Science and spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet again you illustrate your stupidity, your lying, or possibly your lying stupidity. Not accepting something as the truth is not the same as saying something is the truth or is not the truth.The default position is to be sceptical.

He made a positive assertion that the resurrection was not a historical fact. No attempt at turdpolishing this by you relieves him of the burden of proof.

[Nearly Sane]

He made a positive assertion that the resurrection was not a historical fact. No attempt at turdpolishing this by you relieves him of the burden of proof.

It isn't. You haven't evidenced that it is so it can be rejected as as a fact. And that's leaving aside it's a supernatural claim and you've never provided a methodology by which it might be established as such. And again leaves aside that history is methodoligical naturalistic but then you don't even understand that issue.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi NS,

Nice to see you back but I find it odd that your return is summed up purely by the reaction to Vlad. The rest of the board, and what's happened, and to help you out - quite a lot has happened, and has been posted on - and you pop back and focus on Vlad. Hmm...

I’m not “back” as such, or at least I don’t plan to be unless a theist (or any stripe) makes an argument that merits attention. I just happened to look at this thread recently and noticed Vlad peddling exactly the same fallacies he’s always relied on while still refusing resolutely ever to make a cogent argument of his own, so thought I’d note it. If anyone else has tried an argument for their god that you think doesn’t fall at the first hurdle though I’ll be grateful if you will flag it.       

And leaving aside that, you may have missed that we have not seen, and despite efforts, not received a reply from SusanDoris, and perforce we fear the worst.

I’m very sorry to hear that – she and I had a warm relationship (especially about crosswords) and I do hope that, like me, she’s merely chosen to take a break for a while rather than that anything more serious has happened.

BRs   

[Gordon]

He made a positive assertion that the resurrection was not a historical fact. No attempt at turdpolishing this by you relieves him of the burden of proof.

Don't be stupid - the 'resurrection' element is a faith claim and not a fact claim, since if it were the latter then there would need to be a factual explanation for how a dead person, who had allegedly been dead in a warm climate for around 3 days, didn't stay dead - and there isn't. But if you think there is then please show your workings - after all you're supporting the claim.

[Nearly Sane]

I’m very sorry to hear that – she and I had a warm relationship (especially about crosswords) and I do hope that, like me, she’s merely chosen to take a break for a while rather than that anything more serious has happened.

BRs

I fear that's a forlorn hope. As covered we have made attempts to check that and get a response.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be stupid - the 'resurrection' element is a faith claim and not a fact claim, since if it were the latter then there would need to be a factual explanation for how a dead person, who had allegedly been dead in a warm climate for around 3 days, didn't stay dead - and there isn't. But if you think there is then please show your workings - after all you're supporting the claim.

I’m sorry Christians have held that it is an event in history. That it really happened and was truly witnessed. You should have realised that I would have thought.

To put a modern spin on it would have been something a hardened atheist could have seen...and passed of as an hallucination or not.

[Nearly Sane]

I’m sorry Christians have held that it is an event in history. That it really happened and was truly witnessed. You should have realised that I would have thought.

To put a modern spin on it would have been something a hardened atheist could have seen...and passed of as an hallucination or not.

Why did you post an irrelevant non sequitur?

[Gordon]

I’m sorry Christians have held that it is an event in history. That it really happened and was truly witnessed. You should have realised that I would have thought.

You make little sense, grasshopper: Christians are free to believe the resurrection tale, as a matter of their personal faith, but they are over-reaching if they also insist that the rest of us should treat their core beliefs as historical fact given the weakness of the material they rely on to justify thier beliefs. You still seem to confuse belief and fact, hence your thrashing around.

To put a modern spin on it would have been something a hardened atheist could have seen...and passed of as an hallucination or not.

Not really: you need to consider the context of when and where claim originates, in this case in antiquity, in a comparatively less well informed society, where religiosity and religious authority held sway, and where religious narratives had a ready and credulous audience but no opportunity for the type of scrutiny that would happen today.

But of course such claims don't get made today, which is telling.

[Nearly Sane]

You make little sense, grasshopper: Christians are free to believe the resurrection tale, as a matter of their personal faith, but they are over-reaching if they also insist that the rest of us should treat their core beliefs as historical fact given the weakness of the material they rely on to justify thier beliefs. You still seem to confuse belief and fact, hence your thrashing around.

Not really: you need to consider the context of when and where claim originates, in this case in antiquity, in a comparatively less well informed society, where religiosity and religious authority held sway, and where religious narratives had a ready and credulous audience but no opportunity for the type of scrutiny that would happen today.

But of course such claims don't get made today, which is telling.

Isn't QAnon a similar claim? I don't think today's society is necessarily more clearly informed.

[ProfessorDavey]

They are presented as facts rather than mere beliefs.

So you seem to be arguing that the test for whether something is a historical 'fact' rather than a belief or myth is whether someone presents it as a historical fact

Crikey that is the lowest of low bars for evidence and would require you to accept all sorts of pieces of fiction as being historical fact as someone once presented it as such.

[Nearly Sane]

So you seem to be arguing that the test for whether something is a historical 'fact' rather than a belief or myth is whether someone presents it as a historical fact

Crikey that is the lowest of low bars for evidence and would require you to accept all sorts of pieces of fiction as being historical fact as someone once presented it as such.

It's not even a bar. It's not evidence in any sense.

[Maeght]

I’m sorry Christians have held that it is an event in history. That it really happened and was truly witnessed. You should have realised that I would have thought.

To put a modern spin on it would have been something a hardened atheist could have seen...and passed of as an hallucination or not.

Christians have believed that for sure but that doesn't mean it is true.

[ProfessorDavey]

But the epistles not only present the risen Jesus as history but they even offer a group of witnesses.

No they don't - all that there is is a few evidenceless claims - no corroboration, nothing that would remotely pass any test for credible evidence for a historical fact.

Actually what is in the epistles tells you more about Paul than it does about any historicity around Jesus - it is all about him, down to the climax of the story being Jesus appearing to him. Hmmm.

Also the 'more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time' claim is classic made-up hyperbole. Were that actually to have happened then it is unthinkable that christianity would have failed to gain a foothold in the place and amongst the people around at the time. Yet it didn't - by and large the people who would have been the claimed 500, and those who they'd have certainly told about this astonishing event, largely rejected the notion that Jesus was resurrected.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not even a bar. It's not evidence in any sense.

I was being charitable.

[ProfessorDavey]

I’m sorry Christians have held that it is an event in history.

So what - in a recent survey 10% of people in the UK think that the Manchester Arena bomb was a hoax.

That it really happened and was truly witnessed.

Yet the people most likely to have 'bought into it' - namely the general populace around the time and place where this was supposed to have happened by and large rejected the claim that Jesus was resurrected. They did not become early christians. And this is, I think, unique amongst major religions. Most gain a foothold in the place where they arose - christianity didn't meaning that the people closest to the events were least likely to believe them.

I bet the people closest to the Manchester Arena bomb are least likely to believe it to be a hoax despite what Richard D Hall (who wasn't there at the time) claims to be the historical facts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what - in a recent survey 10% of people in the UK think that the Manchester Arena bomb was a hoax.

Do keep up Davey Gordon thought the resurrection has always been presented as a ''faith statement'' and not a historic fact. He says no one has taught it as history.

As you are making the link between people who think the Manchester arena was a hoax, then I and the Archbishop of Canterbury should think it's a hoax too......or are you just making a piss poor analogy?

[Maeght]

This discussion seems to be becoming quite strange.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you seem to be arguing that the test for whether something is a historical 'fact' rather than a belief or myth is whether someone presents it as a historical fact

No I'm just saying christianity presents the resurrection as a historical fact.
But if you say it isn't you have to present a concrete copper bottom alternative and you have a burden of proof by making the positive assertion. I think we have established via materialism that if life is dependent on the arrangement of matter than the technology to rearrange dead matter into living matter is not an impossibility. There is also the issue of induction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't QAnon a similar claim? I don't think today's society is necessarily more clearly informed.

QAnon similar to first century Christianity? I fear for your moral compass.....but yes I take your point about modern credulity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It isn't. You haven't evidenced that it is so it can be rejected as as a fact. And that's leaving aside it's a supernatural claim and you've never provided a methodology by which it might be established as such. And again leaves aside that history is methodoligical naturalistic but then you don't even understand that issue.

My God just one brief encounter with Bluehillside and you are turdpolishing Gordon like a good'un.

No one is saying that the resurrection is an established historical fact but that doesn't mean it isn't. Both you and Gordon are saying that absence of robust evidence is robust evidence of absence. Gordon having made a positive assertion has the burden.

You both have a fucking cheek invoking history since you bail out of any historical enquiry far too early and switch to what you personally can handle given your world views.

[Nearly Sane]

My God just one brief encounter with Bluehillside and you are turdpolishing Gordon like a good'un.

No one is saying that the resurrection is an established historical fact but that doesn't mean it isn't. Both you and Gordon are saying that absence of robust evidence is robust evidence of absence. Gordon having made a positive assertion has the burden.

You both have a fucking cheek invoking history since you bail out of any historical enquiry far too early and switch to what you personally can handle given your world views.

Oh look, Vlad avoiding for the xxxth that he has no method for determing a supernatural claim, and flailing about showing is ignorance of historical methodology.

[Nearly Sane]

QAnon similar to first century Christianity? I fear for your moral compass.....but yes I take your point about modern credulity.

I fear your understanding of analogy is flawed. There was no moral comparison of QAnon and first century Christianity. You made that up. Possibly by ignorance, of which you have an abundance, possibly by lying, in which you are inveterate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh look, Vlad avoiding for the xxxth that he has no method for determing a supernatural claim, and flailing about showing is ignorance of historical methodology.

I pull Gordon up for making a positive assertion and dodging the burden of proof on it and Nearly sane comes in with a massive bit of whataboutery....brilliant.

[Nearly Sane]

I pull Gordon up for making a positive assertion and dodging the burden of proof on it and Nearly sane comes in with a massive bit of whataboutery....brilliant.

Pointing out that when you are talking about a supernatural claim you have no methodology isn't whataboutery. Your eternal evasion is terminally tedious.

[Gordon]

I pull Gordon up for making a positive assertion and dodging the burden of proof on it and Nearly sane comes in with a massive bit of whataboutery....brilliant.

You really are tedious, Vlad.

It may be a fact that early Christians, and later ones too, thought that the 'resurrection' actually happened and treated it as historical fact: but that they did so does not turn their belief into historical fact, especially since the claim is an extraodinary and fantastical one. For a claim like that to be substantiated would far require more that the opinions of credulous and possibly partial people in antiquity with an, understandably, limited knowledge of biology - after all, the likes of the discovery of cells (Hooke, 1665) and germ theory (Pasteur, 1861) were centuries in the future.

The link below is a document from the Curriculim for Excellence syllabus that is currently used in Scottish secondary schools - read the section in Chrstianity and you'll find that it mentions 'stories', 'beliefs', 'values' and 'traditions' - doesnt mention anything about beliefs being historical facts!


https://education.gov.scot/Documents/rme-eo.pdf