Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

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

As it has been explained to you many many times, those examples are exactly related.

First the apostles could have been simply suckered in by an obvious fraud who developed a large following. If this is impossible then where did Sai Baba get his followers from?
Why did Jim Jones's followers buy into him, move country and endure such persecution from the Government when it is so obvious he was nuts?
And why did Joseph Smith and his followers continue to propagate his clearly false story about finding golden tablets when he was being hunted down and subjected to persecution for his beliefs?

What precisely sets Jesus's story apart from all these ones that makes it impossible that he was just doing the exact same?

Sin City

King Mob wrote: »

As it has been explained to you many many times, those examples are exactly related.

First the apostles could have been simply suckered in by an obvious fraud who developed a large following. If this is impossible then where did Sai Baba get his followers from?
Why did Jim Jones's followers buy into him, move country and endure such persecution from the Government when it is so obvious he was nuts?
And why did Joseph Smith and his followers continue to propagate his clearly false story about finding golden tablets when he was being hunted down and subjected to persecution for his beliefs?

What precisely sets Jesus's story apart from all these ones that makes it impossible that he was just doing the exact same?

Decent PR and the backing of the Roman Empire

King Mob

Sin City wrote: »

Decent PR and the backing of the Roman Empire

So a bit like how the Mormon church is still growing despite how laughable it's origin story is.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

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.

The implication behind your some what rhetorical question is that the apostles must have witnessed an extraordinary event, otherwise they would not act like this. This is an appeal to human behaviour.

As all the other examples of cult followers doing crazy illogical things demonstrate this appeal is nonsense. Humans, particularly humans influenced by charismatic cult leaders, do crazy illogical things. Routinely.

If an extraordinary event was required for humans to act in extraordinary fashion this would require Jim Jones to have produced an extraordinary event, for David Koresh to, for any cult leader to.

The sad fact is that you can actually get people to do incredibly bizarre and crazy things not by producing an extraordinary supernatural event but simply by manipulating them through promises of love and hope.

Sin City

King Mob wrote: »

So a bit like how the Mormon church is still growing despite how laughable it's origin story is.

Joseph Smith was called a prophert dum dum dum dum dumb(Cant find the South Park video lol)

King Mob

Zombrex wrote: »

The sad fact is that you can actually get people to do incredibly bizarre and crazy things not by producing an extraordinary supernatural event but simply by manipulating them through promises of love and hope.

Though for some such as Sai Baba who do use such extraordinary events as convincers, we can see the events aren't that extraordinary.

If you can convince people that you have magic powers with the barest of sleight of hand skills, then Phil's argument looks a bit dead.

Northclare

Sarky wrote: »

You're doing it again.

So are you Sarky,and so am I

pauldla

In another thread I asked Christians if they could get proof they were wrong would they want to hear it. For example, say someone invented a time machine and you could travel back in time and see that things like the resurrection and the miracles in the New Testament never happened.

It's an interesting idea. It put me in mind of a short story called Let's go to Golgotha!

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

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

As it has been explained to you many many times, those examples are exactly related.

First the apostles could have been simply suckered in by an obvious fraud who developed a large following. If this is impossible then where did Sai Baba get his followers from?
Why did Jim Jones's followers buy into him, move country and endure such persecution from the Government when it is so obvious he was nuts?
And why did Joseph Smith and his followers continue to propagate his clearly false story about finding golden tablets when he was being hunted down and subjected to persecution for his beliefs?

What precisely sets Jesus's story apart from all these ones that makes it impossible that he was just doing the exact same?

And in response I explained to you and others routinely on boards.ie before what the differences are.

The post that I originally wrote is probing into alternatives to the Resurrection not to unrelated events.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

And in response I explained to you and others routinely on boards.ie before what the differences are.

The post that I originally wrote is probing into alternatives to the Resurrection not to unrelated events.

But that post does not actually show how Jesus is any different to any other cult leaders. It employs a lot of silly leaps in logic and very selective reasoning.

You say that they apostles could not have died for something they knew is a lie.
And this falls down on several simple points.
First, as has been pointed out to you we have examples of people in Jim Jones' cult who helped him with his healings and must have known it was a lie, yet killed their children and committed suicide for him. Why did they do that if it is not possible to die for something that is a lie?

Second, you post assumes that the deaths of the apostles are as reported in the Bible (which is the only source for them). However in reality they could have not died that way, or it could have been that they were caught unexpectedly, only to have their death spun as a noble martyring by people in their cult. An example of this being that L Ron Hubbard didn't die, he simply left his physical body.
So how do you know that the reports of the apostles deaths are accurate?

And third, your post does not address the possibility that the apostles were simply duped, or convinced themselves that Jesus came back from the dead.
As it is reported in the Bible the apostles did not recognise Jesus after the resurrection, they only knew it was him after he started to speak like Jesus. Emulating someone is not impossible, and it's only made much easier when the suckers are desperate to believe.
so how do you exclude this possibility?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

And in response I explained to you and others routinely on boards.ie before what the differences are.

The post that I originally wrote is probing into alternatives to the Resurrection not to unrelated events.

The alternative to the resurrection is that the resurrection didn't happen but for some reason (and there are many plausible ones) Jesus' followers believed it did or simply acted as if it did and continued preaching until they were rounded up and executed, a common fate for many a cult member back then.

Do you accept this is a perfectly reasonable and plausible alternative? If not why not? If it is because you think humans don't act like that see all the freaking examples we have given you that you dismissed.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

The alternative to the resurrection is that the resurrection didn't happen but for some reason (and there are many plausible ones) Jesus' followers believed it did or simply acted as if it did and continued preaching until they were rounded up and executed, a common fate for many a cult member back then.

Do you accept this is a perfectly reasonable and plausible alternative? If not why not? If it is because you think humans don't act like that see all the freaking examples we have given you that you dismissed.

Sorry, I missed all the freaking examples of people who were convinced that they had seen somebody raised from the dead and who were prepared to be executed rather than change their stories.

Could you maybe link to those posts?

King Mob

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I missed all the freaking examples of people who were convinced that they had seen somebody raised from the dead and who were prepared to be executed rather than change their stories.

Could you maybe link to those posts?

Sai Baba was reported to have several amazing powers including making small objects appear.
He had convinced thousands that this is divine.

Jim Jones (and numerous others) convinced his followers that he could heal people.

Joseph Smith convinced people he really did get golden tablets from an angel and really did translate it it with a magic rock, but couldn't show them except in a hat you weren't allowed to look in.

What about the resurrection would have been hard to convince people off especially since apparently new Jesus did not actually have to look like old Jesus?

indioblack

Zombrex wrote: »

The alternative to the resurrection is that the resurrection didn't happen but for some reason (and there are many plausible ones) Jesus' followers believed it did or simply acted as if it did and continued preaching until they were rounded up and executed, a common fate for many a cult member back then.

Do you accept this is a perfectly reasonable and plausible alternative? If not why not? If it is because you think humans don't act like that see all the freaking examples we have given you that you dismissed.

Even if this is a plausible alternative, it would be unacceptable to Christians.
The ressurection is a cornerstone of Christian belief and, I would think, a fundamental part of the New Testament.

PDN

King Mob wrote: »

Sai Baba was reported to have several amazing powers including making small objects appear.
He had convinced thousands that this is divine.

Jim Jones (and numerous others) convinced his followers that he could heal people.

Joseph Smith convinced people he really did get golden tablets from an angel and really did translate it it with a magic rock, but couldn't show them except in a hat you weren't allowed to look in.

What about the resurrection would have been hard to convince people off especially since apparently new Jesus did not actually have to look like old Jesus?

Maybe you misread my question:

I repeat: Sorry, I missed all the freaking examples of people who were convinced that they had seen somebody raised from the dead and who were prepared to be executed rather than change their stories.

Could you maybe link to those posts?

King Mob

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you misread my question:

I repeat: Sorry, I missed all the freaking examples of people who were convinced that they had seen somebody raised from the dead and who were prepared to be executed rather than change their stories.

Could you maybe link to those posts?

No I got your question, but I made the point that convincing someone of a resurrection is not difficult when other people have convinced their followers of stuff that's harder to believe and much more obviously fake.

So again, since you missed my question:
What about the resurrection would have been hard to convince people off especially since apparently new Jesus did not actually have to look like old Jesus?

PDN

King Mob wrote: »

No I got your question, but I made the point that convincing someone of a resurrection is not difficult when other people have convinced their followers of stuff that's harder to believe and much more obviously fake.

So again, since you missed my question:
What about the resurrection would have been hard to convince people off especially since apparently new Jesus did not actually have to look like old Jesus?

Right, so there aren't loads of freaking similar events. That's that one taken care of then.

King Mob

PDN wrote: »

Right, so there aren't loads of freaking similar events. That's that one taken care of then.

But they are all similar.
They are examples of people convincing other people of supernatural, impossible things and doing to on very flimsy, very transparent terms.

People have been convinced of sillier stuff other than a resurrection so it possible and plausible that people can be convinced of a resurrection that never actually happened.

So again, what specifically makes claims of a resurrection any different than the other claims of other cult leaders?
Are resurrections impossible to fake or to convince people of?

Morbert

King Mob wrote: »

But they are all similar.
They are examples of people convincing other people of supernatural, impossible things and doing to on very flimsy, very transparent terms.

People have been convinced of sillier stuff other than a resurrection so it possible and plausible that people can be convinced of a resurrection that never actually happened.

So again, what specifically makes claims of a resurrection any different than the other claims of other cult leaders?
Are resurrections impossible to fake or to convince people of?

I think what PDN is looking for is examples of people who maintain their seemingly outlandish belief even in the face of capital punishment.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you misread my question:

I repeat: Sorry, I missed all the freaking examples of people who were convinced that they had seen somebody raised from the dead and who were prepared to be executed rather than change their stories.

Could you maybe link to those posts?

^^ This is the key difference.

Someone you have known for 3 years is dead. You claim that He has come back to life at the risk of your life. How does that happen?

That isn't true of Joseph Smith, Sai Baba, or Jim Jones.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

I think what PDN is looking for is examples of people who maintain their seemingly outlandish belief even in the face of capital punishment.

It's a bit more than that. I'm looking for examples of people who maintained their eye witness testimony even in the face of capital punishment.

Note that the wiilingness of the disciples to die rather than deny the resurrection is not proof that the resurrection was genuine. But it does indicate that they saw something very dramatic indeed of which they were utterly convinced.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

^^ This is the key difference.

Someone you have known for 3 years is dead. You claim that He has come back to life at the risk of your life. How does that happen?

That isn't true of Joseph Smith, Sai Baba, or Jim Jones.

Because you genuinely believe it.

The fact that those people had convinced their followers of sillier stuff with flimsier reasoning shows that it is possible for people to be convinced of stuff that is both silly and untrue.

PDN

philologos wrote: »

^^ This is the key difference.

Someone you have known for 3 years is dead. You claim that He has come back to life at the risk of your life. How does that happen?

That isn't true of Joseph Smith, Sai Baba, or Jim Jones.

True. It should also be noted that the followers of Jones and Koresh did not choose death as an alternative to recanting their beliefs. Their cult leaders had convinced them that the US government was going to kill them anyway. So their choice was death followed by heaven (as they saw it) or death followed by hell (for forsaking the cause).

King Mob

PDN wrote: »

It's a bit more than that. I'm looking for examples of people who maintained their eye witness testimony even in the face of capital punishment.

Note that the wiilingness of the disciples to die rather than deny the resurrection is not proof that the resurrection was genuine. But it does indicate that they saw something very dramatic indeed of which they were utterly convinced.

But how do we know that they maintained that testimony?
The only source for the deaths of the first apostles is the bible and it is not likely that it would record them recanting their beliefs and admitting it was all a scam.

And there are plenty of examples of people doing exactly the same thing (or doing so in a way that can be spun to seem like a noble sacrifice.)

Why didn't L Ron Hubbard recant when he and his family were persecuted by the US government up to the point were his wife was arrested for his beliefs?

Why didn't Joseph Smith recant his beliefs when he was about to be dragged out of a cell and lynched for them?

how do you explain people's belief in Falun Gong in the face of the persecution from the Chinese government (which includes torture, imprisonment and capital punishment)?

Jim Jones's followers must have seen something very dramatic to be willing to kill themselves and their children, right?

PDN

King Mob wrote: »

But how do we know that they maintained that testimony?
The only source for the deaths of the first apostles is the bible and it is not likely that it would record them recanting their beliefs and admitting it was all a scam.

That is untrue. I suggest you read some of the Early Church Fathers or some Church History. They are other sources.

And there are plenty of examples of people doing exactly the same thing (or doing so in a way that can be spun to seem like a noble sacrifice.)

So you and others keep saying - but you won't produce examples when asked to do so.

Why didn't L Ron Hubbard recant when he and his family were persecuted by the US government up to the point were his wife was arrested for his beliefs?

I thought you said 'exactly the same thing'. Was L Ron Hubbard executed? What eye-witness testimony did he die rather than recant of?

Why didn't Joseph Smith recant his beliefs when he was about to be dragged out of a cell and lynched for them?

Are you seriously claiming that Joseph Smith was given the opportunity to recant and so to save his life?

Maybe you should read some Mormon history too? Joseph Smith jumped from the window of his cell during a gun battle.

how do you explain people's belief in Falun Gong in the face of the persecution from the Chinese government (which includes torture, imprisonment and capital punishment)?

I certainly don't exsplain it by making the false and untrue claim that it is the same as somebody choosing death rather than deny eye witness events they saw.

Jim Jones's followers must have seen something very dramatic to be willing to kill themselves and their children, right?

You're the one making the claim - so you tell me. Which of Jim Jones' followers had the opportunity to save their lives by recanting their eye witness testimony of miracles?

Again, maybe you should read up on the history of Jonestown. They are some excellent books written on it, detailing how armed guards ensured that the followers drank the Koolaid.

King Mob

PDN wrote: »

That is untrue. I suggest you read some of the Early Church Fathers or some Church History. They are other sources.

Then provide them and show how they exclude the possibility that the stories have simply not been spun to be made martyrdoms.

PDN wrote: »

So you and others keep saying - but you won't produce examples when asked to do so.

I provided a list.

PDN wrote: »

I thought you said 'exactly the same thing'. Was L Ron Hubbard executed? What eye-witness testimony did he die rather than recant of?

L Ron Hubbard was persecuted because of his beliefs. His beliefs weren't true. why did he not admit it was all made up before the government chased him out of the country and imprisoned his wife?
Why does that reason not apply to the apostles?

PDN wrote: »

Are you seriously claiming that Joseph Smith was given the opportunity to recant and so to save his life?

Maybe you should read some Mormon history too? Joseph Smith jumped from the window of his cell during a gun battle.

Yes, he could have recanted his beliefs at any point while he and his followers were being attacking and persecuted. You reasoning indicated that he must have. And yet...

And yes I do realise that he probably wasn't given a chance to recant during his death. How do you know this does not apply to the apostles?

PDN wrote: »

I certainly don't exsplain it by making the false and untrue claim that it is the same as somebody choosing death rather than deny eye witness events they saw.

This is precisely the same. People believe in Falun Gong because of the amazing abilities and miracles that the practitioners see and are able to do. Yet they will not recant that belief despite the Chinese government attacking them. In fact many of them go out to protest exactly that in China and in many countries around the world.
So why precisely do they do this?

PDN wrote: »

You're the one making the claim - so you tell me. Which of Jim Jones' followers had the opportunity to save their lives by recanting their eye witness testimony of miracles?

Again, maybe you should read up on the history of Jonestown. They are some excellent books written on it, detailing how armed guards ensured that the followers drank the Koolaid.

Again, why did follow him when the government was coming for them? Why did anyone drink the Koolaid willingly?

Again, the answers are they all genuinely believed or didn't think they were about to die, or thought they would still get away with it, or their deaths are being spun by believers.
All of which apply to the apostles.

the resurrection is no different to the other miracles performed by other cult leaders.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I missed all the freaking examples of people who were convinced that they had seen somebody raised from the dead and who were prepared to be executed rather than change their stories.

Could you maybe link to those posts?

Oh great, we are back to this nonsense. Well Jim was named Jim and Jesus was named Jesus so they are completely different situations.

There are lots of freaking similar events. There aren't lots of exactly the same events. But then no one seems able to explain why that matters to the point :rolleyes:

Are you disputing that people will do extreme things, often leading to harm of themselves and those they care about, under misguided belief in the power of a false religious leader?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Are you disputing that people will do extreme things, often leading to harm of themselves and those they care about, under misguided belief in the power of a false religious leader?

No, are you disputing that sausage rolls contain preservatives?

See, I can ask irrelevant questions too.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Again, maybe you should read up on the history of Jonestown. They are some excellent books written on it, detailing how armed guards ensured that the followers drank the Koolaid.

The armed guards were part of Jones inner network, people who had helped Jones fake his earlier healing sessions.

So these men knowing at some level that Jones was faking his powers forcibly killed other members of the cult, then killed their own children and then took their own lives.

And Phil thinks something "extraordinary" (ie a resurrection) must have happened for the early Christians to not renounce Jesus and face execution?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, are you disputing that sausage rolls contain preservatives?

See, I can ask irrelevant questions too.

Do you even understand what argument Phil is putting forward? Or is this another case of atheists said something, not sure what but must be wrong!