SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:
If me and my mates tell you that we've seen a bloke that has been resurrected, we're either being truthful or telling a massive lie. If the latter, then we know it's a lie and we don't believe it. It occurs to me that in each of the stories you report, that belief was the primary motive for any subsequent actions. Yet, if Jesus was a total fabrication, then belief was not instrumental in shaping the actions of the 'founding fathers'. Therein lies the distinction.

Just because the church founding fathers believed something was true and died for it does not make it true. It doesn't even necessarily mean they had any good reason to believe it. That was the point of the anecdotes. People still die today for looney bin causes. Why do you think it's improbable for the cult of Jesus?

I could accept that one-or-two insane lunatics might get together and fabricate a story which even they might believe.

But Shrunk just gave you three examples totaling over a thousand people who were, as you say, insane lunatics, believing in something fantastical to such a degree that they would die for it. I don't think you give the extent to which people will delude themselves enough credit.

I don't think that a thousand people can genuinely convince themselves that they've just observed lots of stuff, when they haven't. You can't expect a thousand insane people to be organised and agree to have had a shared experience that never happened. That only happens in politics.

Common sense tells you the world is flat.

No. If anything, it would be observation which alluded to the world's flatness.

Doesn't the fact that the Gnostic cult was annihilated and not adapted by the Roman Empire mean that what it said wasn't true by your measure?

No. Gnosticism is the only sensible response to Jesus' ministry. However, it's a response which puts God at the heart of all men, not just Jesus. Therefore, to those who would prefer to see man separated from God, gnosticism is utter blasphemy. Therefore, it does not surprise me at all that it was exterminated. However, gnosticism is being noticed again.

How can you even claim to know what Jesus was talking about?

My claim was that my philosophy tarries with a gnostic interpretation of his reported ministry. I don't claim to be privy to anyone's actual thoughts.

jamest wrote:

virphen wrote:On this basis james, I can't imagine why you don't believe in the "cult of Mohammad" for exactly the same reasons.

He just spoke, as far as I know. He didn't perform miracles, claim to be God's son, or rise again from death. As far as I'm concerned, he's just another person with an opinion. No more significant than you or I. I would voice several concerns about that opinion, but these days you need to wear a balaclava whilst doing so. Forget it.

Opinion? He claimed to speak to God. As the New Testament claims Jesus did, by the way. If you're just looking for a magician performing tricks, there are plenty of stories about those well before the NT.

So are you saying you don't believe he spoke to God, who gave him the new way as he claims? If so, I'm very curious to hear why. After all he claimed it and a lot of people believed it and died for it so it must be true, right?

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Just because the church founding fathers believed something was true and died for it does not make it true. It doesn't even necessarily mean they had any good reason to believe it. That was the point of the anecdotes. People still die today for looney bin causes. Why do you think it's improbable for the cult of Jesus?

I could accept that one-or-two insane lunatics might get together and fabricate a story which even they might believe.

But Shrunk just gave you three examples totaling over a thousand people who were, as you say, insane lunatics, believing in something fantastical to such a degree that they would die for it. I don't think you give the extent to which people will delude themselves enough credit.

I don't think that a thousand people can genuinely convince themselves that they've just observed lots of stuff, when they haven't.

So you're saying those people actually did have a reason to act in such an insane manner? Or are you saying that people need to directly observe something to believe it? Clearly that's not the case, the belief of most Christians I know isn't based on any sort of observation at all.

You can't expect a thousand insane people to be organised and agree to have had a shared experience that never happened. That only happens in politics.

But, as you note, it does happen in politics. Point me

Common sense tells you the world is flat.

No. If anything, it would be observation which alluded to the world's flatness.

You would have no common sense without senses. Observation led to the counter-intuitive discovery that the Earth was round, simply looking and unquestioningly accepting your intuition led to people believing it was flat.

Doesn't the fact that the Gnostic cult was annihilated and not adapted by the Roman Empire mean that what it said wasn't true by your measure?

No. Gnosticism is the only sensible response to Jesus' ministry. However, it's a response which puts God at the heart of all men, not just Jesus. Therefore, to those who would prefer to see man separated from God, gnosticism is utter blasphemy. Therefore, it does not surprise me at all that it was exterminated. However, gnosticism is being noticed again.

I'm sorry, you claim legitimacy for miraculous Jesus based on the fact that so many people believed in Christianity despite harrowing odds. Now you're saying that the cult which didn't make it, which was annihilated, is actually the right one. You might see why I find this all a bit hard to swallow.

How can you even claim to know what Jesus was talking about?

My claim was that my philosophy tarries with a gnostic interpretation of his reported ministry. I don't claim to be privy to anyone's actual thoughts.

What makes you think that the gnostic interpretation of his alleged words and activities actually reflects what he meant?

Mormonism was invented only a very short while ago. It seems to be doing fine. And talk about bat shit insane rubbish and yet thousands upon thousands of people believe it, I guess it must be true too.

jamest wrote:... Theory of Mind: being able to put oneself (one's mind) into the situation of other(s) ...

Which isn't theory of mind. Just saying.

jamest wrote:

virphen wrote:On this basis james, I can't imagine why you don't believe in the "cult of Mohammad" for exactly the same reasons.

He just spoke, as far as I know. He didn't perform miracles, claim to be God's son, or rise again from death. As far as I'm concerned, he's just another person with an opinion. No more significant than you or I. I would voice several concerns about that opinion, but these days you need to wear a balaclava whilst doing so. Forget it.

He was supposed to be flying around on a winged horse, which would be pretty noteworthy. But claiming to be the last and most important prophet and receiving direct revelations from a deity isn't a minor piddling claim, and the success of the religion he founded in conquering so much territory so quickly, and creating a religion that about 21% of the world adheres to is just as strong an argument that there is "truth" behind it as your one about Christianity eventually becoming supreme under the Romans. (That is, it's an extraordinarily piss-weak argument).

Essentially you apply a certain level of legitimate scepticism to most aspects of your life, demonstrated by all the ridiculously improbable claims that you reject - but for this inherently ridiculous claim you abandon it completely.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:
It just boils down to the fact that inductive reasoning cannot guarantee its conclusions even if the premises are correct. One day, the sun will not appear to rise; aliens may come to Earth; the pope might have sex; Scotland might win the world cup.

None of which would be a supernatural event.

The point was to give examples of inductive reason.

I understand that, and your examples fail for the reason I've given. Inductive reasoning would not lead me to think it impossible for the Pope to have sex, because human beings have sex. Human beings do not come back to life.

Human beings have sex, but the pope isn't supposed to.[/quote]
Neither are priests, yet they do and with children at that.

jamest wrote:Not everyone is the pope.

How does being pope suddenly make it impossible for someone to have sex?

jamest wrote:Anyway, the issue is whether humans can come back to life. Admittedly, there is no evidence that they can (if we disregard the actual sources that say it's happened).

Again sources which are just as reliable as those that say they saw Elvis at McDo.

jamest wrote:However, it's still an instance of inductive reason to conclude that [therefore] humans cannot come back to life on the back of this finite body of evidence.

Finite has got nothing to do with it. The fact that there is no evidence for any human resurection is enough to not accept the claim that it happened and conclude it most likely didn't.

jamest wrote:As unlikely as any scenario might be, no instance of inductive reason ever suffices to guarantee its conclusions.

Except it does, as we've already shown. Or have you converted to the other 2999 religions out there in the mean time?

jamest wrote:The likelihood of there being no sunrise tomorrow is approaching zero, but not zero.

Let's see the math on that.
And again, we have evidence of stars dying. No evidence, whatsoever of any human being comming back to life.

jamest wrote:

jamest wrote:
How do you work out the odds whether materialism or theism is true?

Because every time we find an explanation for something that we didn't previously understand, materialism is always right and theism is always wrong. Always.

Regards universal origins,

Begging the question if the universe had a temporal origin.

jamest wrote:consciousness,

Define conciousness.

jamest wrote:life,

Ehm, science has explanations for life, both origins and evolution.

jamest wrote:the essence of matter

Come again?

jamest wrote:- science has no complete explanation for any of it.

Allow me to quote Aronra:

Science doesn't know everything, religion doesn't know anything

jamest wrote:The deeper science looks, the more complex it all gets.

Your point being?
As Dara O'Briain put it:

Science knows it doesn't everything, otherwise it'd stop.

jamest wrote:

jamest wrote:
Further, most of the natives/witnesses were either Jews or Romans, thus there were strong prior agendas in place which should have resisted the spreading of such news. Of course, nothing did stop it. Indeed, within a few centuries the Romans themselves had converted. It seems reasonable to me to think that 'a myth' originating within the empire would not have achieved such a status.

Argumentum ad populum. Really? I didn't think I'd ever have to explain this to a thoughtful person, but: a bunch of people thinking that something is true does not make it true.

No, you missed my point. I was trying to explain to you that it is reasonable to think that Jesus existed and performed 'miracles', on the basis that Christianity's growth would never have happened - given the force of Jewish and Roman agendas. Myths cannot flourish when they are unwanted. There has to be some substance to them to change the minds of people like Jews and Romans.

Yes, the substance being another prophet story, doesn't mean any of the supposed miracles actually happened, nor that the actual prophet the stories are based on, was anything like the Jesus described decades later.

jamest wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

jamest wrote:Ask yourself how many people died in the formative years of Christianity. Fucking loads, including many of the 'founding fathers'. Yet your theory is that they all gladly died for Humpty. I find that to be utterly unreasonable. In fact, I find your theory to be absurd.

[3 anecdotes]

If me and my mates tell you that we've seen a bloke that has been resurrected, we're either being truthful or telling a massive lie.

Wrong and you know it.
There are 3 options: You're lying, you're telling the truth, or you think (through illusion, dreams whatever) that you saw this happen when it actually didn't.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
[3 anecdotes]

If me and my mates tell you that we've seen a bloke that has been resurrected, we're either being truthful or telling a massive lie. If the latter, then we know it's a lie and we don't believe it. It occurs to me that in each of the stories you report, that belief was the primary motive for any subsequent actions. Yet, if Jesus was a total fabrication, then belief was not instrumental in shaping the actions of the 'founding fathers'. Therein lies the distinction.

Just because the church founding fathers believed something was true and died for it does not make it true. It doesn't even necessarily mean they had any good reason to believe it. That was the point of the anecdotes. People still die today for looney bin causes. Why do you think it's improbable for the cult of Jesus?

I could accept that one-or-two insane lunatics might get together and fabricate a story which even they might believe. However, to actually believe in the reality of something one has clearly fabricated (that there's a bloke around the corner who's been performing miracles and is God's son) would take a level of insanity so intense that they wouldn't have been able to function normally within society.

How about Islam, Hinduism, and the other 3000 religions in the world James??
There are numerous exampels of this exact thing hapenning despite your personal incredulity.

jamest wrote:In other words, they'd have come across as fucktards to your bog-standard populace of the time, even before they'd have said anything about Jesus. They would have zero credibility.

Superstitious times breed superstitious people.

jamest wrote:My main reason for believing in the 'cult of Jesus', is the context in which it prospered. Romans, Jews, balls, heads, purpose, etc..

Again, your idea that Christianity is the only religion to be born and grown in adversity is ludicrous.

jamest wrote:Theory of mind

How exactly does that fit in?

jamest wrote: - common-sense - is my witness.

Besides common sense being a fallacious appeal, why didn't commons sense lead you to Islam?

jamest wrote:Also, there are far too many sources to ignore.

Same for Islam.
And again, none of those sources are contemporary. There are many sources for Hinduism as well, why don't you believe that?

jamest wrote:Nevertheless, I have a philosophy independent of it all which ultimately seems to tarry with the testament of Jesus ("The kingdom of God is within you"; "I and the father are one"; etc.).

Yea, it couldn't possibly be you fell for a philosophy which conveniently happened to be in accord with your personal religious beliefs now, could it?

jamest wrote:I don't blame people for mocking Christianity, but that religion is a particular interpretation of Jesus' ministry.

What other Jesus religions are there? Or is this a Scotsman?

jamest wrote:For an alternative interpretation - one which seems to make sense of phrases such as "I and the father are one" and "heaven is within", study the gnostic gospels. As far as I'm concerned, Christianity (the religion) is what's fucked-up, not Jesus.

Gnostic Christianity is also Christianity.

jamest wrote:

virphen wrote:On this basis james, I can't imagine why you don't believe in the "cult of Mohammad" for exactly the same reasons.

He just spoke, as far as I know.

Read the Quran.

jamest wrote:He didn't perform miracles,

No, I suppose riding through the sky on a horse with a human face is something many people do every day.

jamest wrote:claim to be God's son,

He claime to be the final prophet of the Abrahamic god, being the son of God isn't really an argument to not believe him.

jamest wrote:or rise again from death.

More arguing from the conclusion.

jamest wrote:As far as I'm concerned, he's just another person with an opinion. No more significant than you or I. I would voice several concerns about that opinion, but these days you need to wear a balaclava whilst doing so. Forget it.

Why do you believe Jesus? Only because he claimed to be the son of God and risen from the death?
Have a look at Mithras. Or Osiris.

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Just because the church founding fathers believed something was true and died for it does not make it true. It doesn't even necessarily mean they had any good reason to believe it. That was the point of the anecdotes. People still die today for looney bin causes. Why do you think it's improbable for the cult of Jesus?

I could accept that one-or-two insane lunatics might get together and fabricate a story which even they might believe.

But Shrunk just gave you three examples totaling over a thousand people who were, as you say, insane lunatics, believing in something fantastical to such a degree that they would die for it. I don't think you give the extent to which people will delude themselves enough credit.

I don't think that a thousand people can genuinely convince themselves that they've just observed lots of stuff, when they haven't. You can't expect a thousand insane people to be organised and agree to have had a shared experience that never happened. That only happens in politics.

Again: Islam, Hinduism and the other 3000+ religions prove you wrong. There's ignorance and then there's clinging to your blinders James.

jamest  wrote:I don't think that a thousand people can genuinely convince themselves that they've just observed lots of stuff, when they haven't. You can't expect a thousand insane people to be organised and agree to have had a shared experience that never happened.

OMG you actually believe the Miracle of the Sun really happened??!

jamest wrote:Theory of Mind: being able to put oneself (one's mind) into the situation of other(s).

A worthy thing to do, just a shame that you appear to be incapable of it. There is little point in trying to get into someone elses mindset, if all you're going to do is apply your preconceptions and prejudices to how they think.
Basically, your theory of the mind = "I think this way. I assume people back in 1AD thought similarly. Therefore I am in their mindset."
Surely you can see that this is complete nonsense?

jamest wrote:Do you imagine that any sort of myth would ever change the mindset of fundamentalist Muslims, today?

Well it happened once. I see no reason why it should not happen again.

jamest wrote:Yet, your theory is that a small bunch of men decided - for reasons we can only guess at - to challenge the status quo of the day with what they knew was a myth.

Is that my theory? Really? I don't recall making any such statement or holding any such views. No, this is simply a nonsense argument you've constructed in order to then rebutt it, to support your own nonsensical ramblings.

jamest wrote:Your theory makes no sense whatsoever,

That you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it "makes no sense." But then, you're not actually interested in any viewpoint but your own, so I imagine a great many things make "no sense" to you.

jamest wrote:Further, consider the people through which this 'myth' spread - the Jews & Romans themselves. How could this happen without any evidence? When a man simply tells a 1st century Jew that a bloke from Nazareth was God, we should expect that man to get a skewar through his skull. Similarly, if a man told a nazi that Jews are the salt of the earth, he could expect a bullet through his brain.

You're projecting wholly exaggerated behaviours onto people who lived two millennia ago in order to shore up your argument. Your understanding of human behaviour is poor.

jamest wrote:You aren't giving due consideration to the context in which you claim that this myth took hold.

And you are constructing a context purely designed only to give support to your argument. It is a construct that is not predicated on a realistic assessment of human behaviour and seems to intentionally ignore the purely rational levers by which human beliefs can be changed.

jamest wrote:Your theory seems utterly irrational to me.

My theory which is that human beliefs can change without any fantastical interventions by a magic man is irrational?!?!?!

jamest wrote:For me, a Jewish and Roman culture (not to mention all of the other gentile cultures affected by this 'myth'), can never change unless there's some truth to the story responsible for bringing about those changes. That means that in the beginning, there would have been thousands of people who had saw Jesus and managed to get the ball rolling, so to speak.

I suspect that your knowledge of Jewish and Roman cultures is based on extensive research in the fields of “diddly” and “squat.”

jamest wrote:I think that the secular community have been a bunch of fucking mugs on this matter. "There's no evidence!" they proclaim, even though there is (there are testimonies).

Testimonies are not evidence. Not now. Not ever.
If we are “fucking mugs” for refusing to believe whatever anyone tells us, what on earth does that make you?

jamest wrote:Their criteria for evidence is utterly unreasonable, given the context.

It would appear that you consider a requirement for ANY evidence to be unreasonable.

On popes not having sex, Jamest has apparently never heard of Alexander VI.

jamest's argument seems to be, 'Christianity has a lot of adherents, therefore it must be true'. Clearly it is becoming less true in the UK, where belief is falling rapidly. It's also becoming less true in other countries. Obviously it was less true during the first couple of centuries CE, grew in truthfulness, maybe to a peak in the Victorian era, and has been becoming less true ever since. At this rate, it might one day be not true at all.

jamest

I think your stuff about separation between human and divine is correct, and it is shown clearly in the gnostics. But also, the notion of atonement was known as at-one-ment by some Christians, and the Orthodox still retain this sense that atonement represents the bringing together (reconciliation) of what has been separated, since they never bought into the Augustinian idea of original sin. I am not expecting you to reply to this, since you never do, so here is a piece of information offered completely gratis.

jamest wrote:Theory of Mind: being able to put oneself (one's mind) into the situation of other(s). Consider the force of belief married to Judaism in the 1st century AD. Couple that with a Roman mindset that surpassed nazism in its extremity, arrogance and authority. This isn't the sort of setting where the 'myth' of a few men is ever going to flourish.

Do you imagine that any sort of myth would ever change the mindset of fundamentalist Muslims, today? Never. Not in a trillion years. Yet, your theory is that a small bunch of men decided - for reasons we can only guess at - to challenge the status quo of the day with what they knew was a myth. They also knew that they were risking their lives by doing so. Blasphemy unto God and blasphemy unto Caesar, didn't go down too well back then. You're not going to do it unless you've got GOOD reason to do it.

You seem to have an extremely naive view of what things were like back then. The Romans weren't too bothered what people believed. What they cared about was that the provinces remained obedient and kept paying taxes. As long as that was the case, people could believe whatever they wanted. And there was far more variety of belief within Judaism than you seem to think. It was nothing like 'the mindset of fundamentalist Muslims today'. If you are going to make an historical argument like the one you are doing, you need to be better informed about the history of the times. (But then of course you won't be able to make the argument, because you will realise that it was perfectly possible for new groupings to flourish.)

Further, consider the people through which this 'myth' spread - the Jews & Romans themselves. How could this happen without any evidence? When a man simply tells a 1st century Jew that a bloke from Nazareth was God, we should expect that man to get a skewar through his skull.

There is no evidence of people claiming he was God at the start of the movement. This idea developed later, when the movement had already grown significantly and acquired some status and power.

You aren't giving due consideration to the context in which you claim that this myth took hold.

No. You aren't.

chairman bill wrote:jamest's argument seems to be, 'Christianity has a lot of adherents, therefore it must be true'.

No, that's incorrect. I think 'Jesus' is true because Christianity flourished in spite of the circumstances of the day. The Romans were fucking loons and did not entertain any kind of nonsense. For instance, in 70 AD the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and killed over a million people (according to Josephus). They were ruthless and the people of Judea knew it. So, unless you're a fucktard, you don't go around the place stirring-up trouble with the Romans and/or the Jewish authorities. The Jews themselves, of course, were very sensitive about their religion. If some bloke is walking around town telling stories about someone and proclaiming them to be the Messiah, then he needs to write his last will & testament. Indeed, as far as I know, of the 'founding fathers' only St. John managed to die of natural causes.

In 1st century Judea, nonconformity was greeted with cold metal. That's the context. Yet you all think that a small bunch of blokes made-up a story about Jesus and miracles (they themselves had never seen any of it, so they themselves didn't believe it) and - even aware of the consequences - started walking around Judea telling everyone this story. Not only that, but without any evidence/miracles, this story was sufficient to make large numbers of Jewish fundamentalists convert to Xianity, even though they knew the authorities would be ripping them a new arsehole for doing so.

Sorry, but within this context, anyone who believes that the phenomenon of Xianity could have flourished without there being any substance to the story of Jesus, and plenty of witnesses to that substance, doesn't appear to me to have a good 'theory of mind'. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to place oneself within the aforementioned context. Think about it. Think about what you would do if, living as a 1st century Jew, a small bunch of men came to your village and just started talking about Jesus. No miracles, nothing, just talk. You honestly think that a story will suffice to undermine your faith/religion? You honestly think that you might convert, in spite of being aware of the dire consequences, on the back of a story? C'mon.

The only way for Christianity to take off within the aforementioned context, was if thousands of people actually saw something extraordinary, such that the word must be spread in spite of the consequences. I mean, it's a different ball game if you see someone healing a blind man, or walking on water, or raising the dead. In those circumstances you've GOT to believe and no amount of threats are going to change your mind. These people risked persecution because of what they saw. They were truly motivated to spread the word.

That's how I see it.

Wheelspawn wrote:I've been studying historical Christianity with quite a bit of skepticism. I find that secular historians have come to little agreement on an explanation for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The inconsistency in the secular understanding of the resurrection ranges from historians promulgating the Christ myth theory to the more reasonable belief that Jesus was in fact crucified and killed, and that his disciples either were mistaken in their beliefs that he was resurrected or that they simply thought his resurrection was symbolic.

What is the secular historical consensus on the resurrection? From what I've read, I haven't found any explanations held consistently by secular historians. Does the evidence for the resurrection overwhelmingly point towards the divinity of Christ? Is the study of the resurrection too unreliable for us to make sense of?

Any secular historical reckoning is not going to invoke higher powers for there to be a resurrection, ergo the default position that's most clearly represents any and all secular positions on the resurrection is that it just didn't happen. It's not an item of discussion.

There is no 'evidence' of resurrection, just accounts from self-described disciples recapitulated centuries later. The conclusion of 'divinity' is necessarily a question-begging exercise - again, any 'secular' account that actually accepted that Jesus was not dead after his purported death would presumably consider the death bit never to have occurred.

Regardless, the entire account is bastardized and contradictory reports rehashed centuries later. If anything's going to be of any historical interest, it's that latter time which will be focused on.

Pro tip: if it requires magic, be it of the divine or other, you can predict the answer of 'secular historians' as they're going to be looking at it as a social phenomenon, not as a physical one.