Author Topic: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?  (Read 80243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1450 on: January 14, 2010, 02:47:08 PM »
FACTS surrounding the Hill case: (And once again, all the following can be found through Wikipedia)

(a)... By February 1962, the Hills were making frequent weekend drives to try and locate the area of their UFO encounters, hoping that locating the site might spark more memories. They were unsuccessful in trying to locate the site for several years afterwards.

(b)... Barney Hill said that, due to his fear, he kept his eyes closed for much of the UFO encounter.

(b)... From the starting line, Betty Hill was 100% certain she'd been abducted by aliens. This isn't all that surprising, since she was a paranormal and cult enthusiast herself: When you spend most of your free time reading books on UFO abductions, there's a rather good chance you'll end up thinking you were abducted yourself. Her husband, on the other hand, didn't think anything unusual had happened, and only after six months of "therapy" was he ready to admit he'd been taken aboard a spaceship.

(c)... Jim McDonald, a resident of the area in which the Hills claimed to have been abducted, has produced a detailed analysis of their journey which concludes that the episode was in fact provoked by their misperceiving an aircraft warning beacon on Cannon Mountain as a UFO.[14] McDonald notes that from the road the Hills took, the beacon appears and disappears at exactly the same time the Hills describe the UFO as appearing and disappearing.

(d)... In the words of Dr Simon, a prominent Boston psychiatrist that treated the Hills "People do not necessarily tell the factual truth while they are under hypnosis ¬- all they tell is what they believe to be the truth." It was his opinion that Betty Hill made the whole thing up and only under hypnosis was she able to convince her husband that it had happened.

(e)... Betty Hill later brought a number of people out to the UFO "landing site." None of the people saw anything, except for Betty Hill, who claimed that a spacecraft and crew were sitting in the very center of the area. She was just, for some advanced alien reason, the only one able to spot it.

(f)... Barney Hill described seeing a being inside the spacecraft "with large wraparound eyes" . He never mentioned it in the original version of his story: In fact, he made this claim 12 days after a popular TV show, The Outer Limits, featured a character with the exact same features.

(g)... February 10, 1964 was the date that this particular Outer Limits TV show was aired.  Hill never made any mention of such a creature in the three years between the "incident" and the airing of the show, then, less than a fortnight after seeing it on TV, he claimed he'd seen it in 1961.

(h)... The Hills would later claim it was impossible for Barney to have seen the show because he worked nights. However, his shift did not start until midnight, and the show aired at 7:30.  Obviously he had plenty of time to watch the show before his shift started.

Well anyway... I think you get the picture.  By listing only those facts that can be misconstrued or lend some credibility for your case, and not list any facts that contradicts our undermines your case, you can lead people to a certain conclusion.  A conclusion that wouldn't have been reached if all the facts were known.

Politicians and statisticians and pollsters and politicians with sound bites do this all the time.  Michael Moore was famous for doing this in his documentaries.

And so then what about the disciples belief and testimonies?  Hey.... I'm not asking you treat their reports any differently than You yourself treat the UFO reports.  But to be fair, if we are going to list facts for a negative case about UFOs, then we need to do the same with the testimony about the Resurrection testimony from Jesus' disciples.

And that is why I keep urging you... if you have any FACTS that undermine WLC's FMF... then bring it on.

4... WLC never employed a epistemological standard that suggested we should uncritically accept a testimony.  FACT #3 in WLC's FMF says that Jesus Disciples CLAIMED to have seen the post-mortem appearance of a Resurrected Jesus.  That is as much as a fact as these UFO sightings.  But WLC case does not... and rightly so... depend on testimony alone.  To do so would be absurd.

Quote
Now, we must consider the fact that the nativity of Jesus is only one example among many of human women being impregnated by "divine" beings from the sky and producing "special" offspring.  Ancient "mythology" (including the sixth chapter of Genesis) is full of such tales.  The Gospels tell us that the Star of Bethlehem was a light that hovered noiselessly in the sky and moved to guide the Magi to the site of Jesus' birth.  We have a term for such an object: "UFO."  Other elements of the Jesus story contain similarities to UFO accounts.  On the mount of transfiguration, Jesus is transfigured into a radiant being while a "bright cloud" hovers over the scene (Matthew 17:5).  In the Book of Ezekiel, we're treated to a scene in which Yahweh appears to Ezekiel as the pilot of a strange craft.

1... In my opinion, you are creating a strawman when you use your particular phrasing and then reword what the Gospels actually say about the Star of Bethlehem.  The words which you use, "hovered" and/or "hovered noiselessly" are not used in the Bible.... at least not in the few translations I'm looking at.  If it was a star or a planet, then the word "noiselessly" seems pretty obvious since we don't hear stars or planets making noises.  So this observation of yours seems kinda of silly.  But I understand why you wanted to use that word... it was an obvious attempt on your part to try and make a connection to UFOs.

2... If it was a star or a planet, then your observation "...the Star of Bethlehem was a light" seems obviously redundant.  What stars are not lights?  And  there are many planets that reflect light so that we can see them in our skies.

3... Stars are not moving thru the sky... instead we perceive a movement thru the sky because we are standing on earth that is moving... revolving.  Nonetheless... stars do "appear" to move to us.  So once again, this is not something strange from the passages in the Bible about the Star of Bethlehem.  The perception of movement is what we all see stars doing across our skies.   And planets do move in orbits so movement is not alien to them.

4... Guiding the Magi?  How is that strange about stars or planets?  Haven't people, especially sailors, used stars and planets to "guide" them in their voyages across vast oceans?  Of course they do.  

Therefore, using your language so far about this Star of Bethlehem... light and noiseless and movement and guiding.. all these terms and phrases and language fits perfectly with ALL KNOWN STARS.  So it would seem that in your mind, all stars can be classified as UFOs.. which is nonsensical of course.

5... Now what about the "hovering"?  Well... just as the stars appear to be moving across our skies from our vantage point here on earth... so do planets appear to "hover" or stop at times in our skies from our vantage point here on earth.  And there is a word for this perception... it's called retrograde motion.

There is no reason to uncritically assume that the Star of Bethlehem is really a star.  It could very well have been a planet.   After all, Venus is often called the Morning Star or the Evening Star.  Shooting stars are actually meteorites.   Some planets are called "wandering Stars".  These "wandering stars" exhibit very strange motions. Periodically, they appear to reverse course and move backward through the other stars.  And Venus is always brighter than the brightest stars in the sky (excluding our sun) from our vantage point here on earth.  For many people in the ancient world (and today for that matter) will use the word "star" to generically mean all the lights that can be seen with the naked eye in the sky.

So... a planet can fulfill all the language you used for UFOs... light, noiseless, movement, guiding, and "hovering" (or stopping).

6... Can we use astronomy and our improved knowledge of first century history and sophisticated computer software (like in Planetariums) to go back in time to see what the Magi's might have seen and interpreted as the Star of Bethlehem?  ABSOLUTELY.

One celestial event that Planetariums worldwide nearly always include during their "Star of Bethlehem" Christmas shows occurred around 2 BC when Jupiter was so close to Venus and so bright as a result of this,  that it is today displayed in hundreds of planetaria around the world by scientists who may know nothing of the Messiah. They do it because what Jupiter did makes such a great planetarium show. Jupiter appeared to join Venus. The planets could not be distinguished with the naked eye.  Each contributed its full brightness to what became the most brilliant star our man had ever seen at that time.

7... Was this bright light... this Star of Bethlehem... something similar to the UFO bright lights which you are comparing it to? Absolutely not.  How do I know?  By going back to the text in the Bible from which YOU YOURSELF extracted the Star of Bethlehem story we see there is no similarity at all.

That Herod had to ask when the Star appeared is a powerful clue. Anyone can glance up and see planets and stars. That is the nature of things in the sky. But, apparently, one could look up at the Star without realizing it. Herod didn't know of it. It took magi to explain it. But once the Star was pointed out, all Jerusalem went abuzz, and Herod jumped into his murderous action.  So it appears that the Star must have been something in the normal night sky which was striking when explained.

So there is no way that you can compare the Star of Bethlehem with the kinds of lights usually associated with UFOs.  Certainly not with the kinds of lights in Hill's case or Travis' case.

You comparison is faulty and unjustified.

 
Quote
If the extraterrestrials are, for whatever reason, deliberately manipulating human belief systems and creating human-appearing offspring, whatever "miracles" of Jesus historians may want to accept as unimpeachable fact become wholly explicable as part of a larger phenomenon that is currently ongoing.

Using your logic, we can also postulate that the only reason you are an atheist is because these same extraterrestrials have deliberately manipulated your belief system.  Indeed, we could also postulate that you are in fact some kind of  extraterrestrial pod or offspring who has taken over someone we know as Kcrady in here.  

Anything is possible.  Earth and the universe might have not existed 10 minutes ago.  Maybe the age and memories we have were all fabricated when then we were created 10 minutes ago.   But the point is that we are not looking for what is merely possible, but what most reasonably happened and which bets explains and fits the facts we do have before us.

Quote
Before we can get around to proposing a supernatural god, the UFO phenomenon must be debunked without simultaneously debunking the claims of the Resurrection story.

I think I've already demonstrated that while anything is possible in our imaginations, we are instead looking for the most reasonable explanation of the facts.

If you really and honestly believe that the UFO phenomena is a better and more reasonable explanation for the FMF,  then I will challenge you to demonstrate that we were not created 10 minutes ago with built in memories and age.  And I would also ask you to demonstrate that you yourself are not a "sleeper cell" for extraterrestrials planning to take over earth.

PART 6 FOLLOWS
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 03:17:25 PM by Fran »

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1451 on: January 14, 2010, 02:47:31 PM »
My impression, for the last 6-7 pages or so since I've been fairly closely involved, is simply that things are stuck. Fran is stuck with insisting that nobody is giving proper acknowledgement to the central "four facts," and everyone else is stuck insisting that Fran is suspiciously unwilling to critically investigate the foundations of the "four facts."

Well, why don't you step in and gets things back on track  :D

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1452 on: January 14, 2010, 02:47:44 PM »
Quote
Any attack on the credibility of eyewitness accounts of UFO's automatically discredits the "eyewitness" accounts of the resurrected Jesus, since the same arguments apply in both cases.

Non sequitur.  It does not logically follow that because we can demonstrate that the eyewitness' of the Roswell incident were often lying or misinformed or overzealous or guilty of shoddy research or suffering from imperfect memory.... then THAT MUST ALSO mean it is true for the Disciples claim about what they saw.

Remember, I never discounted that people will see strange and seemingly mysterious phenomena in the sky.  And Fact #3 states that the disciples of Jesus CLAIMED to have seen Christ Resurrected.  That claim is a fact.   Just as it is a fact that people will CLAIM to see alien bodies and strange lights in the sky.

The bottom line, is that you can't make sweeping blanket assertions and claims about two sets of people separated by thousands of years.  You need to look at each claim individually and find whatever facts you can which will either support or undermine their testimony.  In the case for the FMF, if you can find any such facts, then bring it on.

Quote
"But most Bible scholars accept the Four Minimal Facts!"  Well, most UFO researchers (including skeptical debunkers) accept the "Minimal Facts" I've given for the Roswell and Travis Walton UFO cases above.

But the point is that most people do not think that from those FMF of Roswell, etc... that there was an actual flying saucer or aliens involved.  And I went over other facts that undermined the conclusions that aliens were involved.

Likewise, if you have facts that undermine the credibility for the conclusion that the Resurrection is a less reasonable explanation than a purely natural explanation for the facts... then bring it on.

The debate is not over the facts... the debate is over THE CONCLUSION from the facts.

Quote
Nutshell: If we set the bar of required evidence low enough to accept post-mortem appearances of Jesus as historical fact, we must also accept the historical and present existence of extraterrestrial vehicles and their occupants visiting the Earth.  On the contrary, a level of skepticism sufficient to reject the evidence for UFO's is sufficient to obliterate the FMF argument for the resurrection of Jesus.

1... Fact #3 does not say that post-mortem Resurrection appearances were actually of Jesus in the flesh.  I believe it was of course, but that is not what Fact #3 says.  It says that the disciples CLAIMED that they saw Jesus appear in the flesh... in the Resurrected body of Jesus. And that is a fact.  Just as it is a fact that Travis CLAIMED to have been abducted by a flying saucer... that the Hill's CLAIMED to see a flying saucer and space aliens... that some eyewitnesses CLAIMED to see aliens and the debris from a flying saucer at Roswell.

No one is denying that these CLAIMS were factually made.  That's not the issue.

2... The level of skepticism is sufficient to reject the "evidence" for UFO's PRECISELY and ONLY because we have other facts which severely undermines the case for UFO's in the examples you gave.

But this is not the case with the Resurrection.  You have not introduced ANY facts that undermines WLC's case at all.  At least none that I was able to see so far.

Quote
This is not to say that I believe in flying saucers--only that I find the evidence for them far more credible and convincing than the evidence given in this thread for the resurrection of Jesus.

I also do not believe in flying saucers from other planets.  But I disagree that the evidence for extraterrestrials is more credible and convincing than the evidence given in this thread for the resurrection of Jesus.


THE END

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6418
  • Darwins +456/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1453 on: January 14, 2010, 02:56:34 PM »
Hal,

You may be doing yourself a disservice with your modesty. Your described position is precisely that which someone claiming the contrary should be able to demonstrate to you. We would not accept Gravity were it not for the fact that most people can understand not only the concept but the theory, although the finest details remain unknown.

As this is debate, Fran’s position needs to be demonstrated only to 51% probability, yours to less than that.

FWIW, my position is that Jesus never existed. Following this, no further questions need be addressed.

Should you concede that Jesus could have existed, his nature is then paramount. If he were human, death is the end. No humans come back from what, for emphasis, I will call, ‘final death.’

If he were a deity or a partial deity, then all else is pointless as the common understanding is that deities can do anything; his resurrection is therefore nothing amazing. However, gods are immortal therefore there was never death – merely a convincing illusion.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 02:58:30 PM by Graybeard »
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline GetMeThere

Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1454 on: January 14, 2010, 03:35:57 PM »
My impression, for the last 6-7 pages or so since I've been fairly closely involved, is simply that things are stuck. Fran is stuck with insisting that nobody is giving proper acknowledgement to the central "four facts," and everyone else is stuck insisting that Fran is suspiciously unwilling to critically investigate the foundations of the "four facts."

Well, why don't you step in and gets things back on track  :D

Yeah, right  &)

The latest seven-post word-wall about UFOs is amusing, but (from a brief skim) the method never changes: Fran just disputes/hashes/characterizes everything in a way that allows the "special pleading" of his jesus argument to remain...."special." He can't even acknowledge the very SIMPLE analogy of UFO reports--that reports are made ALL THE TIME, about ALL SORTS OF CRAZY THINGS, and that, when the reports are FANTASTIC, there's no way to really establish their truth other than overwhelming sorts of evidence (blatant physical evidence, or testimonial evidence which, by its FORM, is undeniable--if the jesus story contained BROAD and COPIOUS expression from OUTSIDE OBSERVERS, DURING the period in question, our task would be MUCH MORE DIFFICULT than it is now). Give him a simple argument or analogy, and he makes it ridiculously complex and detailed, and points out all the minute distinctions from the jesus story. Give him a COMPLEX argument, and he will simple-mindedly summarize it into a simple one that doesn't match with the jesus story.

For me the basic TRUTH is that anyone who has decided to believe in an ancient religion or ancient miracles has ALREADY DEMONSTRATED that they have rejected a skeptical and objective assessment of reality. Without acknowledging that STARTING POINT, it seems no progress can be made.

I've said repeatedly that it's FINE with me when people believe because they're moved to believe, and their hearts are filled with love and fire. My problem is with believers who insist their belief is RATIONAL and DEMONSTRABLY and OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Fran is so frustrating because he falls RIGIDLY into the second category, yet displays tremendous, deep-seated cognitive dissonance in and throughout ALL his thinking on the topic.

I'll continue to think that special cases like Fran really do secretly DOUBT their religion, and mire themselves in the kind of rational dissonance he displays in order to...avoid a painful admission.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6188
  • Darwins +778/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1455 on: January 14, 2010, 03:44:04 PM »
I think Fran is missing the point.

The point at issue is, are there other possible explanations for the supposed resurrection story, explanations that do not include the supernatural? The idea of aliens with superior technology fills the bill. We don't have to prove that all UFO accounts are real, or even that any of them are. It is still possible that there are living beings from other planets with superior technology. This would account for all of the supposedly supernatural aspects of the Jesus story, without violating any scientific concepts that we currently hold as true.

Now, Fran still insists that a supernatural explanation is better than the idea of beings from another planet. Well, somebody from earth's future could have gone back to the biblical era in a time machine and used advanced technology to impress the rubes. Improbable, but still not as improbable as a magical one-shot in history that has never been replicated. You have not demonstrated that it is possible to violate all the natural laws that the Jesus resurrection would require. Until you can demonstrate that, I don't think we have to produce a live alien or a working time machine.

(Although I am willing to bet all my Federation credits that we will have both before we get evidence of any biblical miracles. Christians have had 2000 years to produce the evidence and have not. Does anyone here doubt that in the next 2000 years humans might have contact with aliens or have a working time machine?)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1456 on: January 14, 2010, 04:38:25 PM »
I'll continue to think that special cases like Fran really do secretly DOUBT their religion, and mire themselves in the kind of rational dissonance he displays in order to...avoid a painful admission.

Indeed. For all the protestations of "pure faith", we see most Christians, not only Fran, desperately trying to find *anything* to support that belief to which they owe so much of their self-worth. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1457 on: January 14, 2010, 04:40:55 PM »
The bottom line, is that you can't make sweeping blanket assertions and claims about two sets of people separated by thousands of years.  You need to look at each claim individually and find whatever facts you can which will either support or undermine their testimony.  In the case for the FMF, if you can find any such facts, then bring it on.

and that's what everyone has been asking for from you.  Bring it on. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline ReasonIsOutToLunch

Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1458 on: January 14, 2010, 04:41:57 PM »
Quote
I'll continue to think that special cases like Fran really do secretly DOUBT their religion, and mire themselves in the kind of rational dissonance he displays in order to...avoid a painful admission.

I totally agree, with what you are saying here. This is not a scientific observation by any means, but I have observed a strange phenomenon here. It seems that the more for lack of a better word sensitive an individual is the greater the cognitive dissonance. For example: if the thought of babies drowning in a flood causes an individual xian some kind of emotional pain the more they will have to struggle to justify the supposed world wide flood. Some even will admit it didn't happen, but say it was a sort of allegory. They sincerely want to believe in an all loving god, so when it is clear to them YWHW acted in a brutal manner that would be deemed evil if committed by any other being they are incapable of seeing it for what it is.  If they admit their god committed genocide it would literally destroy their belief system or possibly cause a psychotic break of some kind.
God, doesn't know pi.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1459 on: January 14, 2010, 04:42:14 PM »
Well I've come this far , I don't suppose I should stop now ...
Likewise, if you have facts that undermine the credibility for the conclusion that the Resurrection is a less reasonable explanation than a purely natural explanation for the facts... then bring it on.

Oh, oh! I have one! Me, me!!! I'll "bring it on".

Here the facts -

No person in the history of Earth's 4.5 billion years has ever been shown to have been resurrected, <-- Fact

nor is there a theoretical construct that would allow us to accept it even as a probability, <-- Fact

nor is there any evidence of a supernatural force that would be used to achieve this resurrection. <-- Fact


There Fran. Poof. I Did it. Zap. That undermines the credibility of your conclusion. It does Fran, it really does, and it doesn't matter if you can't see that it does, because a rational conclusion is that those facts, things absolutely required to even entertain your conclusion, cannot be provided and utterly demolishes your case. It's really that simple.

Quote
The debate is not over the facts... the debate is over THE CONCLUSION from the facts.

See above - your conclusion is demolished.

Quote
1... Fact #3 does not say that post-mortem Resurrection appearances were actually of Jesus in the flesh.  I believe it was of course, but that is not what Fact #3 says.  It says that the disciples CLAIMED that they saw Jesus appear in the flesh... in the Resurrected body of Jesus. And that is a fact.  

Doesn't matter what they claim they saw. Nope, nope, no, no, no, oh no Fran, certainly not ... because what they claim they saw requires extraordinary evidence[1], and that is something you completely lack Fran. Your case is barely afloat now, and I cannot see what you could possibly provide to resurrect it.[2]
 1.  I've asked you to debate me on Extraordinary Evidence, but you have refused
 2. No pun intended
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 04:59:20 PM by HAL »

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1460 on: January 14, 2010, 04:44:32 PM »
I responded to the latest Fran word-wall, for all the good it will do. Ah well I've come so far, why stop now?  :shrug

Offline ReasonIsOutToLunch

Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1461 on: January 14, 2010, 04:50:46 PM »
I see no reason to stop. It really underlines the cognitive dissonance issue. I think Fran is probably a good guy, who really can't face the emotional fall out from admitting YHWH as described in the bible is a blood thirsty tyrant. So, mentally he goes into the fetal position and chants "god is love, god is love, god is good, god is good" it's his security blanket for all the horrible things he sees in the world and his shield against all the horrible things he reads in the bible.
God, doesn't know pi.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1462 on: January 14, 2010, 05:05:48 PM »
I see no reason to stop.

I won't stop. Ever. There is no way I would allow Fran to go back to his church or preacher and tell them that he wore down the atheists to the point they gave up on his argument.

Offline ReasonIsOutToLunch

Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1463 on: January 14, 2010, 05:10:08 PM »
Thank you Hal,

You are much stronger than I am. I can only take so much stupidity, then someone gets hurt or I have to bail. It actually feels like physical pain to me. It is worse than trying to understand math.
God, doesn't know pi.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6856
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1464 on: January 14, 2010, 05:14:08 PM »
Fran, will you be addressing Anfauglir's post?
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1465 on: January 14, 2010, 05:31:29 PM »
Does Fran suffer from some kind of verbal diarrhea? Kcrady writes one post about Roswell, and Fran replies with 5 maximum-length posts? It's crazy.

Fran:
Quote
And Fact #3 states that the disciples of Jesus CLAIMED to have seen Christ Resurrected.  That claim is a fact

Let's not gloss over the fact this a concession you have recently made. The ORIGINAL Fact 3 was:

Quote
1)... Jesus’ burial

2)... the discovery of his empty tomb

3)... his post-mortem appearances

4)... the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

You have conceded that Fact 3 should read: Reports of his post-mortem appearances.

One of my points is that Facts 1 & 2 need to be similarly qualified. We only have reports of Jesus' burial, and we only have reports of the discovery of the empty tomb. So the four facts should read:

Quote
1)... reports of Jesus’ burial

2)... reports of the discovery of his empty tomb

3)... reports of his post-mortem appearances

4)... the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

And as kcrady has pointed out, none of these reports are eye-witness accounts, but reports of those accounts. In other words, hearsay.

Which is where you fail. Hearsay evidence is usually inadmissable in American criminal trials. It's not going to prove the resurrection 'beyond reasonable doubt' in this argument.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 10:23:55 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1248
  • Darwins +365/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1466 on: January 14, 2010, 09:10:18 PM »
2... I also think that we are of the same opinion that whatever these Unidentified Flying Objects are (that is why they are called Unidentified), they are not advanced civilizations from other planets in our universe.

3... However,  unlike you, I do believe that there can be some sightings of demonic and angelic manifestations.  So on first blush, it would seem that I would have more reason to embrace the idea of the reality of  UFO (alien space beings) than you because it would seem to be a better piece of evidence for my position that the "unexplainable" or seemingly miraculous events like the Resurrection are at least possible.

I would say that I'm skeptical of the claim that they're extraterrestrial spacecraft, but I think it's a possibility--like you seem to think it's possible that they're angels and/or demons.  Of the two views, I would have to say that the ETH (ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis) is more probable.  Why?  We know that technological civilizations exist.  We are one.  We know that spacecraft exist.  We build and fly them ourselves. We also know that it's possible for a highly-advanced civilization to accomplish things that seem impossible to less-advanced civilizations.  We are one.  We can now do things that would have seemed divine/magical/supernatural to people a thousand years ago--or to people living on Pacific islands during World War II ("Cargo cults").  In our history, we have existence proofs of societies with relatively high technology appearing to be supernatural from the perspective of societies with relatively low technology (e.g. Conquistadors masquerading as gods to the Aztecs and Incas).  Thus we can say with confidence that a civilization a thousand or a million or a billion years in advance of ours would be able to do things that would look like magic to us, not to mention credulous people living 2,000 years ago.  Heck, guys like Chris Angel, David Blaine, and David Copperfield can do things that look magical to us, and they don't even have vastly superior technology!

We do not have anything remotely comparable evidence-wise in favor of the "Angels and Demons Hypothesis" (ADH). 

A... First of all, if you going to try and make a valid comparison between flying saucers and the Resurrection, you need to pick one UFO case and concentrate on that... because in terms of the Resurrection, we are only speaking of one event after all.

SHENANIGANS!

Sorry Fran, the fact that you've only got one "case" of Jesus-related miracle-working that you're willing to defend, vs. thousands of cases of flying saucers with better evidence in their favor...well, that's just too bad for you, isn't it?  Why in the world would I want to let you decide how much evidence I'm allowed to present?  You're playing Calvinball again.  The fact that there is far more and far better evidence in favor of flying saucers as tangible vehicles that show up on radar, leave landing traces, and contain living occupants than there is for the Resurrection is the point I am making.  So no, I am not going to limit myself to one case just because you've only got one case.  The weakness and paucity of your evidence isn't my problem.

I'm not for one minute even trying to defend other possible "miracles" in the Bible... only one.   My entire case is built around ONE EVENT... not multiple "miracles" found in the Bible.

I think this is quite telling.  Whether you'll admit it openly or not, by your actions you're conceding that the rest of the Biblical miracles (especially the ones attributed to Jesus, which are relevant to the issue of whether or not he was a supernatural being) are indefensible.  The fact that even you are willing to deny all of Jesus' other miracles (is that a rooster I hear?) is an open confession of the fundamental weakness of your case. 

You know that you can't invoke a consensus of your mostly-Christian New Testament scholars willing to defend the resurrection of Lazarus, or the darkness, earthquake, and undead-crawling-from-their-graves invasion that supposedly surrounded Jesus' death, or the loaves and fishes, etc., etc..  Only diehard fundamentalist apologists are even willing to try.  You know that you can't point to any credible Jesus sightings occurring within the last ten years.  No pictures, no physical traces, no radar-visual sightings.  Nada.

So, abandoning the field and retreating from all of the other New Testament miracle claims, you fall back to the one little redoubt you think you can hold on to.  But there's a problem with that.  Your precious "Four Minimal Facts" depend on the credibility of the same sources you're abandoning when it comes to everything else.  By abandoning the rest of the New Testament miracles and for all practical intents and purposes conceding their non-historicity, you're acknowledging that your sources are not sufficiently credible in themselves to validate miracle claims.  Once you've done that, you've given the game away.  If the Gospels and whatever other hypothetical "sources" you're using ("M," "L," "Q" etc.) make lots of miracle claims and are not historically credible doing so, why should we suddenly decide to grant them credence when it comes to the Resurrection? 

You're conceding by your actions that your "witness" makes lots of indefensible supernatural claims.  This means that your "witness" is not credible, even to you.  You're like an attorney whose star witness sees hallucinations all the time, trying to argue that in just one case, the witness really did see a leprechaun.  Your "witness" is not credible.  You know it.  We know it. 

But what you seem to be doing is to try and bring up multiple UFO cases and then present them all at once.  So right at the get go you are committing, so it appears to me, a category fallacy... or a false comparison.

How is it a "category fallacy" to compare an alleged paranormal phenomenon with only one "case" its advocates can cite with another alleged paranormal phenomenon with thousands of cases, many of which have better evidence?  If we accepted that principle, we'd have to give up the very idea of any sort of rational debate. 

"If you want to believe in the Resurrection, you also have to believe that Circe turned Greek soldiers into pigs by magic.  Says so in this here old book."

"Not true!  We have better evidence for the Resurrection.  More manuscripts, dated closer to the time of the alleged events--"

"Category fallacy!  Category fallacy!  You're not allowed to have more evidence than me!  It's not fair!  Pick another Biblical miracle that has the same amount and type of manuscript evidence as there is for Circe's magic in the Odyssey.  Then it'll be a fair comparison!"

Since having more and better evidence is now disallowed by FranCalvinball rules, we have to believe absolutely everything that anyone has ever claimed, since lack of evidence is no longer a disadvantage.  Right?  Or do you just change the rules again?

B... You do present the Roswell case as an example of a UFO case which you assert  has Four Minimal Facts that are accepted even by skeptics.  And this may be true, but that is irrelevant as far as that statement goes.  We need to do more than just present 4 facts.

So now you want all the facts and not just the four?  You're starting to sound like HAL.  One thing to make note of here is that your Wikipedia debunk of Roswell is dependent on having dozens of other facts, which we have because Roswell happened very recently and in a society that does a very good job of documenting things.  Now, if we were to imagine that we were living 2,000 years from now, about 600 years after the American civilization fell and was overrun by barbarians, so that the vast majority of its documentation was destroyed and we were left with only the Four Minimal Facts of Roswell, defended by scholars from the seminaries of the predominant religion of the day, the Saucerian Church, as unimpeachable historical fact, then (using your epistemology) it would be a lot harder to reject the idea that a spacecraft crashed at Roswell.

In other words: if there were dozens of equivalent counter-facts in the case of the Resurrection, those facts are lost to us due to the fact that The Case of the Missing Jesus Body is 2,000 years cold.  Likewise, if there were dozens of equivalent corroborative facts bolstering the story, those are also lost to us.  What we have available with regard to the Resurrection is a tiny fraction of the actual facts of the case, if that much.  This makes the case for the Resurrection weaker, not stronger.  And to repeat once again: by your own actions, you've conceded that the "witness" that provides us the alleged "facts" we do have is not credible in general. 

Then we have the weight of probability: ~99 billion human deaths without any resurrections, supernaturally-caused or otherwise.  In probabilistic terms, the odds against the resurrection of any particular corpse are at least 99 billion to one.  Note that this probability has nothing to do with the issue of whether any supernatural or ultra-tech entities exist which are capable of causing a resurrection.  Any such entities that may exist have exhibited a remarkably consistent choice to not resurrect human corpses, so the probability remains.

1... Fact #3 does not say that post-mortem Resurrection appearances were actually of Jesus in the flesh.  I believe it was of course, but that is not what Fact #3 says.  It says that the disciples CLAIMED that they saw Jesus appear in the flesh... in the Resurrected body of Jesus. And that is a fact.

Can you see how incredibly weak this is?  We have reports that Jesus' disciples and Paul saw him after his death--not even direct eyewitness testimony (except in Paul's case, but he only reports seeing a vision).  These reports come in sources that are chock full of grandiose supernatural claims that even you run away from as fast as you can go.  These "witnesses" are portrayed as being people who fairly regularly see things other people don't (e.g. Peter's vision of the sheet, Paul's trip to the third heaven, etc.).  The same sources that report these people's claims to have seen Jesus resurrected also report these same people claiming that Jesus walked on water, fed thousands with a few loaves and fish, that the world went dark for three hours when Jesus died, etc.--all "events" that were not noticed by anyone else at the time.  And you are desperate to sweep this evidence under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist.

As I've said before, I withdraw the other scenarios I offered.  I misunderstood the terms of the debate, and thought I had to offer explanations for the "Four Minimal Facts" as if they were real events that actually happened.  But since we're just talking about reports from non-credible sources claiming that people who saw visions and heard divine voices also saw their guru raised from the dead (even though in several of these "appearances" they thought their guru was somebody else--and maybe they were right)...well, no fancy explanation is necessary.

The disciples were just a group of fantasy-prone (if not outright schizophrenic) people who convinced themselves that their charismatic leader had returned from the dead and appeared to them, just like they convinced themselves that God sent them visions telling them to stop eating Kosher.  Paul, another individual of dubious sanity (he's also portrayed as having weird visions) was obsessed with the early Christian cult, and after witnessing the martyrdom of Stephen (who also is portrayed as Seeing Things) was impressed by the Christians' devotion (contrasted with the worldliness and hypocrisy of his fellow Pharisees)[1], so that he hallucinated a vision that enabled him to join them.

What about the Empty Tomb?  At best, we have a mystery of a missing body in a 2,000 year-old cold case.  There's no obligation to solve it or believe in a supernatural resurrection any more than we have to prove that Vizier Aye killed King Tut or believe the young Pharaoh was struck down by sorcery.  We don't have the necessary facts.

We could come up with plausible explanations--not the least of which is that the sources you concede are not credible in so many other instances (such as all those other Jesus miracles) are not credible in their claims about Jesus' burial and the empty tomb, or that they left out (purposely or otherwise) facts that would have helped us solve the mystery--but we don't really have to.  All we have are reports of reports from people who saw hallucinatory visions and who made all sorts of other non-credible claims of miracles.

Now, you're slyly citing a fifth claim as a Minimal Fact--that the disciples and Paul died for their beliefs--without substantiating it.  Will you at least admit that you're including this among your "Minimal Facts" and provide some evidence for it?  Even if it is true, it doesn't help you much.  Wacky people join wacky cults all the time, and are sometimes known to die for their beliefs (Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, Jonestown). 

Bottom line: You have spectacularly weak evidence in favor of an incredibly improbable event.  Not at all convincing. 

 1. Paul was clearly a fanatic, vigorously persecuting the early Christians--but they were also fanatics willing to die for their cause, kindred spirits the likes of which he could not find among the Pharisees.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1467 on: January 14, 2010, 09:25:26 PM »

So now you want all the facts and not just the four?  You're starting to sound like HAL.


I knew I was starting to get to Fran!  :D

Offline ReasonIsOutToLunch

Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1468 on: January 14, 2010, 11:30:18 PM »
It aint over til it's over. Or, until Fran admits his 4 facts aren't facts at all they are assumptions based on shaky evidence.
God, doesn't know pi.

Offline Onesimus

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Endlessly striving to be a happy cartoon bear.
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1469 on: January 15, 2010, 01:23:47 AM »
Does Fran suffer from some kind of verbal diarrhea? Kcrady writes one post about Roswell, and Fran replies with 5 maximum-length posts? It's crazy.

It's just so refreshing to debate some other aspect of the issue every once in a while... though I'll admit, I'm not terribly interested in the topic of UFO's, and didn't read Fran's voluminous response. 

Offline kevyrat69

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1209
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • oh rats.
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1470 on: January 15, 2010, 01:50:32 AM »
2... The level of skepticism is sufficient to reject the "evidence" for Jesus PRECISELY and ONLY because we have other facts which severely undermines the case for Jesus in the examples you gave.

There, I fixed it for you Fran.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

whatever people are experiencing when they experience God, it's not something they're perceiving in the external world. It's something their brains are making up.
Greta Christina

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6184
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1471 on: January 15, 2010, 05:49:21 AM »
Fran, will you be addressing Anfauglir's post?

I rather doubt it, despite me asking him a specific question at least 3 times.

Fran would rather debate Kcrady on the evidence behind recent potential UFO sightings - which is fine if we want to prove the truth of those sightings.

However, with my "aliens" hypothesis, I was simply addressing the "facts" that Fran put forward for discussion.  And the bottom line is that he feels "supernatural" is most reasonable (with no supporting evidence for the supernatural), while I feel "aliens" is most reasonable (and have shown my working as to how each part of my argument carries supporting natural precedent).

Fran is not going to engage with me, because he knows full well that the argument I have presented a conclusion that answers all his facts in a far more reasonable manner than his conclusion does.  He is not going to engage with me because my conclusion, just like his, rests on something that cannot be conclusively shown - supernatural powers/existence of extraterrestrial life.

He shot himself in the foot by claiming "most reasonable" as the explanation we should accept, and is now stuck since there is no way he can engage with me without admitting aliens ARE "most reasonable" - or, at least, FAR more reasonable than "supernatural resurrection".  Or, at least, not without revealing that his own colossal bias towards the existence of god is a major factor in his decision as to what is most reasonable for HIM.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jedweber

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3791
  • Darwins +19/-0
  • Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1472 on: January 15, 2010, 11:03:07 AM »
Now, you're slyly citing a fifth claim as a Minimal Fact--that the disciples and Paul died for their beliefs--without substantiating it. 

I missed that. Most of those claims cannot even be found in the Bible! Acts ends with Paul living in Rome and never tells us he was executed. Peter disappears from the story even earlier - Acts doesn't even get him to Rome, let alone tell us how he died.

Acts describes the death of one Stephen (a man never mentioned in the gospels), but claims he was killed on trumped-up criminal charges by Jewish leaders, not specifically for his belief in the resurrection. The death of James is found in Josephus, not the Bible, and is attributed to the political machinations of a corrupt high priest. Again, no claim is made of him being killed for his belief in Jesus' resurrection.

Even if we took the bible accounts as completely factual, we still have NO EVIDENCE for the fate of most of the original disciples.  Now Fran apparently wants us to take later Christian legends and hearsay from 2nd to 4th century church fathers as "historical facts," too! 

The first extra-biblical evidence of Christian persecution is the claim (questioned by some historians) that Nero killed Christians in Rome in 64 A.D. But the accounts merely say that Nero chose the Christians as scapegoats for the great fire - not for their theological beliefs or claims about the resurrection! We DO know that Christians were killed in the second century and thereafter, but these men and women could not have had first-hand knowledge of Jesus, they accepted it on faith, so it doesn't help Fran's argument at all.

So once again, we have claims about "historical facts" that simply cannot be established historically. In this case, they're not even found in the NT, but merely in much later "Christian traditions" whose origins are unknown.



Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1473 on: January 15, 2010, 05:32:15 PM »
Hello Gnu Ordure...

Quote
Does Fran suffer from some kind of verbal diarrhea? Kcrady writes one post about Roswell, and Fran replies with 5 maximum-length posts?  It's crazy.

Fran:

Quote
And Fact #3 states that the disciples of Jesus CLAIMED to have seen Christ Resurrected.  That claim is a fact

Let's not gloss over the fact this a concession you have recently made. The ORIGINAL Fact 3 was:

Quote
1)... Jesus’ burial

2)... the discovery of his empty tomb

3)... his post-mortem appearances

4)... the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

You have conceded that Fact 3 should read: Reports of his post-mortem appearances.

One of my points is that Facts 1 & 2 need to be similarly qualified. We only have reports of Jesus' burial, and we only have reports of the 
discovery of the empty tomb. So the four facts should read:

Quote
1)... reports of Jesus’ burial

2)... reports of the discovery of his empty tomb

3)... reports of his post-mortem appearances

4)... the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

And as kcrady has pointed out, none of these reports are eye-witness accounts, but reports of those accounts. In other words, hearsay.

Which is where you fail. Hearsay evidence is usually inadmissable in American criminal trials. It's not going to prove the resurrection 'beyond 
reasonable doubt' in this argument.

1... I wrote the ORIGINAL Fact #3 as it was written by WLC in some of his debate transcripts... and it is his FMF case which I'm using in here.   EVERYONE knows this because I've told everyone that is what I was doing.   But some in here were confused by the wording... like Jazzman... and so on Page 23 of this thread in REPLY #664 I wrote to Jazzman and said:

"Maybe it would help if I restate fact #3 this way:   On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead."

This wording is how WLC describes Fact #3 in another of his debates... and this is confirmed by Velkyn who repeated the wording of this Fact on page 21 of this thread in REPLY # 606.  Velkyn was using the Ehrman debate transcript as I was when I wrote to Jazzman.

2... As for the word "reports", I don't understand what you are driving at.  ALL of history, especially ancient history which is the time period we are in the  midst of in this thread, are from reports.   No one had cameras back then.... so everything was written down.  And  whenever possible... if there are artifacts available... archeology is then used in an attempt to confirm or undermine a particular report we are examing... or add to it.

3... So yes, there was the report of Jesus' burial... and for the reasons i've already outlined, the burial is accepted to be Factual by a vast majority of Biblical scholars.  A nearly universal agreement among the experts in fact.

Yes, there were reports of the discovery of Jesus empty tomb...  and for the reasons i've already outlined, the empty tomb is accepted to be Factual by a large majority of Biblical scholars. 

Yes, there were reports reports of many people experiencing Jesus alive from the dead by different individuals and groups of people on different occasions and under various circumstances... and for the reasons i've already outlined, these post-mortem appearances are accepted to be Factual by a vast majority of Biblical scholars.  A nearly universal agreement among the experts in fact.

So now we are back to square one.  How are you going to explain these facts?

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1474 on: January 15, 2010, 05:32:58 PM »
Hello Anfauglir....

Quote
[u[Fran on January 07, 2010, 06:29:48 PM[/u]
Anyway... i'm looking for one or more natural explanations that TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS... not just individually.  You can't   
offer different explanations for each individual fact if they contradict each other because then you don't have a valid explanation that deals with   
all of them together.

Quote from: Anfauglir on January 07, 2010, 05:41:44 AM
Just for the record, here is my "fully natural" explanation.

Jesus died on the cross....observed by some aliens from their spaceship.  They decided, for whatever reason, to create a fiction that Jesus 
would rise from the dead.  They drilled into the tomb from a nearby site - and, incidentally, the earth movements this caused were the basis of 
the "earthquakes" and "dead rising" stories - and removed the body.  Using advanced robotics and/or make-up and/or cloning, they were able 
to create a walking, talking Jesus.  Not perfect, since for many people "Jesus" had to explain who he was, but believable enough that he 
looked just like a "resurrected" Jesus.  Of course, the copy wouldn't stand up to continued scrutiny so they removed it after a couple days.

And there you go.  A coherent explanation for ALL the facts (and any others you care to sling at me) - AND which is primarily based on 
technology we KNOW is, or could, exist - especially in an advanced race.

There you go Fran - aliens did it.  JUST as plausible as there being a resurrection, and (I would contend) in fact even more plausible, since we 
have observed or can predict all the technology required. 

Incidentally.....I don't believe any of what I have said.  Same as I don't believe the "godditit" argument you put forward.  BUT.....given that you 
seem to insist I MUST choose between the two (with "I don't know" or "I withhold judgement" being unacceptable answers to you), I find "aliens" 
more plausible than "resurrection" - since it requires a whole lot LESS to be explained by things we cannot directly prove.

And so I ask you yet once again, Fran:   'why is "aliens" LESS plausible than "magic resurrection?'

AND

Quote
Quote from: Anfauglir on January 08, 2010, 05:50:32 AM
And so I ask you yet once again, Fran:   'why is "aliens" LESS plausible than "magic resurrection?'

Fran, you are defending "resurrection" as "most likely" - without in any way proving the "magic" behind it.
I am suggesting "aliens" as "most likely" - with almost all of the "magic" behind it being already proven.

I'm therefore quite staggered that you still think "resurrection" is more likely than "aliens".....and wonder why you don't want to discuss it.....

Why exactly don't you believe any of what you said above?  After all, you do say that your "fully natural" explanation is a coherent explanation for ALL the facts.  And not only that, but you claim that your explanation is primarily based on technology we KNOW does, or could ,exist.  So why don't you believe any of what you said?

To me,  the fact that you don't believe any of what you said...  will ultimately yield a valuable clue about your thinking process and any hidden bias you may or many not have.

So I was wondering if you wouldn't mind indulging me and answer a couple of questions.

1... Even though it is plausible to you... why exactly don't you believe any of what you said above about aliens being responsible for the events surrounding Jesus' death, burial and reports of his resurrection?

**NOTE:  We can substitute ANY historical event from the past and postulate your scenario as a possible explanation for that event.  But let's just stick with the subject at hand for this question if you wouldn't mind.

2... Even though it is plausible... why don't you believe that you and the human race and our universe was created 10 minutes ago with built in age and built in memories and that we are nothing more than a sophisticated hologram or computer simulation which was produced by these same aliens you invoked earlier?  (I'm assuming here that you don't believe you were just created 10 minutes ago).  In fact, do you have any doubts that such a possibility couldn't be based technology and techniques we know exists now, or could exist in the future?  Just like your alien example above?

3... Even though it is plausible... why don't you believe that your atheistic position is simply the result of manipulation or brain-washing by these same kind of aliens which you've invoked in here?  Certainly brainwashing techniques and implementation would be far superior in the future for us...  and which would be likely in an advanced race.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1475 on: January 15, 2010, 05:46:12 PM »
Jedweber...

Quote
Now, you're slyly citing a fifth claim as a Minimal Fact--that the disciples and Paul died for their beliefs--without substantiating it. (from Kcrady apparantly)
 

I haven't read the context of the above quote in Kcrady's post, but I don't think that is correct.  I think the 5th fact you are referring too is the CHANGE of Paul and James from being extreme skeptics to becoming believers.  That fact is even better substantiated than the empty tomb.

But this fact is used in the premises of Habermas' minimal facts case, and not WLC.  Craig felt that in terms of the debates he does, he did not have to list that fact.  It's still there of course... it is still a fact, but Craig doesn't list it in his beginning premises.

Anyway... I was going to go into deeper detail about this because some in here are claiming that I introduced a new fact or CHANGED my initial minimal facts case.

I was going to list page numbers and post numbers showing that I was actually responding to a flurry of posts earlier.  Then when I read Kcrady's post about a debate, I felt it would be a great idea to "kill two birds with one stone" so to speak.

Anyway... i had it all written out and I was looking for it the past couple of hours, so I must have it another computer which I will look at tonight. This way I can be more precise.  I just wanted to jump in with this response to let you know that I have seen similiar claims from others in here.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6856
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1476 on: January 15, 2010, 05:49:31 PM »
Oh my jesus fuck! Because the extraordinary claim requires a proportionate amount of evidence, testable, observable, repeatable evidence. The alien claim is outlandish, however, it is a few levels of magnitude less outlandish than your ridiculous arteficial belief set.

I cannot believe you cannot face that, even if it is laid out plainly for you in black and white.  
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6856
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1477 on: January 15, 2010, 05:52:18 PM »
Fran's response "everyone knows that aliens are not real, but a magic man coming back from the dead in my magic book is absolutely plausible, silly atheists"
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?
« Reply #1478 on: January 15, 2010, 06:12:42 PM »
Yes, there were reports of the discovery of Jesus empty tomb...  and for the reasons i've already outlined, the empty tomb is accepted to be Factual by a large majority of Biblical scholars.  

There is no archaeological evidence of any tomb, therefore your reports are flimsy at best.

Quote
Yes, there were reports reports of many people experiencing Jesus alive from the dead by different individuals and groups of people on different occasions and under various circumstances... and for the reasons i've already outlined, these post-mortem appearances are accepted to be Factual by a vast majority of Biblical scholars.  A nearly universal agreement among the experts in fact.

Stop playing word games. Stop. Just stop please. Post mortem appearances are not factual at all - the only thing factual is that there exist stories of claims of post mortem appearances - there is no way at all we can verify it relates to an actual appearance. This word game is getting very old, and it's a very dishonest and slimy debate tactic.

Can we get a debate moderator to stop this silliness?

Quote
So now we are back to square one.  How are you going to explain these facts?

No Fran, no. No, no, no. Wrong. Your assertion we are back at square One is not accepted.

YOU are back to square one, not us. YOU have claimed an extraordinary event WITHOUT extraordinary evidence.  Not only that, YOU have the most basic evidence imaginable - hearsay and written stories. The sooner you face that, the sooner we can get to square Two.

YOU have failed to advance past square One. We are at square Two, waiting for you to come, but you never do.

YOU have failed, not us, because YOU have the Burden of Proof, not us. YOUR Burden of Proof is unimaginably tough to bear, as these 40-odd pages indicate.

Edit: I don't like doing this, but I have sent a Report to Moderator to try to get you to stop claiming that Jesus post-mortem appearances are FACTUAL - they are not.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 06:42:11 PM by HAL »