Why the Disciples 'Hallucination Theory' is Invalid [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why the Disciples 'Hallucination Theory' is Invalid


Paul7
01-27-2012, 09:43
It is often speculated by skeptics here that the Resurrection appearances (and accounts of other miracles, for that matter) were some kind of false vision or hallucination. You know, they merely believed they witnessed miracles. Here are some interesting comments on that:


"The problem with this theory is that, in the case of the Resurrection appearances, everything we know about hallucinations is violated. The appearances did not follow the patterns always present in hallucinations, for hallucinations are private and arise out of a state of expreme emotional instability in which the hallucination functions as a sort of wish-fullfillment. What occurred after the Resurrection was very different. The disciples had little trouble accepting Christ's departure; they decided to go back to their fishing. The appearances came as surprises while the diciples were intent on other things. Most importantly, the appearances came to groups of people, with each member seeing the same thing. That is simply not how hallucinations work. Thus the Resurrection appearances could not have been hallucinations."

Winfried Corduan

"Any theory of hallucination breaks down on the fact (and if it is an invention it is the oddest invention that ever entered the mind of man) that on three separate occasions this hallucination was not immediately recognized as Jesus."

C.S. Lewis


Normally, only particular kinds of people have hallucinations. They are described as high-strung, highly imaginative and very nervous. The appearances that Christ made were not restriced to people of any particular psychological make-up. John R.W. Stott says:

"There was a variety in mood......
"Mary Magdalene was weeping.....
"the women were afraid and astonished....
"Peter was full of remorse......
".....and Thomas of incredulity.
"The Emmaus pair were distracted by the events of the week...
"....and the disciples in Galilee by their fishing."

It is impossible to dismiss these revelations of the divine Lord as hallucinations of deranged minds."

ksg0245
01-27-2012, 11:35
It is often speculated by skeptics here that the Resurrection appearances (and accounts of other miracles, for that matter) were some kind of false vision or hallucination. You know, they merely believed they witnessed miracles. Here are some interesting comments on that:


"The problem with this theory is that, in the case of the Resurrection appearances, everything we know about hallucinations is violated. The appearances did not follow the patterns always present in hallucinations, for hallucinations are private and arise out of a state of expreme emotional instability in which the hallucination functions as a sort of wish-fullfillment. What occurred after the Resurrection was very different. The disciples had little trouble accepting Christ's departure; they decided to go back to their fishing. The appearances came as surprises while the diciples were intent on other things. Most importantly, the appearances came to groups of people, with each member seeing the same thing. That is simply not how hallucinations work. Thus the Resurrection appearances could not have been hallucinations."

Winfried Corduan

"Any theory of hallucination breaks down on the fact (and if it is an invention it is the oddest invention that ever entered the mind of man) that on three separate occasions this hallucination was not immediately recognized as Jesus."

C.S. Lewis


Normally, only particular kinds of people have hallucinations. They are described as high-strung, highly imaginative and very nervous. The appearances that Christ made were not restriced to people of any particular psychological make-up. John R.W. Stott says:

"There was a variety in mood......
"Mary Magdalene was weeping.....
"the women were afraid and astonished....
"Peter was full of remorse......
".....and Thomas of incredulity.
"The Emmaus pair were distracted by the events of the week...
"....and the disciples in Galilee by their fishing."

It is impossible to dismiss these revelations of the divine Lord as hallucinations of deranged minds."

Have you ever been tricked by a magician into thinking you've seen something that didn't actually happen?

Have you ever thought you observed something it turned out you were mistaken about and didn't actually see?

Have you ever played the telephone game?

Paul7
01-27-2012, 13:11
Have you ever been tricked by a magician into thinking you've seen something that didn't actually happen?

Have you ever thought you observed something it turned out you were mistaken about and didn't actually see?

Have you ever played the telephone game?

Have you ever seen something that really happened?

ksg0245
01-27-2012, 13:29
Have you ever seen something that really happened?

Of course, but that's irrelevant; seeing something that's really happened doesn't mean one can't be tricked, or mistaken about what one has seen.

Care to answer my questions now?

Have you ever been tricked by a magician into thinking you've seen something that didn't actually happen?

Have you ever thought you observed something it turned out you were mistaken about and didn't actually see?

Have you ever played the telephone game?

Paul7
01-27-2012, 13:32
Of course, but that's irrelevant; seeing something that's really happened doesn't mean one can't be tricked, or mistaken about what one has seen.

Care to answer my questions now?

Have you ever been tricked by a magician into thinking you've seen something that didn't actually happen?

Have you ever thought you observed something it turned out you were mistaken about and didn't actually see?

Have you ever played the telephone game?

Yes, I've seen a magician, but I knew it was fake going in, and they don't pretend they aren't tricks. Never heard of the telephone game.

Being tricked doesn't mean we can't see real events.

ksg0245
01-27-2012, 15:27
Yes, I've seen a magician, but I knew it was fake going in, and they don't pretend they aren't tricks.

Really? No magician anywhere has ever claimed what they were doing was real?

Never heard of the telephone game.

It's the children's game where one person whispers something to another, who then whispers it to the next, and so on. The last person in sequence reveals what they heard, and it's compared to the initial whisper.

They never match.

Being tricked doesn't mean we can't see real events.

Of course not, but it does mean we can be tricked, or can misinterpret what we see, without "hallucination" even being a factor. That's why science is such a great tool; it filters out trickery and misinterpretation.

Here's another interesting aspect of the topic:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57362197-10391704/mass-hysteria-outbreak-reported-in-n.y-town-what-does-it-mean/
Why did 12 teens from the same town in upstate N.Y. all begin to experience odd symptoms at once? Doctors say it's an outbreak of mass hysteria.

Last fall, 12 teenage girls from LeRoy Junior-Senior High School - located in a town about an hour outside of Buffalo, N.Y. - began to show symptoms similar to those of Tourette's syndrome, including painful shaking and jerking their necks, Gothamist reported. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
Mass hysteria—other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior—is the spontaneous manifestation of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person.

Paul7
01-27-2012, 19:20
It's the children's game where one person whispers something to another, who then whispers it to the next, and so on. The last person in sequence reveals what they heard, and it's compared to the initial whisper.

They never match.



The Gospel accounts DO match. Your example is quite different from testimony from an eyewitness, or someone who interviewed an eyewitness.

ksg0245
01-27-2012, 21:39
The Gospel accounts DO match.

Actually, no, they don't, which is surprising, given that there's been a couple of thousand years to work out the discrepancies.

But that's beside the point; that several people CLAIM they witnessed something doesn't mean they weren't all mistaken, for the reasons I've already listed.

Your example is quite different from testimony from an eyewitness, or someone who interviewed an eyewitness.

How is it "quite different?" My examples demonstrate that the initial problem with your claims is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, magnified by the distortion that creeps in through multiple repetition.

Paul7
01-28-2012, 10:15
Actually, no, they don't, which is surprising, given that there's been a couple of thousand years to work out the discrepancies.

The Gospels haven't changed since the were written. If it was all a hoax why would there be ANY minor discrepancies. Or for that matter why would the disciples make themselves look bad, or have women (whose testimony was less valued) be the first to witness the Resurrection?

Frank Morrison was an attorney who set out to write a book disproving the Resurrection and ended up becoming a believer. In Who Moved the Stone? he commented that the Gospel accounts are similar to what we see in modern court testimony from multiple witnesses of the same event, agreement on the big picture with minor disagreement on secondary issues.

But that's beside the point; that several people CLAIM they witnessed something doesn't mean they weren't all mistaken, for the reasons I've already listed.

It is less likely when hundreds see the same thing, with no contradicting testimony. Where is your evidence for this conspiracy?

How is it "quite different?" My examples demonstrate that the initial problem with your claims is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, magnified by the distortion that creeps in through multiple repetition.

Your example was, I believe, based on several dozen people hearing a story, very different from hearing it from an eyewitness or someone who interviewed an eyewitness.

eracer
01-28-2012, 10:24
Does that mean the Witches of Salem weren't suffering from Ergotism, and really were witches?

http://www.tailofthesnake.com/pgallery/var/resizes/random/3b9f4cf5-burn-the-witch-burn-witch-kill-monty-python-demotivational-poster-1223816026.jpg?m=1290643207

GreenDrake
01-28-2012, 10:25
It's gotta be true

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SiRdNfyHOyA/TLPewmgXKgI/AAAAAAAABJw/i0K1wHBrKsI/s1600/Grilled+Cheesus.JPG

ksg0245
01-28-2012, 14:39
The Gospels haven't changed since the were written.

False.

If it was all a hoax why would there be ANY minor discrepancies.

I didn't say it was a hoax. I said "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" and "people are easily tricked or mistaken." I also offered the example of mass hysteria.

There are discrepancies because different people are retelling stories they've heard, exactly like in the telephone game.

Or for that matter why would the disciples make themselves look bad, or have women (whose testimony was less valued) be the first to witness the Resurrection?

The disciples didn't make themselves look bad; the people who wrote the stories did that.

Frank Morrison was an attorney who set out to write a book disproving the Resurrection and ended up becoming a believer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Henry_Ross
Albert Henry Ross (1881 – 14 September 1950[1]), (pseudonym Frank Morison), was an English advertising agent and freelance writer.

Ross grew up in Stratford-upon-Avon, England.[2] He worked for Lever Brothers until 1910, then joined advertising agents S. H. Benson's of Kingsway. He managed the printing department and became a director in 1936. After his retirement in 1947 he became an honorary fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners in Advertising.[1]

Apart from his work, he was a keen colour cinematographer and amateur astronomer. He was married, with one daughter.

He is best known today for writing the book Who Moved the Stone?,[3] under the pseudonym Frank Morison. ...

That he claims he became a believer doesn't actually verify the gospels.

In Who Moved the Stone? he commented that the Gospel accounts are similar to what we see in modern court testimony from multiple witnesses of the same event, agreement on the big picture with minor disagreement on secondary issues.

And, as I've already pointed out, eyewitness testimony is unreliable, people are often mistaken about what they think they've observed, and can be easily tricked.

It is less likely when hundreds see the same thing, with no contradicting testimony.

You don't have reports from hundreds seeing the same thing; you have four stories (two of which may have come from one source). And despite repeating the claim that they don't contradict each other, they do.

Where is your evidence for this conspiracy?

I'm not claiming it's a conspiracy.

Your example was, I believe, based on several dozen people hearing a story, very different from hearing it from an eyewitness or someone who interviewed an eyewitness.

You don't have eyewitness testimony; you have stories claiming to be eyewitness testimony, at least two of which appear to come from another source, and which contradict each other on significant details. And even if you did have eyewitness testimony, it's unreliable, for reasons you seem to want to ignore.

Paul7
01-28-2012, 17:39
False.

OK, who has been tinkering with the NT for 2,000 years? We have fragments of it from as early as 114 AD.

I didn't say it was a hoax. I said "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" and "people are easily tricked or mistaken." I also offered the example of mass hysteria.

Then your testimomy never to have seen a miracle should be rejected.

There are discrepancies because different people are retelling stories they've heard, exactly like in the telephone game.

Not when an eyewitness is involved.

The disciples didn't make themselves look bad; the people who wrote the stories did that.

And the disciples went along with it and got themselves killed for this myth, right? I want in on that action, LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Henry_Ross
Albert Henry Ross (1881 – 14 September 1950[1]), (pseudonym Frank Morison), was an English advertising agent and freelance writer.

Ross grew up in Stratford-upon-Avon, England.[2] He worked for Lever Brothers until 1910, then joined advertising agents S. H. Benson's of Kingsway. He managed the printing department and became a director in 1936. After his retirement in 1947 he became an honorary fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners in Advertising.[1]

Apart from his work, he was a keen colour cinematographer and amateur astronomer. He was married, with one daughter.

He is best known today for writing the book Who Moved the Stone?,[3] under the pseudonym Frank Morison. ...

That he claims he became a believer doesn't actually verify the gospels.

I never claimed it did, what it does point out is that the Gospel accounts correspond to what we see today in court testimony from different witnesses of the same event - agreement on the big picture with minor differences on secondary issues. Why would there be ANY differences if it was made up?

"Ross was skeptical regarding the resurrection of Jesus, and set out to analyse the sources and to write a short paper entitled Jesus – the Last Phase[3] to demonstrate the apparent myth.[5] In compiling his notes, he came to be convinced of the truth of the resurrection, and set out his reasoning in the book Who moved the stone?"

You don't have reports from hundreds seeing the same thing; you have four stories (two of which may have come from one source).

How many sources do you need? I said hundreds because hundreds did claim to see the risen Lord, 500 at one time. Nobody contradicted this prior to AD 100, while the church was growing. Why would that be?

And despite repeating the claim that they don't contradict each other, they do.

Not on the big picture, Christ died, was buried, and rose again.

I'm not claiming it's a conspiracy.

What was it then? I addressed the hallucination theory on another thread.

And even if you did have eyewitness testimony, it's unreliable, for reasons you seem to want to ignore.

What I reject is that eyewitness testimony CAN be unreliable, it is to be assumed that the foundation for the church is also unreliable, for no other reason than your bias.

Please explain this:

"There is an amazing reference in the Talmuds
that verifies that after Jesus was crucified, God no
longer accepted the sin offering and the scapegoat
offered by the high priests. The Talmuds state:
"Forty years before the Temple was destroyed
(30 A.D.) the chosen lot was not picked with the right
hand, nor did the crimson stripe turn white, nor
did the westernmost light burn; and the doors of the
Temple’s Holy Place swung open by themselves, until
Rabbi Yochanon ben Zakkai spoke saying: 'O most
Holy Place, why have you become disturbed? I know
full well that your destiny will be destruction, for the
prophet Zechariah ben Iddo has already spoken
regarding you saying: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon,
that the fire may devour the cedars' (Zech. 11:1).'
Talmud Bavli, Yoma 39b"


Why would the very Jews who worked to have Jesus killed make up the above event supporting the New Testament account?

Guss
01-29-2012, 10:51
You don't even need hallucinations. You just need a handful of people spreading the story that he was seen.

ksg0245
01-29-2012, 11:46
OK, who has been tinkering with the NT for 2,000 years? We have fragments of it from as early as 114 AD.

Think about it for a couple of seconds, maybe the answer will come to you in an epiphany.

Then your testimomy never to have seen a miracle should be rejected.

Sure, except there is no objective, verifiable evidence anywhere ever for any miracles, so claiming to not have seen one doesn't seem very remarkable.

Not when an eyewitness is involved.

There are two huge problems with that:

1: EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS UNRELIABLE.

2: YOU DON'T HAVE A SINGLE VERIFIED EYEWITNESS. You have stories THAT CLAIM TO BE REPORTS FROM eyewitnesses.

But feel free to keep spouting "EYEWITNESS! EYEWITNESS!"

And the disciples went along with it and got themselves killed for this myth, right? I want in on that action, LOL.

The disciples, if they even existed, may have been mistaken about what they observed, or may have been deliberately tricked. Just because someone REALLY BELIEVES something doesn't mean that person isn't mistaken. The guys that flew the planes into buildings on September 11 gave up their lives and the lives of thousands of others for what they REALLY BELIEVED; does that mean they were right?

I never claimed it did, what it does point out is that the Gospel accounts correspond to what we see today in court testimony from different witnesses of the same event - agreement on the big picture with minor differences on secondary issues. Why would there be ANY differences if it was made up?

Are you not understanding what I've written, or just pretending?

The stories were written YEARS after the events that supposedly inspired them, and may be second hand accounts. IF the events happened, there is no way of determining whether the initial reports are accurate because of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony (and there are no confirmed eyewitnesses, just more CLAIMS), but there was plenty of time for those stories to circulate and homogenize and the best bits emphasized.

And you've got no unbiased, outside confirmation.

"Ross was skeptical regarding the resurrection of Jesus, and set out to analyse the sources and to write a short paper entitled Jesus – the Last Phase[3] to demonstrate the apparent myth.[5] In compiling his notes, he came to be convinced of the truth of the resurrection, and set out his reasoning in the book Who moved the stone?"

Ross CLAIMED to have been skeptical. It's a common story; theists think being mad at god is atheism, and then trumpet their "coming back into the fold." What evidence is there he actually WAS skeptical?

How many sources do you need? I said hundreds because hundreds did claim to see the risen Lord, 500 at one time.

That's a STORY. Do you have 500 separate independently confirmed reports from that event, or just a story about the event?

Nobody contradicted this prior to AD 100, while the church was growing. Why would that be?

I've already answered your question when you asked in another thread.

Not on the big picture, Christ died, was buried, and rose again.

Yes, that's the claim. Hmm, did I already address this?

Well, there's this: "The stories were written YEARS after the events that supposedly inspired them. IF the events happened, there is no way of determining whether the initial reports are accurate because of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony (and there are no confirmed eyewitnesses, just more CLAIMS), but there was plenty of time for those stories to circulate and homogenize, like what happens in the telephone game."

What was it then?

My first guess, without any objective, verifiable evidence to support the claims of the stories, is that they're stories that grew and coalesced over time, some of which may have been inspired by reports of what people thought they'd observed, and others which may have been inspired by previously existing mythologies.

I addressed the hallucination theory on another thread.

Well, you waved it away.

What I reject is that eyewitness testimony CAN be unreliable, it is to be assumed that the foundation for the church is also unreliable, for no other reason than your bias.

You're free to reject whatever you want; you like and find comfort in the church, so assume you haven't been mislead. That doesn't change the fact that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, or that stories can distort over time, or that you don't have any outside, contemporary, confirmed reports.

Please explain this:

"There is an amazing reference in the Talmuds
that verifies that after Jesus was crucified, God no
longer accepted the sin offering and the scapegoat
offered by the high priests. The Talmuds state:
"Forty years before the Temple was destroyed
(30 A.D.) the chosen lot was not picked with the right
hand, nor did the crimson stripe turn white, nor
did the westernmost light burn; and the doors of the
Temple’s Holy Place swung open by themselves, until
Rabbi Yochanon ben Zakkai spoke saying: 'O most
Holy Place, why have you become disturbed? I know
full well that your destiny will be destruction, for the
prophet Zechariah ben Iddo has already spoken
regarding you saying: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon,
that the fire may devour the cedars' (Zech. 11:1).'
Talmud Bavli, Yoma 39b"

Is there any direct reference to the crucifixion in that report, or is it just a report about two events that may have happened in the same time frame but aren't actually connected? The way I'm reading it, the Talmud report starts with the phrase "Forty years" and ends with "may devour the cedars," and between those two points I don't see any mention of Jesus.

Why would the very Jews who worked to have Jesus killed make up the above event supporting the New Testament account?

Unless you've got additional information, I don't see it supporting the New Testament account.

Javelin
01-29-2012, 11:49
Quantum level theory would probably state they were sane and rational people experiencing something of divine origin.

Truth.

ksg0245
01-30-2012, 08:28
Quantum level theory would probably state they were sane and rational people experiencing something of divine origin.

Truth.

Could you please cite the relevant theory?

Javelin
01-30-2012, 11:42
Could you please cite the relevant theory?

I don't really care to get into it but there is a really good book called Deepak Chopra - How To Know God. It pretty much sums up the relevance of matter and energy that exists but does not exist and disappears at the quantum level every second of every day.

Science, through quantum physics, proves the existence of God. I recommend you read it.

:wavey:

ArtificialGrape
01-30-2012, 12:18
I don't really care to get into it but there is a really good book called Deepak Chopra - How To Know God. It pretty much sums up the relevance of matter and energy that exists but does not exist and disappears at the quantum level every second of every day.

Science, through quantum physics, proves the existence of God. I recommend you read it.

:wavey:
You look to an outspoken evangelizing Christian medical doctor for your interpretation of physics? Funny how the physicists doing the actual research don't come to the same conclusion.

-ArtificialGrape

ksg0245
01-30-2012, 12:49
I don't really care to get into it but there is a really good book called Deepak Chopra - How To Know God. It pretty much sums up the relevance of matter and energy that exists but does not exist and disappears at the quantum level every second of every day.

Science, through quantum physics, proves the existence of God. I recommend you read it.

:wavey:

Science does no such thing, through quantum physics or otherwise. I recommend you read about it.

Schabesbert
01-30-2012, 13:21
The disciples, if they even existed, may have been mistaken about what they observed, or may have been deliberately tricked. Just because someone REALLY BELIEVES something doesn't mean that person isn't mistaken. The guys that flew the planes into buildings on September 11 gave up their lives and the lives of thousands of others for what they REALLY BELIEVED; does that mean they were right?

I'm really amazed that some people can't see the distinction. I don't know if it's purposeful disingenuousness, an apalling lack of critical thinking abilities, or what it is.

ksg0245
01-30-2012, 14:09
I'm really amazed that some people can't see the distinction. I don't know if it's purposeful disingenuousness, an apalling lack of critical thinking abilities, or what it is.

Please elaborate.

Schabesbert
01-30-2012, 14:21
Please elaborate.
The things that the Apostles died violently and gruesomely for were things that they personally experienced, and cared about more than life itself.
The were in a position to know, unequivocally, whether the things they professed were true or not.

The beliefs that many others, such as the hijackers, died for were things they were taught indirectly.

So, the Apostles didn't just "believe"; they KNEW, one way or the other.
No one dies for something they KNOW is a lie, especially the way they died. If it were a lie, they would KNOW it.

ArtificialGrape
01-30-2012, 14:27
No one dies for something they KNOW is a lie
That's a rather absolute statement to claim that nobody has ever died to conceal a known lie. Good to know.

ksg0245
01-30-2012, 15:11
The things that the Apostles died violently and gruesomely for were things that they personally experienced, and cared about more than life itself.
The were in a position to know, unequivocally, whether the things they professed were true or not.

Unequivocally, hmm? Have you read my previous comments in this thread regarding how easily people can be mistaken about what they've observed, and how easily they can be deliberately mislead?

What tests did the apostles conduct to determine they hadn't been mistaken or mislead?

For that matter, what independent corroboration is there that the apostles existed, or died in the manners described?

The beliefs that many others, such as the hijackers, died for were things they were taught indirectly.

So, the Apostles didn't just "believe"; they KNEW, one way or the other.
No one dies for something they KNOW is a lie, especially the way they died. If it were a lie, they would KNOW it.

So the hijackers died for something they believed was correct, but didn't know was correct, is that what you're saying?

What tests did the apostles perform to eliminate the possibility of error?

Schabesbert
01-30-2012, 15:31
Unequivocally, hmm? Have you read my previous comments in this thread regarding how easily people can be mistaken about what they've observed, and how easily they can be deliberately mislead?

What tests did the apostles conduct to determine they hadn't been mistaken or mislead?
Let's take St. Peter for instance. Who would have fooled him into thinking that he had announced the death of Ananias & Sapphira? Did they cooperate by dying?

How did he fake his escape from prison? If it was THAT easy to escape from prison, why didn't more people do that? How many people would want to be guards, given that they were generally executed for the offense of having someone escape? Even St. Paul had to "fake" an earthquake (a pretty good feat) in order to escape from a Roman prison.

How did the lame man fool St. Peter into thinking that he had the power to cure him (Acts 3:6) (and Acts 9, and many other places)? How did Tabitha "fool" him into thinking that he had resurrected her?

For that matter, what independent corroboration is there that the apostles existed, or died in the manners described?
Believe whatever you want. What independent corroboration is there that we ever landed on the moon?

So the hijackers died for something they believed was correct, but didn't know was correct, is that what you're saying?
I'd have thought that that was pretty obvious. You really didn't get it until now? :faint:

ksg0245
01-30-2012, 15:49
Let's take St. Peter for instance. Who would have fooled him into thinking that he had announced the death of Ananias & Sapphira? Did they cooperate by dying?

How did he fake his escape from prison? If it was THAT easy to escape from prison, why didn't more people do that? How many people would want to be guards, given that they were generally executed for the offense of having someone escape? Even St. Paul had to "fake" an earthquake (a pretty good feat) in order to escape from a Roman prison.

How did the lame man fool St. Peter into thinking that he had the power to cure him (Acts 3:6) (and Acts 9, and many other places)? How did Tabitha "fool" him into thinking that he had resurrected her?

Do you have any independent, unbiased corroboration for any of these stories?

Believe whatever you want. What independent corroboration is there that we ever landed on the moon?

Photographs. Video. Rocky material. The laser range-finder that was left behind. The astronauts who can be questioned.

I'd have thought that that was pretty obvious. You really didn't get it until now? :faint:

Oh, I get it; I don't think you understand the implication.

What tests did the apostles perform to eliminate the possibility of error? You claimed nobody would knowingly die for a lie: HOW DID THE APOSTLES KNOW (you've claimed they knew; I'm trying to find out HOW they knew) THEY WEREN'T MISTAKEN ABOUT WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY'D OBSERVED?

Schabesbert
01-30-2012, 16:35
Photographs. Video. Rocky material. The laser range-finder that was left behind. The astronauts who can be questioned.
ALL easily faked.


Oh, I get it;
Then why did you pretend not to? Feigning ignorance?



What tests did the apostles perform to eliminate the possibility of error? You claimed nobody would knowingly die for a lie: HOW DID THE APOSTLES KNOW (you've claimed they knew; I'm trying to find out HOW they knew) THEY WEREN'T MISTAKEN ABOUT WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY'D OBSERVED?
:rofl:
You're cute when you're illogical.

ColdSteelNail
01-30-2012, 17:14
I don't really care to get into it but there is a really good book called Deepak Chopra - How To Know God. It pretty much sums up the relevance of matter and energy that exists but does not exist and disappears at the quantum level every second of every day.

Science, through quantum physics, proves the existence of God. I recommend you read it.

:wavey:
Nothing in quantum physics has proven the existence of God. Nothing in any discipline has proven the existence of God. You can believe all you want but it will not make it true.

juggy4711
01-30-2012, 20:51
I don't really care to get into it but there is a really good book called Deepak Chopra - How To Know God. It pretty much sums up the relevance of matter and energy that exists but does not exist and disappears at the quantum level every second of every day.

Science, through quantum physics, proves the existence of God. I recommend you read it.

:wavey:

One can find God in science if they choose to but nothing in science proves God.

Javelin
01-30-2012, 21:01
One can find God in science if they choose to but nothing in science proves God.

You know the ignorance in this forum is nothing short of astounding. I mean seriously the blatant generalizations - here's my advice; why not instead of finding God on a Gun Forum Religious Issues thread instead go out and actually do some damn reading and get an education in the matter and then come back and actually make a statement based on something?

Seriously try it. Or not. I don't really care to be honest what you little stains decide to do or think. :rofl::rofl:

:tongueout:

juggy4711
01-30-2012, 21:14
You know the ignorance in this forum is nothing short of astounding. I mean seriously the blatant generalizations - here's my advice; why not instead of finding God on a Gun Forum Religious Issues thread instead go out and actually do some damn reading and get an education in the matter and then come back and actually make a statement based on something?

Seriously try it. Or not. I don't really care to be honest what you little stains decide to do or think. :rofl::rofl:

:tongueout:

Considering I believe in God and came to that belief through science, starting with quantum mechanics, I'll take it you're not familiar with my posts on GTRI. I have done some damn reading and my studies lead me to believe but nothing in science proves God exists.

ArtificialGrape
01-30-2012, 22:03
You know the ignorance in this forum is nothing short of astounding. I mean seriously the blatant generalizations - here's my advice; why not instead of finding God on a Gun Forum Religious Issues thread instead go out and actually do some damn reading and get an education in the matter and then come back and actually make a statement based on something?

Seriously try it. Or not. I don't really care to be honest what you little stains decide to do or think. :rofl::rofl:

:tongueout:

Some of us actually prefer to read scientific texts written by researchers in their field of study rather than have a Christian apologist medical doctor abuse the science and put spin on it that those doing the research aren't claiming. Crazy, huh? :dunno:

ksg0245
01-31-2012, 07:59
ALL easily faked.

Please explain how the range finder could be faked.

Then why did you pretend not to?

I was pointing out the inconsistency in your assertions; sorry that slipped by you.

Feigning ignorance?

Speaking of ignorance, you don't understand the implication of what you've asserted. Assuming the stories aren't mere fiction, the apostles may have misunderstood what they thought they'd observed. Were they trained in critical thinking? Did they use the scientific method?

:rofl:
You're cute when you're illogical.

Yeah, it's illogical to expect evidence for an assertion. You don't know of any tests that may have been performed to eliminate the possibility of error, and so are dodging.

Paul7
02-01-2012, 13:56
Photographs. Video. Rocky material. The laser range-finder that was left behind. The astronauts who can be questioned.

They are only biased promoters of the moon theory, and anyway, they may have been mistaken on what they saw. /Sarcasm off

From another debate site I participate in, showing all the bogus arguments against the Gospel events can be used to invalidate King Tut:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7791

Paul7
02-01-2012, 14:07
Think about it for a couple of seconds, maybe the answer will come to you in an epiphany.

I did, now what?

Sure, except there is no objective, verifiable evidence anywhere ever for any miracles, so claiming to not have seen one doesn't seem very remarkable.

Only if you discount the testimony to the contrary. Nice circular reasoning going on there.

There are two huge problems with that:

1: EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS UNRELIABLE.

It can be, but generally it isn't, and you generally don't have a lot of people being fooled at the same time.

2: YOU DON'T HAVE A SINGLE VERIFIED EYEWITNESS. You have stories THAT CLAIM TO BE REPORTS FROM eyewitnesses.

But feel free to keep spouting "EYEWITNESS! EYEWITNESS!"

Where is your evidence to your conspiracy theory that says they weren't? Do you discount the rest of ancient history the same way, and if not, why the double standard?

The disciples, if they even existed, may have been mistaken about what they observed, or may have been deliberately tricked. Just because someone REALLY BELIEVES something doesn't mean that person isn't mistaken. The guys that flew the planes into buildings on September 11 gave up their lives and the lives of thousands of others for what they REALLY BELIEVED; does that mean they were right?

Unlike the disciples, they unknowingly died for a lie. You make the bizarre claim the disciples knowingly died for a lie.

Are you not understanding what I've written, or just pretending?

No, I reject what you've written.

The stories were written YEARS after the events that supposedly inspired them, and may be second hand accounts. IF the events happened, there is no way of determining whether the initial reports are accurate because of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony (and there are no confirmed eyewitnesses, just more CLAIMS), but there was plenty of time for those stories to circulate and homogenize and the best bits emphasized.

Do you reject all of ancient history for the same reasons, huh? IF the Gospel events really happened, what evidence would you expect to see today other than the testimony and the evidence of changed lives?

Ross CLAIMED to have been skeptical. It's a common story; theists think being mad at god is atheism, and then trumpet their "coming back into the fold." What evidence is there he actually WAS skeptical?

And maybe Richard Dawkins is REALLY a secret Christian.

Yes, that's the claim. Hmm, did I already address this?

Not satisfactorily.

Well, there's this: "The stories were written YEARS after the events that supposedly inspired them. IF the events happened, there is no way of determining whether the initial reports are accurate because of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony (and there are no confirmed eyewitnesses, just more CLAIMS), but there was plenty of time for those stories to circulate and homogenize, like what happens in the telephone game."

Hard to play the telephone game when only one person is playing.

My first guess, without any objective, verifiable evidence to support the claims of the stories, is that they're stories that grew and coalesced over time, some of which may have been inspired by reports of what people thought they'd observed, and others which may have been inspired by previously existing mythologies.

Isn't another possibility that what they claimed to have seen really happened? Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.

Is there any direct reference to the crucifixion in that report, or is it just a report about two events that may have happened in the same time frame but aren't actually connected? The way I'm reading it, the Talmud report starts with the phrase "Forty years" and ends with "may devour the cedars," and between those two points I don't see any mention of Jesus.

Forty years before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, 30 AD was when Jesus was killed. The NT talks about the temple veil being torn at the time of the crucifixion, these Talmudic accounts are probably extra-biblical confirmation of the NT events, exactly what you claim to want to see.

eracer
02-01-2012, 14:22
What's interesting to me is that believers in an unsubstantiated set of historical documents which form the foundation of their religion defend those words as truth, yet are eager to point out that the unsubstantiated set of historical documents which form the foundation of another religion are untruths.

ksg0245
02-01-2012, 15:23
I did, now what?

Try thinking again. You have a collection of at best second hand reports of events; there is no way of knowing what distortions and misinterpretations may have crept into the stories before they were written down. Those reports have since been rewritten and retranslated for thousands of years, up to the present, by true believers. Just the translations themselves vary in what they say.

Only if you discount the testimony to the contrary.

Which part of "objective, verifiable evidence" are you not understanding? The "testimony" you have is neither objective nor verifiable, and suffers from that unreliability factor.

Nice circular reasoning going on there.

It isn't circular reasoning to reject the assertion of miracles based on the lack of objective, verifiable evidence.

It can be, but generally it isn't, and you generally don't have a lot of people being fooled at the same time.

Yes, it generally is, and yes, large groups of people are frequently mistaken about what they thought they've observed. I've provided links to studies supporting my claim; have they been refuted?

Where is your evidence to your conspiracy theory that says they weren't?

I've already explained that I'm not claiming a conspiracy theory; I've claimed eyewitness testimony is unreliable, backed that up with evidence, pointed out that stories can distort and grow through retelling, backed that up with evidence, and pointed out that you don't have any verified eyewitnesses anyway.

Feel free to claim conspiracy theory a third time.

Do you discount the rest of ancient history the same way, and if not, why the double standard?

I reject extraordinary claims with no evidence; not sure why you think that constitutes a double standard.

Unlike the disciples, they unknowingly died for a lie.

You don't know it was a lie; you're assuming.

You make the bizarre claim the disciples knowingly died for a lie.

Nope, never made that claim.

No, I reject what you've written.

Based on your claims about what I've written, for example "You make the bizarre claim the disciples knowingly died for a lie," it seems likely you aren't understanding it.

Do you reject all of ancient history for the same reasons, huh?

You're repeating yourself.

IF the Gospel events really happened, what evidence would you expect to see today other than the testimony and the evidence of changed lives?

Asked and answered.

And maybe Richard Dawkins is REALLY a secret Christian.

Maybe. Is there any evidence he's a secret Christian? Is there any evidence Ross was skeptical?

Not satisfactorily.

Yes, you've made it clear that you reject evidence that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, that large groups can be mislead, that stories can be distorted through retelling, and that stories can be filtered through retelling.

Hard to play the telephone game when only one person is playing.

What a remarkable statement.

Isn't another possibility that what they claimed to have seen really happened?

Possible? Sure. It's possible people really saw Elvis after he'd been dead for a while, too, but personally I'd want to see some objective, verifiable evidence before believing them.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.

Yep.

Forty years before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, 30 AD was when Jesus was killed. The NT talks about the temple veil being torn at the time of the crucifixion, these Talmudic accounts are probably extra-biblical confirmation of the NT events, exactly what you claim to want to see.

"Probably"?

Paul7
02-02-2012, 21:09
Try thinking again. You have a collection of at best second hand reports of events; there is no way of knowing what distortions and misinterpretations may have crept into the stories before they were written down. Those reports have since been rewritten and retranslated for thousands of years, up to the present, by true believers.

If we didn't have copies from the early centuries of the NT, you might have a point. Similarly, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows the OT hasn't changed since way before Christ. Wouldn't that be evidence?

Just the translations themselves vary in what they say.

Yes, that's why there are different translations.

Which part of "objective, verifiable evidence" are you not understanding?

Let's see, mainly the 'objective' part. Define objective, and tell me why you don't think the Apostles were objective.

Yes, it generally is, and yes, large groups of people are frequently mistaken about what they thought they've observed. I've provided links to studies supporting my claim; have they been refuted?

Frequently, huh? How frequently? 8% of the time? 80% of the time? I would say very rarely, and you have no evidence this is what happened in the Gospel accounts. Are the rest of ancient historical accounts also mistaken? Was Tacitus mistaken when he wrote his Annals?

I suppose you are the only one who can't be mistaken, right?

I reject extraordinary claims

Now you're being honest, you reject ANY supernatural event due to your a priori disbelief in them.

with no evidence; not sure why you think that constitutes a double standard.

Based on your claims about what I've written, for example "You make the bizarre claim the disciples knowingly died for a lie," it seems likely you aren't understanding it.

So what was it, mass hallucination?

Maybe. Is there any evidence he's a secret Christian? Is there any evidence Ross was skeptical?

I take his word for it, just as I take Dawkins word that he is an atheist.

Possible? Sure. It's possible people really saw Elvis after he'd been dead for a while, too, but personally I'd want to see some objective, verifiable evidence before believing them.

If Elvis fulfilled prophecy and performed miracles when he lived it would give the above story some credence. BTW, I believe the Elvis sightings don't claim he rose from the dead, they're saying he never really died. We have a lot of ancient historical info. saying Jesus really died.

"Probably"?

Yes, it is extra-biblical speculation on my part. Does this mean you're ignoring this piece of evidence you say you want?

Animal Mother
02-03-2012, 00:34
If we didn't have copies from the early centuries of the NT, you might have a point. We don't. The earliest example that's close to a complete copy is Codex Sinaiticus, and it's from around 350CE.
Similarly, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows the OT hasn't changed since way before Christ. Wouldn't that be evidence? Isn't the observed variation between the examples of the text that we do have also evidence?

If Elvis fulfilled prophecy and performed miracles when he lived it would give the above story some credence. What prophecy did Jesus fulfill that can be verified independently of the Biblical accounts?
We have a lot of ancient historical info. saying Jesus really died. We do? Where?

ksg0245
02-03-2012, 08:37
If we didn't have copies from the early centuries of the NT, you might have a point.

The point remains. There are no contemporary copies, and what we do have are second hand reports at best.

Similarly, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows the OT hasn't changed since way before Christ. Wouldn't that be evidence?

Sure, it's evidence those stories were better known and established.

Yes, that's why there are different translations.

Sorry, you're saying there are different translations because translations vary, but there's no possibility errors and misinterpretations could have crept in during translation and rewriting?

Let's see, mainly the 'objective' part. Define objective, and tell me why you don't think the Apostles were objective.

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; perceptible to persons other than the affected individual; expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

The apostles were true believers; that's why they weren't objective. You still haven't said what tests they performed to determine they weren't mistaken about what they thought they'd observed.

You also haven't refuted my claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

Frequently, huh? How frequently? 8% of the time? 80% of the time?

Enough of the time that it's a known phenomenon. Are you going to attempt to refute it, or continue to dodge?

I would say very rarely,

Got any objective, verifiable evidence to support your opinion?

and you have no evidence this is what happened in the Gospel accounts.

There's no evidence the gospel accounts happened at all. Given that there IS evidence eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and given that there is no objective, verifiable evidence any miracles have ever taken place, it is reasonable to question the gospel accounts.

Are the rest of ancient historical accounts also mistaken?

It's a good bet some of them are. Why, do you accept all historical account as accurate?

Was Tacitus mistaken when he wrote his Annals?

Is that relevant?

I suppose you are the only one who can't be mistaken, right?

Nope. But between the two of us, I'm the only one trying to apply critical thinking.

Now you're being honest, you reject ANY supernatural event due to your a priori disbelief in them.

Oops, no, that isn't what I said; you interrupted me. Take AM's advice and read what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote.

So what was it, mass hallucination?

Go back and read what I wrote; it's right there in front of you.

I take his word for it, just as I take Dawkins word that he is an atheist.

There is evidence Dawkins is an atheist. I know I've asked this before, but is there evidence Ross was skeptical before he wrote that piece? I'm assuming from your dodging there isn't, but feel free to prove me wrong.

If Elvis fulfilled prophecy and performed miracles when he lived it would give the above story some credence.

You're avoiding the point again. It's possible people saw Elvis alive after he'd died; do you accept those claims unquestioningly?

BTW, I believe the Elvis sightings don't claim he rose from the dead, they're saying he never really died. We have a lot of ancient historical info. saying Jesus really died.

Really, a lot? Oh, I get it, you mean in the bible, right?

Yes, it is extra-biblical speculation on my part. Does this mean you're ignoring this piece of evidence you say you want?

Ignoring it? No. Questioning your interpretation? You betcha.

juggy4711
02-22-2012, 22:36
..Do you reject all of ancient history for the same reasons, huh?...

Maybe I do. However I have absolutely no need for every account of ancient history to be true. I don't need for Socrates to have been a real person to learn and benefit from things attributed to him.

You have no such luxury. For if anything in the Bible did not occur according to your favored translation, your whole world falls apart; which is demonstrable in your mental gymnastics to claim that not only it all went down how you believe, but that there are any facts to support that. Jesus wasn't the son of God anymore than Perseus was the son of Zeus.