers with no significant characteristics in any of them that make them more true, better etc.

But what has Constantine got to do with the decline in Elvis resurrectionism?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

But what has Constantine got to do with the decline in Elvis resurrectionism?

Seriously?

Seriously seriously?

Constantine was given as an example of the sort of factor external to a faith that could nonetheless cause the faith to succeed whereas others do not - not because of anything inherently "right" about the faith itself, but essentially because of a chance event. Who's to say what chance events could have happened but didn't that could have given Elvis resurrectionism a survival leg up.

You know you can buy books on this stuff don't you - it's not hard.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Constantine was "invoked" because he picked Christianity and, being the emperor and all, that was enough to give it the leg up it needed and to encourage the competitors to whither away. Had he picked something else, you'd be espousing now whatever alternative proto faith had caught the wind and taken off instead.

The only wind I,m catching is off you mate.
Constantine is no reason for me being a Christian......if it worked like that we'd all still be Romans...........Get a grip.

[jeremyp]

Themes, yes, that thematic nature is one of the reasons, its suggested, that Hebrew as a language is relatively stable by comparison with other languages from the region. That's only a relative measure, mind.

That's all very well, but the early Christians didn't speak Hebrew. Jesus and his followers probably spoke Aramaic as a first language, and the lingua franca of the Roman Empire was Greek.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

The only wind I,m catching is off you mate.
Constantine is no reason for me being a Christian......if it worked like that we'd all still be Romans...........Get a grip.

Oh dear. Constantine was just given as an example of the type of external, essentially random factor that can tip the survivorship balance one way rather than another. Of course we wouldn't "all be Romans", but Constantine's imprimatur could have been just enough to seed that faith such that it would take root and to discourage others.

That's the point - we're surrounded by things that exist not necessarily because of some inherent rightness about them, but rather because of long chains of chance and happenstance. That's why your "how come Christianity survived then?" schtick is hopeless - it's entirely likely that it survived for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with what it actually has to say.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?   

[jeremyp]

The only thing is that the communities are established.
Paul though talks about 500 witnesses available for consultation.

Names and addresses please.