quote:Originally posted by KingDavid8: I wanted clarification as to what proven-false (or generally considered false) event you're talking about.
That JFK was killed by someone other than LHO. Period.
Okay, so show me how the major details (the who, when and where) of all eyewitness testimony is consistent when it comes to backing the theory that JFK was killed by someone other than LHO. Most of the eyewitness testimony actually favors the single gunman theory, since most eyewitnesses say the shots came from where Oswald was.
No, I'm not going to allow you to reject eyewitness claims which favor the single-gunman theory and only focus on a handful and point out that there is consistency among that select few. You have to consider *all* eyewitness accounts, even those that disagree with the second gunman theory.
Just like if we EIGHT Gospels apparently based on eyewitness accounts, four of which agreed as our current four do, and the other four gave wildly different versions of the major events, you wouldn't let me or any Christian say that the eyewitness accounts are consistent, would you? I certainly wouldn't claim they were.
And keep in mind that I said "apparently based on eyewitness accounts", which automatically rules out the gnostic/apocryphal gospels, which were apparently NOT based on eyewitness accounts.
quote: This is a theory that we're pretty sure is false, but which has been far, FAR better attested than the four Gospels. You have some few eyewitnesses (more than four) who thought someone else fired the shots. You have Connally, a practiced hunter, who said he heard more than three shots. You have the photographic evidence which, according to some, shows evidence of a shot from in front.
Yeah, and we also have many, many more people who heard the shots coming from the direction of the depository, so the eyewitness testimony is inconsistent on major details, assuming we're considering the direction of the shots to be a major detail. If we're not calling the directions of the shot a major detail, then we're stuck saying there are NO major details backing the second-gunmen claim, which pretty much nullifies it from consideration.
quote: The point is that this is an event, VASTLY better recorded in every possible way than the events of the resurrection, which is still open to grotesque misinterpretation and dispute.
But I'm asking for an event where the major details of all eyewitness testimony line up, and they don't when it comes to claims of a second gunman at the JFK assassination. Only if all eyewitnesses to the assassination gave accounts that supported the second gunman theory, would you have a point.
quote:
quote:[I] am still waiting for it to meet my "agreement on major details and have differences on minor details" part, which it has so far met only half of.
I think I have successfully met those criteria.
Only if we reject all eyewitness testimony that contradicts it, which is most of it. So, no, it doesn't even come close to meeting that criteria.
quote: When my father was in training to be a Postmaster, they pulled the old stunt of having someone walk in to the classroom and "rob" the instructor, armed with a banana. Afterwards, they asked the students to describe what had happened. Over half of them said they had seen a gun.
So, again, the major details line up (the who, when and where) and only minor details (what someone was holding) differs. Which is what tends to happen when their testimony was honest and not contrived.
quote: I simply think you are assigning the Gospels a primacy that they do not deserve, and that you appear to me to be using a different set of rules for evaluating the evidence in their case and in other cases.
I'm not. The rules are that the testimony of all eyewitnesses to the event must match in major details and differ in minor details, and it must be an event which was proven false, or least an event I would agree is false (since an undetermined or true one would back up or not apply to my claim, not contradict it). There may well be one, perhaps the Walton abduction. If so, I'll agree that this is a general rule and not an absolute, meaning while it TENDS to be this way, there are exceptions, of which the Gospel claims could be one of them.
quote: (I also confess readily that the "miracle" aspect of the stories does cause, in my mind, a heavy weight of bias against them. I don't believe in miracles, and thus the stories automatically conflict with my world-view, making it difficult -- I hope not impossible, but mighty mighty difficult -- for me to evaluate them objectively. Neither you *nor I* properly belong on the Jury!)
Probably true, and I'll even admit that the claims of miracles gives ME some degree of pause in accepting them. As I said earlier, if the Gospels just described Jesus preaching, causing trouble and being crucified, we'd have no more cause to doubt the accuracy of the Gospel accounts than we would for Caesar's assassination. I think every historian would, in that case, believe that the Gospels were true, and I would have no pause in believing them. And, of course, those same historians would suddenly start doubting the claims of the Caesar assassination if the claims said that Caesar was killed by lightning bolts being fired from the assassins' fingers.
Yes, claims of extraordinary events should be doubted more than claims of mundane events. But I think they should only be outright rejected, without consideration of the evidence, by an individual if they don't believe that the event is possible. That's why I reject claims of alien abductions and why atheists reject the resurrection.
What sometimes puzzles me is why atheists, who reject the resurrection based on their non-belief in the supernatural, sometimes feel the need to attack the evidence itself. Who are they trying to convince, do you think? And why?
quote: You have to consider all eyewitness accounts, even those that disagree with the second gunman theory. . . . But I'm asking for an event where the major details of all eyewitness testimony line up . . .
I'm sorry to be rude, but the italicized phrases were not in your original challenge. Here is what you said only two days ago:
quote:Are you kidding me? Care to give me an example of a UL (one declared false, of course) where we have multiple apparently-eyewitness accounts of the same event, where the major details (who, when, where) line up and the only differences are in minor details?
You didn't say anything about "all" the accounts, only that there were multiple accounts that matched.
I am in the uncomfortable position of a place-kicker who perceives the goal posts to recede.
quote:
quote: When my father was in training to be a Postmaster, they pulled the old stunt of having someone walk in to the classroom and "rob" the instructor, armed with a banana. Afterwards, they asked the students to describe what had happened. Over half of them said they had seen a gun.
So, again, the major details line up (the who, when and where) and only minor details (what someone was holding) differs. Which is what tends to happen when their testimony was honest and not contrived.
If you believe the presence or absence of a gun (or a banana) in an armed robbery is a minor detail, I'm afraid our opinions are more divergent than I had thought.
quote: What sometimes puzzles me is why atheists, who reject the resurrection based on their non-belief in the supernatural, sometimes feel the need to attack the evidence itself. Who are they trying to convince, do you think? And why?
Atheists are hardly the only ones who are skeptical about evidence that points in the direction of a verdict they hold to be untenable. It is far easier for me to wave off the Gospels than to re-assess my conceptions of reality itself, just as I'm sure it would be easier for you to dismiss evidence that points in the direction of a natural/physical/material cosmos at the expense of your beliefs in spirit/soul/divinity.
For you, my mote is a beam; for me, yours is. I despair of our agreeing on the nature of reality, but, at very least, I think we both know how to avoid rhetorical error.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingDavid8: It does occur to me, though, that critics will likely claim that MOST of what the Gospel authors wrote could have happened, and only specific events, such as the post-resurrection appearances, were the false memories. So there's no reason that the existence or non-existence of false memories spanning several years would have bearing on the discussion either way.
The only bearing is whether false memories could explain the post-resurrection appearances, and I'd have to say no (though I'm sure you'll say yes). The problem is that we have multiple people who appear to have witnessed the same post-resurrection appearances. These were very public sightings. Paul claims that Jesus was seen by hundreds of people, a claim it would have been hard for him to make had the appearances been nothing more than a handful of false memories.
I didn't say false memories explained anything. I said it was one of several ways that stories of miracles or supernatural events or other more mundane things develop. It's one of many possible explanations that, when considered alone or in combination do seem more likely. But, of course, as they say YMMV!
Yes, by "years" I didn't mean a single episode of false memory would last that long. That really would be unusual. But many cases have been told of false memories interspersed years of memory, with the most dramatic cases being those of child abuse that was demonstrably false, repeated episodes of alien abduction, and satanic rituals such as baby sacrifices. In defense of your point, a lot of false memories are placed in memories of childhood or adolescence. But by no means all of them. Anyway, the point about false memories is just that our memories are fairly unreliable, especially when unusual things occur or we are led to believe so. It is just the most dramatic example. We all remember things differently than they actually occurred, as should be apparent from different accounts of historical events, in which different participants often do make extremely different claims. It is my contention that before written and electronic records were common, when most stories were kept in the oral tradition, such memories were even more likely to be shaped and changed, perhaps sometimes as dramatically as in the case of ULs and false memories, etc. In case you are interested, this page has more info on false memory:
After observing the unrelaible nature of human reports of events that are said to have taken place in my own lifetime (including false memories, ULs, mass hysteria, etc.), I can't accept the gospels as reliable accounts just by what they contain.
I want to thank you, by the way, honestly and with no snark, for being so candid and patient. I hope I'm not annoying you.
ETA Re:
quote:What sometimes puzzles me is why atheists, who reject the resurrection based on their non-belief in the supernatural, sometimes feel the need to attack the evidence itself. Who are they trying to convince, do you think? And why?
I can't speak for anyone else so I can't answer your questions. It has never been my intention to attack anyone's religious beliefs but only to have a frank discussion. My argument rests more on the skepticism in any specific supernatural event than of all such events in history. But it is supported by the my non-belief in the supernatural events that have reportedly occurred within my lifetime and observation of the way these modern stories developed. I see parallels in the gospel stories so I don't consider them as evidence worthy of a doubting Thomas, such as I am. My purpose is purely academic. Intellectual amusement. So I'm sorry for doing that about something that's so important to you. (These conversations are absolutely verboten in this Japanese society so this is the only place I can do it except through e-mailing my family and that gets tired quickly.)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You have to consider all eyewitness accounts, even those that disagree with the second gunman theory. . . . But I'm asking for an event where the major details of all eyewitness testimony line up . . .
I'm sorry to be rude, but the italicized phrases were not in your original challenge. Here is what you said only two days ago:
quote:Are you kidding me? Care to give me an example of a UL (one declared false, of course) where we have multiple apparently-eyewitness accounts of the same event, where the major details (who, when, where) line up and the only differences are in minor details?
You didn't say anything about "all" the accounts, only that there were multiple accounts that matched.
I am in the uncomfortable position of a place-kicker who perceives the goal posts to recede.
I also didn't say "some of" the accounts, yet that's the way you took it (though no one else seems to have judging by their responses, suggesting they understood the question to mean "all"). I'd say "all" was clearly implied by my saying "multiple eyewitness accounts of the same event where the major details line up". If the major details line up for only "some of" the accounts and not for others, you really can't say that the major details of the accounts of the event line up, can you?
If you were a cop investigating a robbery where two eyewitnesses said the criminal was dressed like a clown, one said he was dressed like an ostrich, and one said he was dressed like Superman, would you say "the details of what the criminal was wearing match up", just because they do for two of the four? No, that's cherrypicking from the accounts, and would, to most people's minds, be dishonest. You don't reconcile conflicting accounts this way.
I've made the claim that the major events of the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection line up. If you were too look at the Gospels and notice that in, say, John and Luke's Gospels, there are major details that conflict with the other two, would you let me get away with continuing to say that the major events of the eyewitness accounts still line up, just because they do for "some of" them? I doubt it.
quote:
quote:
quote: When my father was in training to be a Postmaster, they pulled the old stunt of having someone walk in to the classroom and "rob" the instructor, armed with a banana. Afterwards, they asked the students to describe what had happened. Over half of them said they had seen a gun.
So, again, the major details line up (the who, when and where) and only minor details (what someone was holding) differs. Which is what tends to happen when their testimony was honest and not contrived.
If you believe the presence or absence of a gun (or a banana) in an armed robbery is a minor detail, I'm afraid our opinions are more divergent than I had thought.
I guess so. Do you think that those who later said the guy had a gun knew, at the time that the "robbery" was happening, that it was a banana? I think that's the kind of odd detail that would stick in their minds. More likely, the context of the situation convinced them, at the time, that the robber was holding a gun, since most armed robberies involve guns and not fresh fruit. It most likely wasn't a mistake in memory, but a mistake in perception.
[obligatory Monty Python quote] "it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him. You have now rendered him helpless!"
quote:
quote: What sometimes puzzles me is why atheists, who reject the resurrection based on their non-belief in the supernatural, sometimes feel the need to attack the evidence itself. Who are they trying to convince, do you think? And why?
Atheists are hardly the only ones who are skeptical about evidence that points in the direction of a verdict they hold to be untenable.
I'm not saying they are. I do the same thing with alien abduction accounts and other things. I don't find it an illogical thing for a person to do.
quote: It is far easier for me to wave off the Gospels than to re-assess my conceptions of reality itself, just as I'm sure it would be easier for you to dismiss evidence that points in the direction of a natural/physical/material cosmos at the expense of your beliefs in spirit/soul/divinity.
No, because I believe the cosmos itself is natural/physical/material. I don't see spirit/soul/divinity as being part of the natural universe.
quote:Originally posted by KingDavid8: I've made the claim that the major events of the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection line up. If you were too look at the Gospels and notice that in, say, John and Luke's Gospels, there are major details that conflict with the other two, would you let me get away with continuing to say that the major events of the eyewitness accounts still line up, just because they do for "some of" them? I doubt it.
Again, I find this argument disingenuous becuase we know that there were other accounts that differed from the canon. You say that all of them were written later or were of dubious origin but even if that were true, how can we be sure there weren't a hundred other accounts with far more mundane descriptions of the events which were soon forgotten becuase either they wren't very interesting or they weren't supported by the early Christians, perhaps for obvious reasons?
In the case of a police investigation, if police are sure there were a hundred witnesses to an event, just four written decades later by religious supporters of one individual involved would certainly not be considered good evidence by any means. So your analogy does not hold up. Considering the evidence, I think it's far more likely that more oridinary descriptions, perhaps without any miracles or supernatural events, were made orally and forgotten while the early Christians made sure their own versions were written down. Even so, they weren't able to keep other versions from being spread around. But who wants to hear a story about crucifixion gone wrong? To non-Christians who accepted the mundane version of events, or even witnessed them, what would be the motive for recording it? Just to annoy this new sect of people who were worshipping a crucified man and spreading stories about him? I don't see the point.
I don't think these four accounts are conclusive evidence of anything except perhaps that something unusual happened at this crucifixion and burial that made a few people either believe or want to say that this man came back from the dead. I can think of lots of reasons they might think so. And there are many other reasons tat I don't know that don't require any actual resurrection.
quote:Originally posted by KingDavid8: I've made the claim that the major events of the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection line up. If you were too look at the Gospels and notice that in, say, John and Luke's Gospels, there are major details that conflict with the other two, would you let me get away with continuing to say that the major events of the eyewitness accounts still line up, just because they do for "some of" them? I doubt it.
Again, I find this argument disingenuous becuase we know that there were other accounts that differed from the canon. You say that all of them were written later or were of dubious origin
Which they were. That's not in any doubt. You will not find a single historian who dates them to the first century.
quote: but even if that were true, how can we be sure there weren't a hundred other accounts with far more mundane descriptions of the events which were soon forgotten becuase either they wren't very interesting or they weren't supported by the early Christians, perhaps for obvious reasons?
So are you saying we should reject all of ancient history because it's hypothetically possible that someone we don't know about remembers the events of those times differently? The job of historians is to look at what we have and draw conclusions from it, not to pretend that unknown historical accounts existed and use them to disprove the ones we have.
quote: In the case of a police investigation, if police are sure there were a hundred witnesses to an event, just four written decades later by religious supporters of one individual involved would certainly not be considered good evidence by any means.
So you're saying that the police should just reject four eyewitness accounts out of hand even though they have no evidence that anyone else remembers the events differently? Only because some of the other witnesses might hypothetically have remembered it differently?
quote: So your analogy does not hold up. Considering the evidence, I think it's far more likely that more oridinary descriptions, perhaps without any miracles or supernatural events, were made orally and forgotten while the early Christians made sure their own versions were written down. Even so, they weren't able to keep other versions from being spread around.
And what's the evidence for these "other versions"? You can suppose anything you want to. I won't stop you. But it needs to be more than just "well, maybe it happened this way" if you want to convince anyone else.
quote: But who wants to hear a story about crucifixion gone wrong?
The Jewish authorities, Nero...
quote: To non-Christians who accepted the mundane version of events, or even witnessed them, what would be the motive for recording it? Just to annoy this new sect of people who were worshipping a crucified man and spreading stories about him? I don't see the point.
Except the attitude of those who opposed Christianity in the first century wasn't "let's just let them be". At least three of the major Christian players (Stephen, Paul and James) were put to death for what they were saying. Some say that all NT authors but John were put to death, but the evidence for many of those deaths is pretty sketchy. If the Romans had any kind of evidence that Jesus' resurrection never happened, they would have been parading it around, not keeping it secret.
quote: I don't think these four accounts are conclusive evidence of anything except perhaps that something unusual happened at this crucifixion and burial that made a few people either believe or want to say that this man came back from the dead. I can think of lots of reasons they might think so. And there are many other reasons tat I don't know that don't require any actual resurrection.
And, again, I find them incredibly unlikely. The only one that would kinda sorta make sense is if the authors were outright lying, and even then, I doubt that the lie would have held up past the Nero years. A few others are maybe hypothetically possible, but the evidence really stacks up against them and they pretty much defy common sense.
quote:Originally posted by KingDavid8: So are you saying we should reject all of ancient history because it's hypothetically possible that someone we don't know about remembers the events of those times differently? The job of historians is to look at what we have and draw conclusions from it, not to pretend that unknown historical accounts existed and use them to disprove the ones we have.
Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. I don't see it. Just as you reject "hypothetical" explanations that have been proven to occur in many cases of mass hysteria, hoaxes, lies, tall tales, etc. etc. but it doesn't make the supernatural events that have never ever been proven seem any more likely to me.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anyone is interested, I found site that has translations of the "other" gospels. Here is the link. Enjoy.
-------------------- "Accompanied by the ghosts of dolphins, the ghost of a ship sailed on..." Terry Pratchett Posts: 660 | From: Gainesville, FL | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: [QUOTE]Originally posted by KingDavid8: [qb]I've made the claim that the major events of the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection line up.
There were NO eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Only various accounts of who was there (people and angels vary per gospel). One could consider these details major; ie; we don't even know who exactly saw the empty tomb, other then Mary Magdelene, or what she saw and what was said. I consider that pretty important.
To me this is no evidence of story telling and eventually someone writing them down.
[QUOTE][qb] but even if that were true, how can we be sure there weren't a hundred other accounts with far more mundane descriptions of the events which were soon forgotten becuase either they wren't very interesting or they weren't supported by the early Christians, perhaps for obvious reasons?
So are you saying we should reject all of ancient history because it's hypothetically possible that someone we don't know about remembers the events of those times differently? The job of historians is to look at what we have and draw conclusions from it, not to pretend that unknown historical accounts existed and use them to disprove the ones we have.
Most historians solve the synoptic problem by saying Mark wrote first, Luke and Matthew wrote later using Mark and a "Q" document. The only gospel that even come close to being considered eyewitness is John.
So you're saying that the police should just reject four eyewitness accounts out of hand even though they have no evidence that anyone else remembers the events differently? Only because some of the other witnesses might hypothetically have remembered it differently?
If the four people have reason to lie or are not impartial, then yes. The majority at the time probably looked at early Chrisians much as we look at the Branch Davidians or some other cult out there right now. We could care less what they think or write.
quote: But who wants to hear a story about crucifixion gone wrong?
The Jewish authorities, Nero...
Nothing was written because no one else would have cared or remembered. To them he was just another uppity person, now silenced. There were also many other religions popping up at the time.
Just so you know, I am not an atheist. I would much rather believe then question, it would make my life a lot easier. I was brought up learning about Jesus before DrSuess.
When I read the Gospels, even John, I find it very hard to believe that an eyewitness to such events would write in a fashion very unlike an eyewitness and more like someone passing on a story.
Posts: 11 | From: Spring Hill, FL | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingDavid8: Sorry it took so long to get back, haven't been online for a few days...
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: I must disagree with you; they could have believed it was true, and been in error.
I really don't see how. If Jesus was not resurrected, what could possibly have convinced them that He was? Had it been hundreds of years and several generations of retellings between the event and the writings, I could perhaps see it, but just a few decades at most? Within the witnesses' lifetimes?
Sorry to reply before reading the whole thread, but has anyone brought up Nicholas Flamel yet?
There were eyewitnesses who knew him, who saw him many years after his death, apparently unchanged. Accounts from the period refer to a check of his tomb which no longer held his remains.
Furthermore, a tale comes from China of Lao-Tzu creating the Elixir of Life and administering it to his dog, who fell over dead, and himself, subsequently collapsing. Only one of his three disciples trusted his master enough to take the Elixir himself. The other two left the house to get help to bury the bodies. When they returned, all three were gone, along with some luggage. I do not know if this account was written by one of the disciples or is a legend without a direct connection-- but the Flamel accounts are definitely from eyewitnesses.
So, is the Elixir of Life, created by two men from two very different cultures real? I doubt it; the science behind alchemy was never very good. The modern take on alchemy is that the Elixir is a metaphor for spiritual transformation.
I think the explanation of those who say it comes down to faith makes more sense to me than people who claim that an account written in an eyewitness's lifetime is assumed true because the witness could contradict it if it was false.
Posts: 457 | From: Sacramento, CA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: [QUOTE][qb] It is far easier for me to wave off the Gospels than to re-assess my conceptions of reality itself, just as I'm sure it would be easier for you to dismiss evidence that points in the direction of a natural/physical/material cosmos at the expense of your beliefs in spirit/soul/divinity.
No, because I believe the cosmos itself is natural/physical/material. I don't see spirit/soul/divinity as being part of the natural universe.
And this time it was my lack of an universal qualifier that stands in the way of communication: I meant that you would be likely to reject the notion that the natural/physical/material universe is *all* that there is, whereas I take that as a postulate.
I think, alas, you and I have reached one of our famous impasses, where we must simply nod politely and agree to disagree.
However, here is an interesting thought: since we both are, at times, in the position of questioning evidence if it contradicts our notions of "reality," it would seem that these notions are, to us, "more real" (in some sense) than the "reality" of evidence.
Thus, the Catholic scholars in Galileo's day refused even to look through a telescope toward the moons of Jupiter, because they knew such moons could not be there. The "reality" of their enhanced senses was subordinated to the "greater reality" of their philosophical beliefs about truth, reality, knowledge, revelation, etc.
In very much the same way, both you and I, observing a UFO, would be initially disposed to doubt the "reality" of our direct senses, supposing an error of perception, an optical illusion, perhaps even preferring the explanation of an hallucination, over the dangerous and revolutionary notion of flying saucers and spacemen, which would be a challenge to our "higher reality."
I'm not sure if this is meaningful, but I guess I would recommend that everyone take some time in their lives to examine even these "higher realities" upon which they based their belief systems.
geminilee: thank you for the link! That's a keeper!
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingDavid8: So are you saying we should reject all of ancient history because it's hypothetically possible that someone we don't know about remembers the events of those times differently? The job of historians is to look at what we have and draw conclusions from it, not to pretend that unknown historical accounts existed and use them to disprove the ones we have.
Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. I don't see it. Just as you reject "hypothetical" explanations that have been proven to occur in many cases of mass hysteria, hoaxes, lies, tall tales, etc. etc. but it doesn't make the supernatural events that have never ever been proven seem any more likely to me.
It's true that historians often will find a story from history and state that they doubt the story is true. I'm just saying that they don't say "well, other people might have witnessed the event differently, even though we don't have any evidence that they did" and then discard the story based on these hypothetical eyewitnesses. Evidence that doesn't exist isn't something that should be used as evidence.
posted
As for lack of evidence being evidence, scientists and historians often have to say they can't confirm certain events becuase the people who made the claim had special interest inthe subject or because versions of the story that existed (and they must have if these events were witnessed by so many people so I don't understand how you can say other witnesses, especially non-Christian witnesses, didn't exist... everyone converted? not according to the gospels) have not survived. In these cases, they do not simply accept stories of supernatural happenings just because one or two people say it did. So lack of evidence is not evidence but it can show that the evidence given is possibly not complete or true. (The burden of proof, of course, rests on those who would make the claim of an unusual event, not the other way around. Are you saying these events were not unusual?)
If historians claimed that Nero walked on water, made lots of food from a little, or changed water to wine, any reputable historian would doubt it without at least more than two witnesses, which is all you have for most miracles in the New Testament.
Even if your claim that these stories are completely different from any known ULs, hoaxes, psychological phenomena, etc. etc. (which I can't really see) then it is still easier for me to believe that it is a very unusual case of these known phenomena than a completely unknown form of supernatural event. But I suppose that difference is one of many things that makes one "a believer" and another not.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jimbolaya: Most historians solve the synoptic problem by saying Mark wrote first, Luke and Matthew wrote later using Mark and a "Q" document. The only gospel that even come close to being considered eyewitness is John.
Hardly, since Matthew's Gospel was a lot longer than Mark's and contained a lot more detail. There are a small handful of passages in Matthew where the wording is similar enough to Mark that it's reasonable to suppose that Matthew copied from Mark on those passages, but that's a very small portion of the Gospel. But all evidence says Matthew was a witness to the resurrection, and that Mark's primary source was Peter, also a witness to the resurrection, and Mark was likely a witness to the resurrection himself, though he wasn't an apostle. Even Luke (though probably not a personal witness to the resurrection) used several sources, including Mary the mother of Jesus, who were witnesses to the resurrection.
As for the "Q" document, it probably wasn't an actual Gospel, but just a list of things Jesus said, written down by a follower at the time.
quote:
quote:So you're saying that the police should just reject four eyewitness accounts out of hand even though they have no evidence that anyone else remembers the events differently? Only because some of the other witnesses might hypothetically have remembered it differently?
If the four people have reason to lie or are not impartial, then yes. The majority at the time probably looked at early Chrisians much as we look at the Branch Davidians or some other cult out there right now. We could care less what they think or write.
Okay, so you're someone who thinks that the apostles were lying about what they wrote. I actually find that a reasonable thing for a non-Christian to believe, so I won't try to correct you on that. I'll just say that in reading the Gospels and other NT documents myself, I don't get the impression that the authors are lying.
quote:
quote: But who wants to hear a story about crucifixion gone wrong?
The Jewish authorities, Nero...
Nothing was written because no one else would have cared or remembered. To them he was just another uppity person, now silenced.
In the thirties, sure. But in the sixties, around or just after the time the Gospels (all but John's) were written, the Romans considered Christianity a threat and would have gladly used conflicting eyewitness accounts as a weapon against Christianity.
quote: Just so you know, I am not an atheist. I would much rather believe then question, it would make my life a lot easier. I was brought up learning about Jesus before DrSuess.
When I read the Gospels, even John, I find it very hard to believe that an eyewitness to such events would write in a fashion very unlike an eyewitness and more like someone passing on a story.
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: As for lack of evidence being evidence, scientists and historians often have to say they can't confirm certain events becuase the people who made the claim had special interest inthe subject or because versions of the story that existed...have not survived
But only if there is evidence for their having existed in the first place. For example, if a historian from the time wrote that there were reports that conflicted with the Gospels, then modern historians would likely conclude that conflicting reports existed which have not survived. But unless there is some reason, such as that historian's mention, to suppose that they existed in the first place, they won't just pretend they did. I'm not saying the actual document has to have survived for us to conclude it existed, but we do need SOME kind of evidence for its having existed. For example, we had reason to believe that the Gospel of Judas had existed prior to its being discovered, due to references to it in at least one other writing.
quote:I don't understand how you can say other witnesses, especially non-Christian witnesses, didn't exist... everyone converted? not according to the gospels
Because then, as now, not everyone believed the apparently eyewitness accounts. I've never said that witnesses to the contrary didn't exist, since I don't know and neither do you. I'm just saying that there's no evidence that they did, so it's ridiculous to pretend they did and then use our pretending as evidence against the Gospels. I look at what we have evidence for and make conclusions based on that, which is what historians do.
That's not to say that anything we have evidence for absolutely MUST have happened. But if I reject claims which have no evidence to the contrary, then it's based on my inability to believe the claims, not based on my pretending there is evidence to the contrary.
quote:In these cases, they do not simply accept stories of supernatural happenings just because one or two people say it did.
I agree. But they don't make up pretend witnesses to the contrary. They don't need to.
quote: So lack of evidence is not evidence but it can show that the evidence given is possibly not complete or true. (The burden of proof, of course, rests on those who would make the claim of an unusual event, not the other way around. Are you saying these events were not unusual?)
No, they're quite extraordinary and quite difficult for some people to believe. But with the amount of evidence we have, then historians would, if they weren't so unusual, be accepted without question. They accept MANY more historical events as true based on far less evidence, but, of course, those events weren't quite as unusual. I really don't blame people, especially atheists, for rejecting the resurrection claims. I just find that the lengths they go to in an attempt to disprove them is silly, when they should just be saying "I don't believe that this could possibly have happened". They try to say that differences in minor details proves the entire thing was made up, or that the fact that there were perhaps witnesses to the contrary though there is no evidence for them, is evidence against the resurrection, or that the possibility that they could have been altered means that we have no idea what the authors originally wrote. If historians tried applying these things to all historical documents, rejecting those that differ in minor details, for which there could hypothetically have been conflicting evidence, or that could perhaps have been altered, we'd end up rejecting all of ancient history and much of modern history, as well. People who reject the Gospels need to be more consistent about why certain writings should be rejected as true. That they just don't believe it could have happened really is reason enough. They don't need to go to ridiculous lengths.
quote: If historians claimed that Nero walked on water, made lots of food from a little, or changed water to wine, any reputable historian would doubt it without at least more than two witnesses, which is all you have for most miracles in the New Testament.
Actually, many historians would doubt it no matter how many witnesses wrote about it, since Nero could have persuaded (through threats or bribery) any number of people to back him up. I have no problem with people doubting supernatural claims. I frequently doubt them myself. I just have a problem with their using unhistorical methods to do so.
quote: Even if your claim that these stories are completely different from any known ULs, hoaxes, psychological phenomena, etc. etc. (which I can't really see) then it is still easier for me to believe that it is a very unusual case of these known phenomena than a completely unknown form of supernatural event. But I suppose that difference is one of many things that makes one "a believer" and another not.
I actually agree with that. Back when I was an atheist, I wouldn't have given the possibility of the resurrection accounts being true a second thought. But when I came to believe that God existed, it did give me a different perspective towards supernatural claims. No, I don't just accept any claims of supernatural events as true. I still consider myself a skeptic, and reject most. But if one is particularly well-attested and I don't find it likely that the person is lying, I'm willing to consider its possibility. I still wouldn't say that I'm 100% logically convinced that the resurrection claims are true, but I'm convinced enough that I'm willing to take the rest on faith.
posted
I don't understand why you keep saying "atheists". Just because there are those who don't accept your version of history or religion or faith doesn't make them atheists. This seems somewhat unrelated to the topic.
Also, your version of theism is just one version of Christianity and Christianity is just one loosely defined category of a universe of other faiths. Atheism is only the rejection of just one god more than the many monotheists reject. (Having been an atheist I'm sure you know this but I still don't understand why you keep bringing up atheists.)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: I don't understand why you keep saying "atheists". Just because there are those who don't accept your version of history or religion or faith doesn't make them atheists. This seems somewhat unrelated to the topic.
I know. There's even at least one non-atheist in this thread (Jimbolaya) who doesn't believe in the resurrection. But most of those I've been discussing it with on this board (you and Silas and perhaps others - but you're the only two who have told me you are and are primarily who I've been talking to) ARE atheists, so that's why I keep saying atheists.
quote: Also, your version of theism is just one version of Christianity and Christianity is just one loosely defined category of a universe of other faiths. Atheism is only the rejection of just one god more than the many monotheists reject.
ETA: It's not just the rejection of "one more god" but a complete rejection of the supernatural.
quote: (Having been an atheist I'm sure you know this but I still don't understand why you keep bringing up atheists.)
posted
Plus, you probably reject almost all supernatural claims yourself (considering the tremendous range of claims throughout history not even concerned with Christianity) ... I think you even admitted as much. So I don't see the big diff between someone who rejects all supernatural things* and someone who rejects all but a few.
* Is that really the definition of "atheist"? I did not know that.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: So I don't see the big diff between someone who rejects all supernatural things* and someone who rejects all but a few.
* Is that really the definition of "atheist"? I did not know that.
No, atheism is a rejection of the existence of a deity or deities. If one believes that supernatural events can occur outside of the control or presence of a deity, then one can accept supernatural events and still be an atheist.
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: So I don't see the big diff between someone who rejects all supernatural things* and someone who rejects all but a few.
* Is that really the definition of "atheist"? I did not know that.
No, atheism is a rejection of the existence of a deity or deities. If one believes that supernatural events can occur outside of the control or presence of a deity, then one can accept supernatural events and still be an atheist.
Yep. I know one atheist who believes in reincarnation! He believes it is all "natural" and that no divine intelligence is behind it.
(I think he's a bit loony, frankly!)
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I don't recall ever saying I rejected, nor even that I don't believe in, any specific or non-specific supernatural things (including deities). (This reads like a disclaimer. But all I want to say is I wonder where David gets the idea that I'm atheist or that I don't believe in the supernatural.)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your friend may be a looney, Silas, but if people believe in such strange things as String Theory without any implicit deities (albeit perhaps for better reasons), then why not reincarnation? Since we don't know the nature of consciousness... okay it doesn't make much sense to me but it doesn't sound any loonier than other supernatural beliefs.
If by "supernatural" we mean "unknowable except through revelation by forces which are also unknowable except through such revelation" then, recursive as it may be, I'm willing to accept that such things must be. Whether or not they are revealed is a much more complicated subject, which brings to the table the central conundrums of how knowledge and consciousness are even possible without revelation. (I have just woken up in the middle of the night to have a hot cup of coffee and begin working on my nine o'clock lecture so I'd better not get started on that!)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: Your friend may be a looney, Silas, but if people believe in such strange things as String Theory without any implicit deities (albeit perhaps for better reasons), then why not reincarnation?
I don't know of anyone who "believes" in string theory; they only work with it on a hypothetical basis.
(I do, in contrast, believe in the Big Bang, as the evidence, coupled with the lack of any other explanation, suffices to overcome my doubts.)
quote:Since we don't know the nature of consciousness... okay it doesn't make much sense to me but it doesn't sound any loonier than other supernatural beliefs.
It's loony because it is not supported by any evidence. At least KingDavid8 has the Bible to work with, just as UFO-chasers and Ghost-hunters and Bigfoot-followers have *something* they can point at. But reincarnation? Phoo; their so-called evidence makes the Bigfoot evidence appear robust in comparison!
quote: If by "supernatural" we mean "unknowable except through revelation by forces which are also unknowable except through such revelation" then, recursive as it may be, I'm willing to accept that such things must be. Whether or not they are revealed is a much more complicated subject, which brings to the table the central conundrums of how knowledge and consciousness are even possible without revelation. (I have just woken up in the middle of the night to have a hot cup of coffee and begin working on my nine o'clock lecture so I'd better not get started on that!)
Now there's a good question: what does "supernatural" mean? I tend to apply it to high-order phenomena (as opposed to micro-scale quantum weirdness) that involves "action at a distance" without the benefit of matter, energy, or the fundamental forces of physics.
ESP is supernatural, as the brain simply doesn't generate enough energy to broadcast a signal over any appreciable distance. Ghosts and the soul are supernatural, because they are said to be composed of something other than matter. Symbolic magic (voodoo curses, rain dances, etc.) is supernatural, as it supposes a new "force" that applies between objects that have some form of representative similarity.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a spectator on this thread, I would like to pass on kudos to the major participants in the past few pages (Silas, Ganzfield, KingDavid8, et. al.) for your postings. You have all managed to keep it civil yet entertaining. Both sides have managed to thoughtfully present their ideas, perform additional research to bring new ideas into the discussion, and avoid personalizing the issues.
Well done so far! 4 pages ago, I wouldn't have bet on it going this way.
-------------------- "They got a name for the winners in the world; I want a name when I lose" -Steely Dan Posts: 480 | From: Tampa Bay, FL | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Granted Biblical scholars aren't 100% that Matthew copied from Mark, but most agree this is the case. The detail would have been filled in by verbal stories or by the "Q" document. Some do believe that Matthew was first. But only a minority of Bible historians believe that Matthew was an eyewitness.
But all evidence says Matthew was a witness to the resurrection, and that Mark's primary source was Peter, also a witness to the resurrection, and Mark was likely a witness to the resurrection himself, though he wasn't an apostle. Even Luke (though probably not a personal witness to the resurrection) used several sources, including Mary the mother of Jesus, who were witnesses to the resurrection.
Witness to the resurrection? No one was there. All the gospels agree on that.
Okay, so you're someone who thinks that the apostles were lying about what they wrote.
Not at all, I was referring to the police investigation - although I may not have been clear. I believe they believed. I just CAN'T make myself believe, based on available evidence, that we have the words of ANY eyewitnesses to Jesus. (Maybe Paul, but his own version is different then Luke's account in ACTS).
quote:
quote: But who wants to hear a story about crucifixion gone wrong?
The Jewish authorities, Nero...
Nothing was written because no one else would have cared or remembered. To them he was just another uppity person, now silenced.
In the thirties, sure. But in the sixties, around or just after the time the Gospels (all but John's) were written, the Romans considered Christianity a threat and would have gladly used conflicting eyewitness accounts as a weapon against Christianity.
How much of a Threat? Enough to travel to all the way to the HolyLands to find witnesses in favor of Rome? Why use difficult and 30yr old witness accounts when you have lions and free entertainment? I'm sure Rome had bigger fish to fry then another uprising or religion.
Why were so very few Jews converted by Jesus? As I recall most of the early Church were gentiles, Greeks, etc. This would seem to support a theory that most in the region didn't care or didn't know about the new "Christian religion". Or maybe the people of the Holy Land just weren't very impressed, except for a small group.
Posts: 11 | From: Spring Hill, FL | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: I never said I was an atheist.
I'm pretty sure you did. I was wondering if you were at first and then you said something (I don't remember exactly what) that convinced me that you were.
I could go through this 7-page forum and try to figure out what it was, but how 'bout you just make it easier on me and tell me if you are or not. Are you?
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: Plus, you probably reject almost all supernatural claims yourself (considering the tremendous range of claims throughout history not even concerned with Christianity) ... I think you even admitted as much. So I don't see the big diff between someone who rejects all supernatural things* and someone who rejects all but a few.
* Is that really the definition of "atheist"? I did not know that.
No, it isn't. An atheist is one who believes there are no deities, but I've never heard of an atheist who accepts the validity of supernatural events. That would be kind of like someone who doesn't believe in aliens, but believes in alien abductions.
Is it hypothetically possible that there are people who don't believe in gods, yet believe in the supernatural? Sure, but I've never heard of such people, so I generally assume that if someone is an atheist, that means that they don't believe in supernatural events. If you or Silas are atheists who believe in supernatural events, I'll gladly stand corrected.
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: ESP is supernatural, as the brain simply doesn't generate enough energy to broadcast a signal over any appreciable distance. Ghosts and the soul are supernatural, because they are said to be composed of something other than matter. Symbolic magic (voodoo curses, rain dances, etc.) is supernatural, as it supposes a new "force" that applies between objects that have some form of representative similarity.
Oddly enough, I've long believed in ESP, even back when I was an atheist. But I don't necessarily see it as a supernatural process (depending on your definition of supernatural, I suppose). I think it's more about the brains of some individuals being perceptive and intuitive on a level far beyond human understanding. Kind of viewing levels of perception and intuition among people as being some kind of bell curve, where most fall right towards the middle, and the further you go out from the middle in both directions, the smaller the numbers get - some people are bound to be out on the upper extreme.
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: I never said I was an atheist.
I'm pretty sure you did.
Can we accept this as example of a statement from an eyewitness? I haven't edited my posts more than five minutes after posting. So go ahead and look if you wish.
I don't recall ever saying in my life that I'm an "atheist". I don't really want to get into the subject of my own "beliefs" about deities right now. It seems like it would require a whole 'nother thread.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingDavid8: [An atheist is one who believes there are no deities, but I've never heard of an atheist who accepts the validity of supernatural events. That would be kind of like someone who doesn't believe in aliens, but believes in alien abductions.
Is it hypothetically possible that there are people who don't believe in gods, yet believe in the supernatural? Sure, but I've never heard of such people, so I generally assume that if someone is an atheist, that means that they don't believe in supernatural events.
I think this typifies what I can only frankly call your lack of imagination and knowledge of different belief systems.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingDavid8: Is it hypothetically possible that there are people who don't believe in gods, yet believe in the supernatural? Sure, but I've never heard of such people, so I generally assume that if someone is an atheist, that means that they don't believe in supernatural events.
Animism and Spiritualism are right on the boundary. Most of us would call such beliefs "supernaturalist," but are spirits "deities" per se? How about ghosts?
I'd venture to say that there must be at least a few atheists who, nevertheless, believe in ghosts...
re ESP, I am certainly willing to accept that there are people with extreme degrees of perception. But I'm thinking of extreme cases of ESP -- e.g., a guy in Canada instantly knows of the death of his brother in Vietnam -- that can have no possible materialist/naturalist explanation.
shifty rob: thank you! As you can see, KingDavid8 and I are unlikely to agree...but that isn't why we're here. I'm here to learn, and I'll bet a pickle that he is also. Learning is very difficult for someone who thinks he already knows the answer (which applies to us both) and so the form of debate is useful, as it *forces* us to see things in different ways.
My admiration for the good King is unbounded; his ability to remain polite when his views are questioned is nonpareil.
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have at least one person on the boards who believes in ESP, but not God. Can't remember who, but they said it in the intolerance towards Christians thread.
-------------------- "Accompanied by the ghosts of dolphins, the ghost of a ship sailed on..." Terry Pratchett Posts: 660 | From: Gainesville, FL | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
