Why the state must stop funding faith schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Names and addresses please.

I think the records are in the same condition as those you suggest for that hypothetical Jesus Myth sect we discussed yesterday.........except there is absolutely no evidence of a Jesus Myth sect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

it's entirely likely that it survived for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with what it actually has to say.

So nobody adopts it for what it has to say then.
Hillside, those are called nominal Christians.

On the other hand there are very few real atheists and lots of apatheists.

So Hillside are you the genuine article?

[jeremyp]

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.

What about Haile Selassie? He is revered in Rastafarianism as the Messiah or God incarnate in spite of the fact that he himself denied it.

How about that? People can believe in the deification of a person even when that person is still around and obviously human. On those grounds, it makes the 15 or so years between the death of Jesus and the first written records entirely credible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What about Haile Selassie? He is revered in Rastafarianism as the Messiah or God incarnate in spite of the fact that he himself denied it.

So what you are saying is that some religion is Highly Sellassie, Some is Fairly Selassie and some isnt Selassie at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

So nobody adopts it for what it has to say then.
Hillside, those are called nominal Christians.

On the other hand there are very few real atheists and lots of apatheists.

So Hillside are you the genuine article?

Lots of people have started and joined lots of cults because they believed what those cults had to say - the early christians, the cargo cult folks, David Koresh's followers etc. The question though was why some of those cults caught the wind to become full-blown religions whereas others did not. And the reasons for that very often have to do with factors entirely unrelated to what the cults actually have to say. Had christianity withered away like so many others but for the random breaks it happened to have along the way there'd be nothing left for those who came later to decide whether or not they liked the message.

The big mistake - your big mistake in fact - is just to assume that the success you see now is down to some inherent rightness about your faith rather than to the various factors that happened to give it the leg ups it needed.   

Incidentally, random success isn't confined to religions - it's a general phenomenon, from businesses to technologies to pretty much every other cultural construct.     

[Dicky Underpants]

The big mistake - your big mistake in fact - is just to assume that the success you see now is down to some inherent rightness about your faith rather than to the various factors that happened to give it the leg ups it needed.   

Hi blue

I differ slightly from your approach here, in that I believe there were some humanly valuable elements in Christianity which set it apart from other available options (such as Mithraism and Orphism etc). But I don't think these elements were especially instrumental in the survival of the early days of Christianity. The main stream of early Christianity was essential an 'End-Times' religion, rather like the Jehovah's Witnesses today, and if it had not been for the 'leg-ups' it was given which were able, by intellectual subterfuge, to give the faith the kiss of life when the relevant prophecies failed to be fulfilled, then Christianity would indeed have been dead in the water after a few hundred years.
Thereafter, its power-base and a good deal of 'intellectual' waffle to confuse the hoi-polloi  (coupled with some of its inherent wholesome constituents) ensured its survival down the ages.

As regards the 'Resurrection' element being important in Christianity's survival - I don't think that would count for much above the other options available, since they all had resurrection stories of their own! If the resurrection of Osiris had been plugged by Constantine instead of that of Jesus, no doubt we'd all be singing "O Isis und Osiris schenket" in Coptic? (with apologies to Mozart)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

Lots of people have started and joined lots of cults because they believed what those cults had to say - the early christians, the cargo cult folks, David Koresh's followers etc. The question though was why some of those cults caught the wind to become full-blown religions whereas others did not. And the reasons for that very often have to do with factors entirely unrelated to what the cults actually have to say. Had christianity withered away like so many others but for the random breaks it happened to have along the way there'd be nothing left for those who came later to decide whether or not they liked the message.

The big mistake - your big mistake in fact - is just to assume that the success you see now is down to some inherent rightness about your faith rather than to the various factors that happened to give it the leg ups it needed.   

Incidentally, random success isn't confined to religions - it's a general phenomenon, from businesses to technologies to pretty much every other cultural construct.   

Sounds like memetic bollocks to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

I differ slightly from your approach here, in that I believe there were some humanly valuable elements in Christianity which set it apart from other available options (such as Mithraism and Orphism etc). But I don't think these elements were especially instrumental in the survival of the early days of Christianity. The main stream of early Christianity was essential an 'End-Times' religion, rather like the Jehovah's Witnesses today, and if it had not been for the 'leg-ups' it was given which were able by intellectual subterfuge to give the faith the kiss of life when the relevant prophecies failed to be fulfilled, then Christianity would indeed have been dead in the water after a few hundred years.

Thereafter, its power-base and a good deal of 'intellectual' waffle to confuse the hoi-polloi  (coupled with some of its inherent wholesome constituents) ensured its survival down the ages.

Fair enough, though no doubt there were some humanly valuable elements in other cults too only they didn't make it to religions. I'm more interested for now though in explaining to Vlad the general phenomenon - that survivors survive very often for reason that are nothing to do with their inherent characteristics. It's a bit like the game of heads and tails you see sometimes at fundraisers: everyone stands up and they're told to put their hand on their heads or "tails". Someone tosses a coin, and if it's a head the people holding heir backsides sit down and vice versa.

The process is repeated until there's just one left standing - the winner. Our Vlad would ask what's so special about the winner, whereas it didn't matter a jot who won - someone was bound to, and it was just a series of chance events that meant that they did.

Once you start seeing it it's an astonishingly common phenomenon, but our narrative-seeking nature means that instead we look for causal explanations that are something to do with the winner rather than with chance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

Sounds like memetic bollocks to me.

You do realise that merely putting the word "bollocks" after a well-described and tested phenomenon doesn't actually make it bollocks don't you?

Don't you? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Dicky,

Fair enough, though no doubt there were some humanly valuable elements in other cults too only they didn't make it to religions. I'm more interested for now though in explaining to Vlad the general phenomenon - that survivors survive very often for reason that are nothing to do with their inherent characteristics. It's a bit like the game of heads and tails you see sometimes at fundraisers: everyone stands up and they're told to put their hand on their heads or "tails". Someone tosses a coin, and if it's a head the people holding heir backsides sit down and vice versa.

The process is repeated until there's just one left standing - the winner. Our Vlad would ask what's so special about the winner, whereas it didn't matter a jot who won - someone was bound to, and it was just a series of chance events that meant that they did.

Once you start seeing it it's an astonishingly common phenomenon, but our narrative-seeking nature means that instead we look for causal explanations that are something to do with the winner rather than with chance.

Or once you start seeing survivor bias it becomes a pathological obsession.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

Or once you start seeing survivor bias it becomes a pathological obsession.

No, just a fact - as you'd realise if you had the wit to see it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

You do realise that merely putting the word "bollocks" after a well-described and tested phenomenon doesn't actually make it bollocks don't you?

Don't you?

I disagree with your thesis that people choose the most popular life stance and do not consider it's content or reject it. That is just intellectual snobbery and as we know in your case chronological snobbery.

Other wise no one would become a convinced rather than nominal member of any minority religion.

The immediate concern of any thinking person is why anti theists are simultaneously running theories for how resurrection stories survive.....when challenged with the Jesus success and a contradictory one for why they naturally fail as demonstrated with Elvis.........That is just plainly schizoid.

Mind you........if I'd been shown contradictory with the emphasis on Dick I'd obsessively hand wave obscure  stuff like survivor bias and use it shamanic ally...................see Edward Feser on the use of the Courtiers reply.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

I disagree with your thesis that people choose the most popular life stance and do not consider it's content or reject it. That is just intellectual snobbery and as we know in your case chronological snobbery.

That's not my "thesis" at all. The fact remains though that most children in this country are exposed to your faith in their schools rather than to, say, Mithraism and that reasons for that quite probably have everything to do with chance and very little to do with the content of both when they were at the cult stage. 

Other wise no one would become a convinced rather than nominal member of any minority religion.

Don't be daft. People can be "convinced" by any manner of things.

The immediate concern of any thinking person...

...don't tempt me...

... is why anti theists are simultaneously running theories for how resurrection stories survive.....when challenged with the Jesus success and a contradictory one for why they naturally fail as demonstrated with Elvis.........That is just plainly schizoid.

Except it's been explained perfectly clearly to you - in any set of starting positions you'll end up with a few winners and many losers, generally for reasons of happenstance and chance rather than because of the inherent qualities of the opening bids.

Is the fact that one person wins at "heads and tails" but most lose "plainly shizoid" in your head too?

Mind you........if I'd been shown contradictory with the emphasis on Dick I'd obsessively hand wave obscure  stuff like survivor bias and use it shamanic ally...................see Edward Feser on the use of the Courtiers reply.

The courtier's reply is a fallacy you've attempted more than once before and you've had your arse handed to you in a sling for doing it. And you haven't been shown "contradictory" anything.

Perhaps if you stopped the endless misrepresentation that would be a first step to making you educable?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

That's not my "thesis" at all. The fact remains though that most children in this country are exposed to your faith in their schools rather than to, say, Mithraism and that reasons for that quite probably have everything to do with chance and very little to do with the content of both when they were at the cult stage. 

Don't be daft. People can be "convinced" by any manner of things.

...don't tempt me...

Except it's been explained perfectly clearly to you - in any set of starting positions you'll end up with a few winners and many losers, generally for reasons of happenstance and chance rather than because of the inherent qualities of the opening bids.

Is the fact that one person wins at "heads and tails" but most lose "plainly shizoid" in your head too?

The courtier's reply is a fallacy you've attempted more than once before and you've had your arse handed to you in a sling for doing it. And you haven't been shown "contradictory" anything.

Perhaps if you stopped the endless misrepresentation that would be a first step to making you educable?

So it comes down to universal Darwinism and meme tics then.

We know that ideas survive even though they are not correct. Ideas are therefore not subject to survivor bias since they do not become extinct.. The revival of paganism should have taught you that.

Again explain why people on this board are simultaneously peddling two contradictory ideas that resurrectionism succeeds and resurrectionism also fails.

If anything you are the Constantine of survival bias theory. Some of us still think that because it is popular doesn't make it right. Finally the article on survival bias mentions some systems and contexts but strangely religion seems to be missing..........I suspect another category error on your part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

So it comes down to universal Darwinism and meme tics then.

No. All that’s being said is that ideas and beliefs often survive for reason entirely other than their content.

We know that ideas survive even though they are not correct.

Finally you’re getting it!

Ideas are therefore not subject to survivor bias since they do not become extinct.. The revival of paganism should have taught you that.

And bang, straight into yet another non sequitur. Of course ideas can become “extinct” – ie, forgotten about. Who can say what ideas were lost - perhaps forever – in the fire at the great library at Alexandria? No-one’s suggesting that all ideas will survive by chance and happenstance – many will not. It’s simply an observable fact though that many do survive for reasons unrelated to their content – because an emperor makes a faith the state religion for example.

Again explain why people on this board are simultaneously peddling two contradictory ideas that resurrectionism succeeds and resurrectionism also fails.

Again you’ve had it explained to you several times now but you just ignore the explanation. Why do some people win the heads and tails game and some do not? Some resurrection stories get lucky, some do not – that’s the point. The content of the story isn’t the thing that ensures its success – often other factors entirely will do it and the fact that the story entaiis a resurrection is incidental.

Good grief!

If anything you are the Constantine of survival bias theory.

Oh dear. Survivor bias already exists as an observable phenomenon. It needs no help from me to make it so.

Some of us still think that because it is popular doesn't make it right.

So you’ve removed the argumetum ad populum from the range of logical fallacies on which you rely then? Better late then never I guess.

Finally…

“Finally”? Any chance of a “firstly” first?

…the article on survival bias mentions some systems and contexts but strangely religion seems to be missing..........I suspect another category error on your part.

First, what article?

Second, survivor bias is an observable phenomenon – whether its object is businesses, technologies, religions or anything else is irrelevant.

Thirdly, as I painstakingly explained to you several times there is no category error when the claimed process – personal “intuition” for example – is the same, regardless of the object of that intuition. Either you think that intuition is a reliable guide to objective truths or you don’t. You’d be barmy to do so given the total absence of a verification method to support it (you know, the question you endlessly run away from), but there it is. If you cling to it nonetheless, you have no choice but to accept that anyone else’s intuition about anything else must also be a reliable guide to objective truths.

You really are terribly confused.

Really.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

No. All that’s being said is that ideas and beliefs often survive for reason entirely other than their content.

Finally you’re getting it!

And bang, straight into yet another non sequitur. Of course ideas can become “extinct” – ie, forgotten about. Who can say what ideas were lost - perhaps forever – in the fire at the great library at Alexandria? No-one’s suggesting that all ideas will survive by chance and happenstance – many will not. It’s simply an observable fact though that many do survive for reasons unrelated to their content – because an emperor makes a faith the state religion for example.

Again you’ve had it explained to you several times now but you just ignore the explanation. Why do some people win the heads and tails game and some do not? Some resurrection stories get lucky, some do not – that’s the point. The content of the story isn’t the thing that ensures its success – often other factors entirely will do it and the fact that the story entaiis a resurrection is incidental.

Good grief!

Oh dear. Survivor bias already exists as an observable phenomenon. It needs no help from me to make it so.

So you’ve removed the argumetum ad populum from the range of logical fallacies on which you rely then? Better late then never I guess.

“Finally”? Any chance of a “firstly” first?

First, what article?

Second, survivor bias is an observable phenomenon – whether its object is businesses, technologies, religions or anything else is irrelevant.

Thirdly, as I painstakingly explained to you several times there is no category error when the claimed process – personal “intuition” for example – is the same, regardless of the object of that intuition. Either you think that intuition is a reliable guide to objective truths or you don’t. You’d be barmy to do so given the total absence of a verification method to support it (you know, the question you endlessly run away from), but there it is. If you cling to it nonetheless, you have no choice but to accept that anyone else’s intuition about anything else must also be a reliable guide to objective truths.

You really are terribly confused.

Really.

Do complex systems survive by chance or because of fitness in the Darwinian sense.

Survival bias is inappropriate  because the sphere of philosophy does not change like the natural environment.

Things may not survive therefor because they are not fit.

If we take your thesis to it,s logical conclusion it could be said that a plane flies merely by chance not because it is aerodynamic.

Again you are confusing a might be wrong with a definitely wrong.

Let,s face it Blue....survivor ship bias is gussied up managerial bullshit.

[Spud]

As I tried to explain to Gordon, the survival of Christianity has to do with the many people who were healed, or who heard Jesus in the synagogue or who experienced him in some way.

[Shaker]

As I tried to explain to Gordon, the survival of Christianity has to do with the many people who were healed, or who heard Jesus in the synagogue or who experienced him in some way.

Even if those factors were true in the first instance, which I don't believe, that would apply only for the lifetimes of those concerned. Thereafter it's still only accepting hearsay and second-hand accounts from other people prone to bias, misinterpretation, exaggeration, propagandising and outright dishonesty as anybody else - exactly the situation that already obtains in fact.

[jeremyp]

I think the records are in the same condition as those you suggest for that hypothetical Jesus Myth sect we discussed yesterday.........except there is absolutely no evidence of a Jesus Myth sect.

So you are saying that these 500 people are an invention of Paul. Fair enough.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you are saying that these 500 people are an invention of Paul. Fair enough.

No Jeremy I am saying that there is at least a piece of evidence for the 500

That fragment will then be considered in context.

Although there was no documentary evidence of a Jesus myth sect it could be that it was destroyed in the intervening years as was most documentation. However given the antichristian circumstances at the time and that he claimed to be God there is no reason why it wouldn't not only have survived but been given a step up.

the overall picture though is one where the authorities had to reluctantly accept his existence or not even contemplated a malicious Jesus myth idea.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Survivor bias, Christianity, the Constantine myth, given what we know about first century Rome, politics, money, power, sorry but there is a lot more to the survival of Christianity than just being in the right place at the right time.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

As I tried to explain to Gordon, the survival of Christianity has to do with the many people who were healed, or who heard Jesus in the synagogue or who experienced him in some way.

There is no evidence anyone was healed! Jesus didn't create Christianity it was created long after he had died using him as an icon, imo!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Floo,

Ah yes!! but he was trying to start something, although they were all a bit to old to start a boy band, probably why they got rid of Judas, he was always hogging the microphone.

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

No Jeremy I am saying that there is at least a piece of evidence for the 500

Not really, you have Paul making up a number.

the overall picture though is one where the authorities had to reluctantly accept his existence or not even contemplated a malicious Jesus myth idea.

What authorities?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really, you have Paul making up a number.
What authorities?

I suppose he could be giving a ''ball park'' or round figure.

The authorities are those which had him crucified or who were complicit in his crucifixion.