Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Lantus

what a thread!

Something I have recently become more aware of is how incredibly difficult it is to justify non belief in god using logic and reason to a christian, especially those that knock on doors!

The definition of reason is by default different for these poeple because the fundemtals of the believe system they use to rationalise the world around them is from a different basis.

I often attempt to point out the contradictions in the bible story from my perspective. Like how a god who has the ability to create a universe and planets seems unable to write a clear concise document.

That the ability of jesus as an immortal being and son to another immortal being to simply spring back into life and then ascend into heaven somewhat mitigates the concept of sacrifice in terms of the crucification. Can an immortal being who drops dead for a few days and then takes human form again knowing there was no real danger really be said to of sacrificed life?

The other key aspects like god getting angry which seems to be a common theme dont make sense from a supreme highly evolved immortal being. The constant anger of god in the OT and destroying the products he has turned out (including pregnant women.) doesn't make any sense.

To me these and other aspects would seem to indicate that the bible was written by men in those times attempting to make some understanding of their lives as the descriptions of god reflects people more closley than a supremem being.

That doesn't mean a supreme being isn't involved!! I just could never accept that the one depicted in the bible is a fair representation of whatever reality may exist.

Northclare

That's why spirituality is more accessible and if you lean more twoards the idea of a higher power or a universal oneness life can be easier than believing in hell fire and brimstone :S

Tim Robbins

Slav wrote: »

Too bad you don't. Fundamentally, theism and science deal with different realms. Science does not need anything supernatural to be consistent. Similarly, theism in general does not need anything natural to be internally consistent. They just don't have common ground.

That is not true. Way more people believed Adam and Eve and in some sort of creationism myth even highly educated people until Darwin came along.

Also, if you read my original question which was if it be proved to you God does not exist would you want to know? I gave science as one example of it being disproven, if logic alone (or any other way) could do it fine - but the question is would you want to know? Not how would you want to know?

Well, that's how discussion boards work, if you are making a statement while asking a question be prepared that your statement will be questioned in return by others. So it comes from your claim that scientific method is good enough to investigate religion. So far you failed to explain why and how. I'm sorry but it was you who brought science in here, not me or anybody else.

The Scientific method is good enough to believe something but it can't disproof God as a concept in no more than it can disprove reincarnation or the existence of the invisible teapot. No one ever made that claim. You are wasting time on an interesting discussion.

Tim Robbins

Lantus wrote: »

what a thread!

Something I have recently become more aware of is how incredibly difficult it is to justify non belief in god using logic and reason to a christian, especially those that knock on doors!

The definition of reason is by default different for these poeple because the fundemtals of the believe system they use to rationalise the world around them is from a different basis.

I often attempt to point out the contradictions in the bible story from my perspective. Like how a god who has the ability to create a universe and planets seems unable to write a clear concise document.

That the ability of jesus as an immortal being and son to another immortal being to simply spring back into life and then ascend into heaven somewhat mitigates the concept of sacrifice in terms of the crucification. Can an immortal being who drops dead for a few days and then takes human form again knowing there was no real danger really be said to of sacrificed life?

The other key aspects like god getting angry which seems to be a common theme dont make sense from a supreme highly evolved immortal being. The constant anger of god in the OT and destroying the products he has turned out (including pregnant women.) doesn't make any sense.

To me these and other aspects would seem to indicate that the bible was written by men in those times attempting to make some understanding of their lives as the descriptions of god reflects people more closley than a supremem being.

That doesn't mean a supreme being isn't involved!! I just could never accept that the one depicted in the bible is a fair representation of whatever reality may exist.

I think what happens is the Bible and other religious scripture is written by people who 100% believed in their God. It is a very deep reflection of their thoughts - so it resonates with people who are prone to those thoughts 2,000 years later.

But for those who are used to establishing truths by other means (Science) it can seem like a pack of crackers.

georgieporgy

Northclare wrote: »

That's why spirituality is more accessible and if you lean more twoards the idea of a higher power or a universal oneness life can be easier than believing in hell fire and brimstone :S

plenty of time to worry about hell later on?

richiek67

Hi Folks,
I'm fascinated with this subject because in a way its quite hard to prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. I wont mention the word God because I think that god to one person is completely different to someone else. ( I guess that's pretty obvious given all religions ).
I have to say that I have the utmost respect for peoples believes and I would never try to say anything is 'stupid' or 'why do you believe such 'n such'. My work colleague and I are always having mad debates on the subject. Its funny, he's convinced without a doubt that there is life after death. I think he had an experience. Not that I can disprove him and I wouldn't want to . I'm not overly religious, infact I'm supposed to be Cathloic but to be honest (I'm Irish) over the years I'm just completely let down and totally flabbergasted by the Vatican & the church. I'm completely contemptuous towards the church now , partly due to my own forced upbringing, (thankfully my mother always told me to keep an open mind about things) , my dad was and still is very religious. Though I think partly due to my own scientific reasoning on things. I'm very much into science and though this I think I've been able to see the wood from the trees in terms of some of the miss-guided approaches a lot of religions have. I think in terms of the catholic faith its ridiculous that priests cannot get married and that women cannot be priests. In my view it seems that religions suit those that are wealthy and they like to use it like a stick, Hindu sects for example come to mind. I cant understand that.
I'm still off the opinion that there certainly could be a higher being controlling this. I wonder if the finding of previous life on mars could upset the apple cart, so to speak! Like I said, I'm into the science aspect of things and I think science can disprove a lot of the things in the religions but obviously not the existence of a higher being. I doubt it'll ever do that.
If they find the existence of life on mars does anyone think this would be significant, and how?
Cheers

Rich :rolleyes:

JimiTime

richiek67 wrote: »

Hi Folks,
I'm fascinated with this subject because in a way its quite hard to prove or disprove the existence of a higher being.

I suppose it depends on what you constitute as proof. The amount of argument that can occur just deciding on this can make your head spin. You often hear people say, 'I want scientific proof' only to be told that proof is for Mathematics not science etc. So before the conversation can even happen, people are falling over the semantics. All I can say, is bring a hard-hat

Now, what constitutes proof to me, is simply if I am convinced. I'm open to whatever means is used, be it strict logic, simple reasoning, scientific data, a personal experience (If God appeared to me say, or I witnessed a mans leg grow back in a miraculous healing etc). I wouldn't get bogged down in semantics about it, if I'm convinced, it means that to me, its been proven. Doesn't mean that it can be presented as proof to others though.

I wont mention the word God because I think that god to one person is completely different to someone else. ( I guess that's pretty obvious given all religions ).

Indeed. Recognising a creator does not automatically mean God as described in the bible, it is merely the first step of the search. If you conclude, for whatever reason, that we are not a cosmic accident then the next step is to ask, what it was that directed creation.

I have to say that I have the utmost respect for peoples believes and I would never try to say anything is 'stupid' or 'why do you believe such 'n such'.

I'll have to admit, that I do find some beliefs stupid, and I don't respect all beliefs, though I do respect peoples rights to hold their beliefs. EG. I think believing the earth is flat is stupid, and I would not respect that opinion. i would however, respect a persons right to believe it.

I'm completely contemptuous towards the church now , partly due to my own forced upbringing, (thankfully my mother always told me to keep an open mind about things) , my dad was and still is very religious. Though I think partly due to my own scientific reasoning on things. I'm very much into science and though this I think I've been able to see the wood from the trees in terms of some of the miss-guided approaches a lot of religions have. I think in terms of the catholic faith its ridiculous that priests cannot get married and that women cannot be priests. In my view it seems that religions suit those that are wealthy and they like to use it like a stick, Hindu sects for example come to mind. I cant understand that.

I'm not a catholic, and would agree with some of your assessments, but I would recommend you look at the theological basis for the views you disagree with. Christianity is not about 'moving with the times' etc. God, if he exists, does not go out of date. If mankind has shifted in its morality and its ways etc, then that is NOT moving on etc, it is falling off the path. Christianity is about Christ, and HIS will not our own. All too often you'll hear people saying, 'I'm Christian, but I don't believe that we need to be chaste etc as thats just old fashioned stuff'. In reality, WE are the ones who are asked to live as Christ commands us and exemplified in his own life. Real Christianity is hard in this world, and real Christians are rare in relative terms. I'm a believer, but my life is an afront to the truth of Christ. Now, I could make things easier on myself by being dishonest and pretending that I'm perfectly fine in what I do etc. However, I value honesty. You could some me up as a spiritual wimp, but who's honest. Even good Christians will, with good motive, will say to me, 'You're not that bad' etc I appreciate their sentiment of course, but really, I know what Jesus wants, and I know I fall horribly short. So to cut a long story short, just remember, being a Christian is not about live and let live. Its about the truth of Christ, and living as he exemplified. Its about being a peacemaker, but not about trying to make friends. The truth is the truth, and we do nobody any favours holding it back for fear of offence or hurt feelings etc. There is a great verse in the book of Proverbs 'A wound from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses'.

I'm still off the opinion that there certainly could be a higher being controlling this. I wonder if the finding of previous life on mars could upset the apple cart, so to speak!

How could it? I must say, I doubt there is, but if there was, how would it upset the apple cart?

Like I said, I'm into the science aspect of things and I think science can disprove a lot of the things in the religions but obviously not the existence of a higher being. I doubt it'll ever do that.

By definition, God is supernatural, and science models the natural, so I'd say thats a good observation. However, a basic tenet of science is Cause and Effect. I'd say this universe and all thats in it is one hell of an effect.

If they find the existence of life on mars does anyone think this would be significant, and how?
Cheers

In terms of the God question, I can't really think of any.

Slav

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That is not true. Way more people believed Adam and Eve and in some sort of creationism myth even highly educated people until Darwin came along.

I will happily accept it as not true if you can demonstrate how it all relates to theism and specifically how hypothetically establishing by scientific means that life on Earth is intelligently designed or created can lead to theism and/or on the other hand how debunking creationism falsify theism.

Also, if you read my original question which was if it be proved to you God does not exist would you want to know? I gave science as one example of it being disproven, if logic alone (or any other way) could do it fine - but the question is would you want to know? Not how would you want to know?

I've actually ignored that your question on purpose because I don't think I can make any valuable contribution. Consider me agnostic here, but if you want to know my opinion then I'm all for knowledge of any kind, from any source gained by all possible means. But why did you ask that question in the first place mind if I ask you?

The Scientific method is good enough to believe something but it can't disproof God as a concept in no more than it can disprove reincarnation or the existence of the invisible teapot.

Precisely. Not only it cannot disproof the existence of invisible teapot, it cannot also provide evidence for its existence unless the teapot is a natural phenomenon.

No one ever made that claim.

You made a claim that you would consider a scientific evidence in favour of theism. Here:

Tim Robbins wrote: »

As an atheist, I would definetly prefer to know if any religion (Islam, Christianity, whatever...) was true if it was true. I would accept as evidence something that could stand up the rigors of the scientific method.

and then here:

Tim Robbins wrote: »

if God was to turn up on the Late Late and we could verify him somehow scientifically well then that is good enough for me.

...hence was my question about how exactly it's going to work for you.

You are wasting time on an interesting discussion.

Interesting discussion? Where??

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

In response to this.

For the record Phil, I take you seriously and I'd be VERY surprised if I was the only one. I have much respect and admiration for your tone, patience and quite frankly manners that are beyond reproach in terms of the abuse you get from posters like the above. I really wish I had your patience sometimes.

I find the hypocrisy bizarre - I don't expect people to watch 90 minutes of video to respond to one post. That's unreasonable and I'm sure that Sarky wouldn't watch 90 minutes of video from a Christian perspective (Context was 90 minutes of Bart Ehrman, a theologian who has been responded to within the theological community for his views, and someone who is certainly in the vast minority on that issue). I don't claim that people have "run away" because they happen to have other things to do on occasion, and I certainly don't conjure up false notions of notoriety in order to make my arguments. That's a rudimentary ad-hominem, and I'm surprised that people who claim to be the champions of logic use it.

Being an atheist doesn't give you an excuse to be rude. Neither does being a Christian.

If people are willing to enter into a reasonable, calm, and respectful debate I'm all for it. If you're going to be rude and obnoxious that's not a "debate" by any reasonable standard. I wouldn't entertain such a discussion in person and I certainly won't in my free time.

Thanks for your encouragement Jimi. Insofar as I communicate anything of the Gospel, I'm going to get responses like that. They are best ignored, in favour of responses that are likely to bear fruit in discussion, and prove interesting for both parties.

Fanny Cradock

philologos wrote: »

I find the hypocrisy bizarre - I don't expect people to watch 90 minutes of video to respond to one post. That's unreasonable and I'm sure that Sarky wouldn't watch 90 minutes of video from a Christian perspective (Context was 90 minutes of Bart Ehrman, a theologian who has been responded to within the theological community for his views, and someone who is certainly in the vast minority on that issue). I don't claim that people have "run away" because they happen to have other things to do on occasion, and I certainly don't conjure up false notions of notoriety in order to make my arguments. That's a rudimentary ad-hominem, and I'm surprised that people who claim to be the champions of logic use it.

Being an atheist doesn't give you an excuse to be rude. Neither does being a Christian.

If people are willing to enter into a reasonable, calm, and respectful debate I'm all for it. If you're going to be rude and obnoxious that's not a "debate" by any reasonable standard. I wouldn't entertain such a discussion in person and I certainly won't in my free time.

Thanks for your encouragement Jimi. Insofar as I communicate anything of the Gospel, I'm going to get responses like that. They are best ignored, in favour of responses that are likely to bear fruit in discussion, and prove interesting for both parties.

Well said, Philologos. I don't tend to pop over to AH or A&A so I don't know what Sarky is talking about. But for what it's worth I've always found you to be respectful, even in the face of hostility and mockery. An attitude that is commendable.

All this reminds me of a good quote.

"There are 5 Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and you."

Would that I could take that advice on board

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well said, Philologos. I don't tend to pop over to AH or A&A so I don't know what Sarky is talking about. But for what it's worth I've always found you to be respectful, even in the face of hostility and mockery. An attitude that is commendable.

All this reminds me of a good quote.

"There are 5 Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and you."

Would that I could take that advice on board

Never heard that quote before, but I love it!! I also relate most shamefully with your final line.

JimiTime

philologos wrote: »

Thanks for your encouragement Jimi. Insofar as I communicate anything of the Gospel, I'm going to get responses like that. They are best ignored, in favour of responses that are likely to bear fruit in discussion, and prove interesting for both parties.

Well, if there is one thing I can say, is that even if your points are not getting through to your intended audience, your manner teaches me the error of my ways in dragging myself down to the level of the more venomous posters.

Check this out. A great story of Christian Love being an example, even in the face of major disagreement.
I would consider the manners you display, whatever your point, be it right or be it wrong, should be the benchmark for having a discussion. Not trying to blow smoke up yer bum , I just want to make sure that you know that you are appreciated and a great example. You make me wanna be a better....poster *wipes tear*

marienbad

yuck !!!

JimiTime

marienbad wrote: »

yuck !!!

Aw come on and give us a cuddle:D

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

Aw come on and give us a cuddle:D

I thought you were married !

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well said, Philologos. I don't tend to pop over to AH or A&A so I don't know what Sarky is talking about.

While I don't think it is necessary to personally attack Phil as being rude or anything (he isn't doing anything that eveyone, even myself, has done from time to time on a discussion forum), what is being referred to is his tendency to put forward the claim that there exists rational logical reasons for belief in various aspects of Christianity (such as the resurrection) and then duck out of the conversation with some what irrelevant excuses when his logic is, frankly, torn to threads.

A particular example of this is his refusal to discuss the fact that cult leaders such as Jim Jones got their followers to do quite extra-ordinary things in the name of him and that this example really nullifies any special pleading with regard to Jesus and the actions of his followers (ie they would only have done this if he was actually the Son of God)

Eg

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71966684&postcount=245
Jim Jones and David Koresh are not valid comparisons as I've mentioned pretty clearly quite a few times now. L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology cannot be adequately compared.

He dismisses these as arguments against his position for reasons that are frankly nonsensical (he calls Jim Jones a "suicide cult" and thus cannot be compared to Jesus' ministry, when they weren't that at all and in fact share a huge amount of similarities with Jesus' followers)

If you are going to claim your faith is rational and based on sound reasoning you can't duck out of the conversation with rather ridiculous excuses as soon as the heat is turned up on examining these rational reasons.

Or you can but then as someone else said you ain't going to be taken seriously.

JimiTime

marienbad wrote: »

I thought you were married !

Nothing wrong with a platonic hug now. Make hugs not war Marien. Fr the sake of the children, MAKE HUGS NOT WAR

philologos

Zombrex: It's still not a sound comparison, particularly when the original post I made encourages people to consider in that specific situation, what other alternatives could be the case. Bringing up situations which are entirely alien and uncomparable isn't a satisfactory way to deal with the Resurrection.

indioblack

Lantus wrote: »

what a thread!

Something I have recently become more aware of is how incredibly difficult it is to justify non belief in god using logic and reason to a christian, especially those that knock on doors!

The definition of reason is by default different for these poeple because the fundemtals of the believe system they use to rationalise the world around them is from a different basis.

I often attempt to point out the contradictions in the bible story from my perspective. Like how a god who has the ability to create a universe and planets seems unable to write a clear concise document.

That the ability of jesus as an immortal being and son to another immortal being to simply spring back into life and then ascend into heaven somewhat mitigates the concept of sacrifice in terms of the crucification. Can an immortal being who drops dead for a few days and then takes human form again knowing there was no real danger really be said to of sacrificed life?

The other key aspects like god getting angry which seems to be a common theme dont make sense from a supreme highly evolved immortal being. The constant anger of god in the OT and destroying the products he has turned out (including pregnant women.) doesn't make any sense.

To me these and other aspects would seem to indicate that the bible was written by men in those times attempting to make some understanding of their lives as the descriptions of god reflects people more closley than a supremem being.

That doesn't mean a supreme being isn't involved!! I just could never accept that the one depicted in the bible is a fair representation of whatever reality may exist.

Good post. Yes, the god of the old testament seems to have been a very angry fellow. Mind you, he had to put up with the Israelites!
I think it was the first page of this thread where someone pointed out that if you're going to debate the existance/non-existance of god you need a description of god to start with.
It follows that if god's existance cannot be proved or disproved you are left with subjective opinions.
And that would prevent an agreed description of god.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: It's still not a sound comparison

The reason you give for that are utterly unconvincing, even if they were true (Jim Jones wasn't a suicide cult but even if it was the point would be equally valid). The reality is that it is not a "sound comparison" because it destroys your argument. This is again what people mean when they say they aren't taking you arguing for rational Christianity seriously.

There is never going to be a church exactly like Jesus. It is easy to find differences between Jesus' ministry and other cults. But pulling up irrelevant differences in order to avoid the point being made (that it is actually relatively easy for a charismatic cult leader to get certain people to extraordinary things, including killing others and killing themselves) is not arguing in a genuine fashion, and it says very little for your position that your Christianity is based on rational argument.

You might as well argue that Jim was named Jim and Jesus was named Jesus so how can we compare the two!

philologos

No, it's not a sound comparison because it is an entirely different situation. The point of the argument I presented in 2009 was to encourage people to think about the specific case of the Resurrection and to provide alternatives on that basis.

2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
Let's go through this bit by bit:
a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
c. You see this man die.
x. -
d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.

You're ignoring the actual argument if you're going to invoke alien situations when considering the Resurrection.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

The reason you give for that are utterly unconvincing, even if they were true (Jim Jones wasn't a suicide cult but even if it was the point would be equally valid). The reality is that it is not a "sound comparison" because it destroys your argument. This is again what people mean when they say they aren't taking you arguing for rational Christianity seriously.

There is never going to be a church exactly like Jesus. It is easy to find differences between Jesus' ministry and other cults. But pulling up irrelevant differences in order to avoid the point being made (that it is actually relatively easy for a charismatic cult leader to get certain people to extraordinary things, including killing others and killing themselves) is not arguing in a genuine fashion, and it says very little for your position that your Christianity is based on rational argument.

You might as well argue that Jim was named Jim and Jesus was named Jesus so how can we compare the two!

Its an awful comparison. Jim Jones convinced his people to follow him and whatever he demanded was best for them. It was based on that belief that they drank the kool aid. They died in that belief.

Jesus' Followers didn't die like that. They based their conviction on an alleged resurrection. Alleged witnesses to this resurrection. So if they actually went to their death for it, they did it knowing it was a lie. I.E. they actually didn't believe in it.

Tim Robbins

Ok. Here's one for you.

We split a large sample set of people with a similar sickness into groups of equal number.

Group A: Holy water from the Pope - that they know is from the Pope.
Group B: Holy water from the Pope - that they do not know is from the Pope.
Group C: Water that is not from the Pope but they are told is from the Pope.
Group Normal Water
Group E: A placebo
Group F: Nothing.

Happy such a clinical trial would help us conclude Holy Water is useful or useless for Sick people?

PDB, Fanny would you accept evidence for a such a trial for do you think it could still be possible that Holy water could do something? I know you believe it does not but you like me could be wrong.

There are millions who do believe it does something.

joseph brand

Northclare wrote: »

Well Sarky if you don't believe in God your prayers are not much use to you.

Before I get ready for work I say two prayers,and if I don't say those prayers I'll know the difference throughout the day.

I don't affiliate to any religion I'm more a loving God rather than the God who punishes people.

I dismiss the God who will throw me into a furnace for not being up to Biblical standards.

I'm not going to throw my dog into a burning range if he or she ****s all over the place and has a habbit of humping people's legs and cushions.

The God or HP I pray to is more relaxed and forgiving than the guy who burns non Religious people....

Have you made up your own god? This god was designed in your brain. We can call that 'intelligent design'.

But you are doing what many christians do, which is to apply your own 21st century morals to your god, because 2,000 year old morals are incompatible and unreasonable.
Nobody could ask you for proof. I doubt you have any holy book/s. Your faith is as personal as it gets. And since your faith cannot infringe on my rights, I've no right to try to persuade you to quit 'believing'.

Could you explain how you'll 'know the difference throughout the day'? I can't grasp this, as a heathen.

Northclare

Ok Joseph,
When I get up in the morning I hand my day over to whatever is in my consciousness that keeps me sane,steady,content and a genuine good guy.
I cant explain how it works,but if forgot to hand the outcome of my day over that morning,I sometimes feel a bit tired maybe irritable etc my thinking can be immoral or slightly resentful.

An old friend,he's dead now gave me some simple prayers to say every morning,they work most of the time.

I don't pray for any riches or to get well,it's more like praying for a day of acceptance and to do the right things etc,so I'm not looking for any miracles.

Joseph you can almost call it positive affirmation's to set me off for the day.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

No, it's not a sound comparison because it is an entirely different situation.

Jim Jones (we both I hope agree) was not really supernaturally powerful. He did not really perform healing miracles. He did not really predict the future. He did not really speak for God.

Yet he got his followers to happily kill their own children.

Or to put it another way, by merely pretending to have these powers he convinced his followers so utterly of his authority that when asked most of them happily killed their own children and then themselves.

Detail me what extraordinary thing the followers of Jones must have witnessed in order believe so utterly in his teaching that they would kill their own children. Well you don't have to, we know what they saw. They saw cheap tricks performed by a charasimatic cult leader.

And you are asking how Jesus got his followers to willingly spread his message after he was dead and collectively believe he was resurrected? That seems like child's play compared to what Jones managed to do. There are survivors of Jonestown who after everything still believe Jones had supernatural powers and healed people. They still believe this after all the evidence has been presented that Jones was a fraud.

Or to put it another way, it is relatively easy to get people to do this sort of thing if you act a particular way with a particular set of people (particularly 2000 years ago in a time of superstition and myth). There was nothing spectacularly amazing about Jones. He was just good at manipulating people.

The behavior of Jesus' followers before and after his death was nothing unusual at all, it simply demonstrates that they really believed it and getting them to really believe isn't all that hard as it turns out. You do not need this "extraordinary happening" for this to happen, any more than you need one to explain Jonestown.

Simply ignoring all this by saying Oh different situation is grossly disingenuous.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Its an awful comparison. Jim Jones convinced his people to follow him and whatever he demanded was best for them.

Yeah, cause Jesus didn't say anything like that, I'm sure the followers of Jesus didn't believe that denouncing Jesus would result in a one way ticket to hell, cause sure Jesus never said anything about accepting him as the only way to salvation ...

JimiTime wrote: »

It was based on that belief that they drank the kool aid. They died in that belief.

Jesus' Followers didn't die like that. They based their conviction on an alleged resurrection. Alleged witnesses to this resurrection. So if they actually went to their death for it, they did it knowing it was a lie. I.E. they actually didn't believe in it.

Well first off many of the Jones followers who committed suicide with him at Jonestown had helped him deceive others during his healing sessions in New York and Boston.

So even if we assume that they knew Jones was lying they still killed themselves. So strike one for the idea that the followers of Jesus wouldn't have died knowing it was a lie.

But most of them didn't know that Jones was a fraud because they believed his claims. How the heck do you get reasonable people to believe utter nonsense to the point that they will kill their children. Well actually its pretty easy.

The followers of Jesus are described in the Bible as not at first recognizing Jesus after his resurrection. They knew him once he spoke. IE they followed someone they didn't recognize but sounded a lot like the real Jesus. The idea that someone pretended to be Jesus after his death and tricked the rest of his followers, followers who were completely grief stricken and devastated by the loss of their leader who had promised to lead them all to a better world, is entirely plausible given what is in the Bible. Heck people will believe that sort of thing when they are not even close to the emotional state Jesus' followers must have been in after his death.

But frankly you don't even need that, humans are known to simply make up false memories in times of stress or grief, particular in a collective group. It is equally plausible that no one actually saw Jesus after his resurrection but through rumor and embellishment they eventually came to believe they had.

And if you don't think people do this I will again point you back to the followers of Jones who knew, at some point, that he was defrauding people but by the end were still so utterly convinced of his truth that they still killed themselves.

Again, as I said to Phil, what Jesus did seems like child's play compared to this.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok. Here's one for you.

We split a large sample set of people with a similar sickness into groups of equal number.

Group A: Holy water from the Pope - that they know is from the Pope.
Group B: Holy water from the Pope - that they do not know is from the Pope.
Group C: Water that is not from the Pope but they are told is from the Pope.
Group Normal Water
Group E: A placebo
Group F: Nothing.

Happy such a clinical trial would help us conclude Holy Water is useful or useless for Sick people?

PDB, Fanny would you accept evidence for a such a trial for do you think it could still be possible that Holy water could do something? I know you believe it does not but you like me could be wrong.

There are millions who do believe it does something.

Why don't you set that trial up first? I've got the pope's number here should you need to call him. It's 555-transubstantiation.

The thing is, I don't believe that the pope or holy water have any inherent special curative properties in and of themselves. So that leads us back to square one - trails that are based upon faulty premises. And why these trials are a waste of money.

philologos

Zombrex: I'd be interested in discussing the actual situation of the Resurrection with you. My original 2009 post intended to spark off discussion as to that event and its circumstances. Bringing up Jim Jones is irrelevant, precisely because Jim Jones does not deal with the specific circumstance I described in that post.

I'm referring to the specific situation that despite knowing who Jesus was, and that Jesus was truly crucified, why would the disciples go out into Asia Minor and to Europe to claim that Jesus died for our sin, and rose again three days later so that we can have life in His name (2 Corinthians 5:17, 1 Peter 1:3) especially at the cause of death?

Going into Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, and Sai Baba who aren't even remotely related is futile.

Sarky

You're doing it again.