Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Evidence for Christianity Message-ID: <189@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 13:18:35 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.189 Posted: Tue Oct 16 13:18:35 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 06:11:39 EDT References: <1700039@iuvax.UUCP> <567@bunker.UUCP> <182@cybvax0.UUCP> <576@bunker.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 122 > What I said was that those who say > they won't believe unless a suitable (to them) laboratory experiment > was devised were going to be disappointed (on second thought, they > probably would be more disappointed if such an experiment could be > devised). [SAMUELSON] The final presumptive parenthetical remark notwithstanding, I could make the same argument about your failure to believe in Ubizmo. But what is the real reason you don't believe in Ubizmo? Because my evidence has been shoddy. I show you a book (the Book of Ubizmo) that I "claim" (sarcastically) was written many years ago describing historical events "proving" the story of Ubizmo. Yet you don't believe. Why do you doubt the words of the good people (i.e., me) who wrote the book? What does the Bible have over the Book of Ubizmo? That it really was written years ago? That many people already believe its contents? That some of its historical data has been shown to be accurate? Does any of this show any reason for believing divine origin of the book? Yes, I could set up an experiment that would indeed make you believe in Ubizmo, Gary. Give me a time machine, and a means for spending the last two thousand years to indoctrinate your ancestors and their fellow members of society, and lo, when I return to the present day, it will be Ubizmo that you believe in. > Why do so many netters put the word evidence in quotes? Already you are > non-verbally asserting that what I suggest is evidence is none at all. > Not bad evidence, or incomplete evidence, or inconclusive evidence, > but no evidence at all. I didn't think it was putting it between the lines to quote the word evidence. What you say is exactly true, it is not evidence at all. >>>So, I would pose the following as a debate topic: The historical >>>evidence supports the contention that Jesus of Nazareth was killed >>>by crucifixion and was subsequently raised from the dead. [SAMUELSON] >>There are several consistent ways to explain the above claim. >>1) JC really didn't die. >> A) The soldiers involved were incompetent. >> B) The soldiers were bribed to bring him down before death. >> Additionally, the spear in the side could have been made up to enhance >> the story. >>2) JC did die. [HUYBENSZ] > Consistent explanations do not constitute evidence. [SAMUELSON] Yet the entire basis of religious belief is a "consistent explanation". And one that is based on numerous unwarranted assumptions. > Are you willing > to assert that one of your scenarios correctly depicts what in fact > did happen, so that I could ask for your evidence? I'm sure you > can invent scenarios faster than I can refute them, but so what? Yours is but one such scenario: the scenario of the resurrection. And those making the extraordinary claims (has there ever been evidence of ANYONE ever being resurrected?) must provide extraordinary evidence. Unless one is just willing to accept one particular scenario (albeit an extraordinary one) at face value. > More to the point, do you have reason to believe that the early > disciples did not believe that the resurrection took place? What is your reason for accepting their statements at face value without hard evidence? > By the way, have you ever thought about what convinced the people > living in the first century? Why do you suppose they were so > easily persuaded by such an outlandish tale? (I told you I am > not an expert on debate; please don't take the above as rhetorical > questions.) In particular, do you think that people were significantly > more gullible then than now? > (I expect that one of the reasons you suggest will be that they > wanted to believe. Fine, but consider that wishful thinking cuts > two ways; if you say someone believes simply because they wish > to, someone else doesn't believe simply because they do not wish > to.) Just as you do not wish to believe in Ubizmo based on your wishful thinking. Correct? Or is there another reason why you don't believe in Ubizmo? > "Maybe this" and "maybe that;" I wish you would just come out and > say what you think really happened and present the evidence for > whatever you believe. Apparently only Christians can do that, since only they seem to know the truth. But when asked to "say what they think really happened AND PRESENT THE EVIDENCE FOR WHATEVER THEY BELIEVE", what we hear is much less plausible than what those like Mike Huybensz have suggested. >>The fact is that the evidence for JC's rising from the dead is worth nothing >>unless you ASSUME the inerrancy of the evidence. [HUYBENSZ] > I surmise that your position is that the Bible as a whole and the gospels > in particular are fiction, like modern fantasy writing. If this is > indeed your belief, what evidence do you base this belief on? Who did > it? When? Why? How did it become so widely accepted? [SAMUELSON] My analogy is not with fantasy, but rather with television commercials. Who did it? Possibly those you credit with writing the Gospels; the actual names are irrelevant. When? Possibly at the time of Jesus and the apostles or shortly thereafter. Why? They knew this guy, Josh, who said some nice things and influenced a few people, and they thought it would be a great idea if everyone knew about Josh, because the things he said were nice. So they made up a few stories to make the advertising more palatable and more intriguing to the gullible masses. And, poof! A movement based on playing the game of telephone with the life of this guy Josh. I think I just answered the "How?". > All you have said boils down to this: You aren't convinced. All right, > but if you haven't come to a conclusion about what really happened, then > I suggest that you haven't dealt with the issue. You have decided that > no resurrection took place; that the Bible is largely a fabrication; > and that Christianity in general is a fraud; but on what grounds? All you have said boils down to this: You ARE convinced. All right, but if you've come to a conclusion about what really happened, then I suggest that you haven't dealt with the issue. You have decided that a resurrection took place; that the Bible is totally true; and that Christianity in general is based on the word of god; but on what grounds? -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr ----------------------------------------------(after 10/14) pyuxd!rlr