tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post4217964269713968869..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Review of the Salem Witch Trials ArgumentMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-42793781687179157312011-08-02T03:08:19.491-07:002011-08-02T03:08:19.491-07:00'We have anonymous, religious texts that claim...'We have anonymous, religious texts that claim that people have seen, heard, and touched the physical Jesus.'<br /><br />Not one single person in the first century put his name on a document claiming he had touched a flesh and bone Jesus.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-16308562763912738472011-07-27T14:41:06.202-07:002011-07-27T14:41:06.202-07:00"The mere fact that one event has quantitativ..."The mere fact that one event has quantitatively more evidence than another does not mean we ignore the event with quantitatively less evidence. Seeing, hearing, and touching the physical Jesus is qualitatively better evidence for the supernatural than the visionary experiences of the afflicted girls in Salem."<br /><br />We don't have "seeing, hearing, and touching" of the physical Jesus. We have anonymous, religious texts that claim that people have seen, heard, and touched the physical Jesus. <br /><br />There's an enormous difference between the two.Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-44617875287712673642011-07-24T00:02:43.241-07:002011-07-24T00:02:43.241-07:00JS Allen,
Re: miracles as 'exceedingly rare&#...JS Allen,<br /><br />Re: miracles as 'exceedingly rare' events & the so-called incoherency of the phrase 'violations of the laws of nature.' <br /><br />The phrase is not incoherent at all. That is, not if you define a law of nature as an empirical generalization of observable physical relationships and behaviors for which we have thus far no confirmed, repeatable contradictory observations. <br /><br />In a sense, albeit a limited sense, we could, if you like, define a miracle as an exceedingly rare event, but if we were to do that, we would sin against imprecision and include far too much in our definition of miracles. (Which would, ironically, have the ancillary effect of trivializing your 'signs' thus making interpretation impossible.)<br /><br />E.g., the poker hand aside, the next time you walk into your bathroom, at any one time the micro physical particles which comprise the atmosphere in the bathroom will occupy a certain space. The probability of any one arrangement is, to say the least, 'exceedingly' low, but any one assemblage is not a miracle, no? <br /><br />To the avoid being too inclusive, we ought to define a law of nature along the probabilistic lines stated above and then define miracles with respect to that definition. <br /><br />I am sure the definition would be non-Biblical, but I am confident it would not be 'incoherent.' ;-)Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6581793507018588492011-07-23T19:58:30.315-07:002011-07-23T19:58:30.315-07:00@Some guy - Sorry I missed your comment. Basicall...@Some guy - Sorry I missed your comment. Basically, I agree with Spinoza that the very phrase "violation of the Laws of Nature" is incoherent and non-Biblical. The concept has always seemed like complete nonsense to me.<br /><br />Like Spinoza says, a "miracle" is just something that is exceedingly rare, and of a sort to be interpreted as a sign.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-58240529891753122242011-07-23T19:44:03.290-07:002011-07-23T19:44:03.290-07:00@Matt - That's a super interesting topic, IMO....@Matt - That's a super interesting topic, IMO. We often admire artists who have certain types of mental imbalance, because the mental imbalance seems to actually <i>contribute</i> to creativity. And it's not just bipolarity -- I have interviewed several schizophrenics about their theories of the world, and they often have these amazing insights hidden among all of the insanity. Autism is another example. People with Asperger's are considered to be unreliable in many areas (like being able to think telologically), but it turns out that their insights in some areas are surprisingly good.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-53415998017690619522011-07-23T14:34:57.248-07:002011-07-23T14:34:57.248-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07648009613244456111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-80878673956557729832011-07-23T14:33:21.979-07:002011-07-23T14:33:21.979-07:00"While I accept a natural explanation for the..."While I accept a natural explanation for the Salem Witch Trials, I do not claim that I can definitively rule out a supernatural explanation."<br />How lucky for John Proctor and Rebecca Nurse they didn't have to rely upon jayman for their defense.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07648009613244456111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-74478466886603896012011-07-23T11:21:16.391-07:002011-07-23T11:21:16.391-07:00And supposing that I granted, ad argumentum, that ...And supposing that I granted, <i>ad argumentum</i>, that Jesus H. Christ lived, was crucified, and placed in a tomb, and that his followers returned one morning to find the tomb empty, there are many more probable and less miraculous explanations which could be entertained. Maybe the Romans noted that the tomb had become a rallying point for undesirables, and removed the body and burned it (parallel in current history). Maybe a fervent and demented follower stole the body to fuel tales of a resurrection. Etc., etc, etc. There is no shortage of non-miraculous explanations.<br /><br />What is your explanation for the fact that insects have six legs, not four, as described in Leviticus chapter 11?Reginald Selkirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295966091652856726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21099862031226042922011-07-23T11:13:27.849-07:002011-07-23T11:13:27.849-07:00Some Guy: 1) How do you explain the empty tomb?
W...Some Guy: <i>1) How do you explain the empty tomb?</i><br /><br />What's to explain? It is one plot twist in a story. There is no historical verification of any "empty tomb" outside the books of the New Testament, which were written by fervent believers decades after the alleged events.<br /><br />Outside of those stories, there is no historical record that Jesus H. Christ ever lived, let alone died, or was buried.Reginald Selkirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295966091652856726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31599505446209268632011-07-23T10:02:38.355-07:002011-07-23T10:02:38.355-07:00I can understand rejecting Psychobiography, but fo...I can understand rejecting Psychobiography, but for me the best reasons to reject psychobiography go 10 times as well for rejecting supernatural interpretation of historical data, the claims far outstrip the evidence that can be presented.Jon Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474272938857344872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88879655640461146102011-07-22T19:33:41.121-07:002011-07-22T19:33:41.121-07:00SomeGuy: Havok, do you have anything to say about ...<b>SomeGuy: Havok, do you have anything to say about the actual topic of this blog. So far, you haven't disagreed with the point being made by Silly Atheists.</b><br />Yeah I did. SillyAtheist was claiming that certain literary events are historical facts (as you do in a later comment).<br /><br /><b>SomeGuy: 1) How do you explain the empty tomb?</b><br />The empty tomb is a literary device. An explanation doesn't need to take it as a literal historical event, because we have no solid evidence of it - just cultic propaganda written 40+ years after the supposed event.<br /><br /><b>SomeGuy: enountered the resurrected Jesus on the Road to Damascus while he was an enemy of the Christian movement. </b><br />Paul didn't encounter the resurrected Jesus. The best I think that can be maintained is a revelatory experience, a vision, and not an encounter with a flesh and blood being.<br /><br /><b>SomeGuy: Let's practice the art of representing our opponents accurately a little better and also do them the honor of putting thought into our responses to them.</b><br />We also ought to represent out own position a little more accurately as well :-)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78526830969492129112011-07-22T18:13:46.421-07:002011-07-22T18:13:46.421-07:00Hello Professor,
That certainly is an interesting...Hello Professor,<br /><br />That certainly is an interesting excerpt, but you haven't done anything to demonstrate that Paul was bipolar. I wonder what justification you have for thinking that, if any?<br /> <br />Unfortunately, the genre of Psychobiography is rejected by historians.<br /><br />Martin Hengel rightly concludes, "Lüdemann . . . does not recognize these limits on the historian. Here he gets into the realm of psychological explanations, for which no verification is really possible . . . . the sources are far too limited for such psychologizing analyses."1<br /><br />So, if you are able to demonstrate your assertion with an argument, you will be responsible for an entire paradigm shift in the study of ancient history!<br /><br />1. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997), 342; cf. 40-41. See also Martin Hengel, The PreChristian Paul, in collaboration with Roland Deines (London: SCM, 1991),p. 79.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21970669651929949032011-07-22T18:09:35.011-07:002011-07-22T18:09:35.011-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-35054429753797867572011-07-22T16:03:30.461-07:002011-07-22T16:03:30.461-07:00One of my favorite passages from Julie Holland'...One of my favorite passages from Julie Holland's Weekends at Bellevue. She was a psych. at Bellevue Hospital in NY for years. Saw every kind of mental illness:<br /><br /><br />Being preoccupied with religion is a classic manic symptom . . In a manic state, people have less desire for sleep; they will talk more, create more, do more. Commonly, bipolar patients get hyper-religious in their newfound frenzy and sometimes end up on a street corner and then a psych ER explaining that they are Jesus or the Messiah, or that they’ve discovered a new religion. They’ve had a vision, an epiphany, and they want to share it with the world. Their grandiosity can be charismatic and alluring. Religions and cults are fomed around this kind of energy. . . (Weekends at Bellevue, Julie Holland.)<br />The prevalence of people experiencing some or all of the symptoms of bipolar disorder in the general population is thought to be as high as 5%.<br /><br />Every time I read passages like this, or talk to a student who's got hyper-religious thoughts and some mental illness problems, I think of Paul. <br /><br />MMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2632622551668246012011-07-22T13:45:50.644-07:002011-07-22T13:45:50.644-07:00Reginald:
1) How do you explain the empty tomb?
...Reginald:<br /><br />1) How do you explain the empty tomb?<br /><br />2) What jayman777 meant by, "It should also be noted that the apostle Paul was not grieving the death of Christ" is that Mccormick's attempted grief hallucinations explanation for the post-mortem appearances of Jesus has weak explanatory scope and power because Paul who was not grieving, enountered the resurrected Jesus on the Road to Damascus while he was an enemy of the Christian movement. <br /><br />Let's practice the art of representing our opponents accurately a little better and also do them the honor of putting thought into our responses to them.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-87871845208854014932011-07-22T13:26:32.553-07:002011-07-22T13:26:32.553-07:00jayman777: It should also be noted that the apostl...jayman777: <i>It should also be noted that the apostle Paul was not grieving the death of Christ.</i><br /><br />What? Paul has never been considered an eyewitness to the resurrection.<br /><br /><i>In the case of the resurrection we are attempting to explain the empty tomb...</i><br /><br />I have never found the empty tomb argument to be convincing. "Hey look, I have an invisible dwarf unicorn in the palm of my hand. You don't see it? That proves it's invisible!"Reginald Selkirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295966091652856726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-66578184776270998482011-07-22T10:52:02.125-07:002011-07-22T10:52:02.125-07:00Havok, do you have anything to say about the actua...Havok, do you have anything to say about the actual topic of this blog. So far, you haven't disagreed with the point being made by Silly Atheists.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-36896593850781444032011-07-22T06:41:35.572-07:002011-07-22T06:41:35.572-07:00SillyAtheists: Specifically, in the case of the Re...<b>SillyAtheists: Specifically, in the case of the Resurrection, people don't believe it because of the data we have concerning the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples belief.</b><br />In my experience people's belief is not based on this evidence at all. This stuff is brought out to justify the belief, post hoc.<br /><br /><b>SillyAtheists: Those facts aren't supernatural</b><br />Those aren't "facts", but are literary events. To establish them as probabilities requires further argumentation<br /><br /><b>SillyAtheists: and are open to historical investigation.</b><br />And/or literary investigation. Actually, the literary investigation comes first, since all we have are words...<br /><br /><b>SillyAtheists: Rather, people think that the best explanation of that data is that God raised Jesus from the dead.</b><br />This works back to my initial point - people use this sort of thing to buttress their beliefs, but these sorts of claims are not rationally coercive.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71554183259768863502011-07-21T22:20:54.050-07:002011-07-21T22:20:54.050-07:00Hmmmm... I am interested to try and understand wha...Hmmmm... I am interested to try and understand what you mean by I am a Christian as far as Spinoza was a Christian, and what you think actually happen at the "Resurrection" event is you define a miracle like Spinoza did. So, humbly, would you describe your view of the Resurrection, and how you think you may differ from a "typical" Christian.<br /><br />Thank you.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-56560192564149645512011-07-21T20:00:43.006-07:002011-07-21T20:00:43.006-07:00Sorry, I haven't read it. I don't ascribe...Sorry, I haven't read it. I don't ascribe to Hume's definition of "miracle". That's because, like Spinoza, I don't think it's what any believer prior to 1748 considered to be the definition of "miracle".<br /><br />I <b>am</b> a Christian at least to the extent that Spinoza was a Christian. I'm sure that many Christians consider me to be atheist, and I am a former militant atheist.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-72083305707403803192011-07-21T18:46:34.447-07:002011-07-21T18:46:34.447-07:00Oh I see. Instead of arguing with you about this ...Oh I see. Instead of arguing with you about this particular point, I instead wanted to ask you if you have ever heard of, or better yet, read a book called Hume's Abject Failure by John Earman? I think that you might have your mind blown if you read it... and/or I could just give you the meat of it here and now as well. <br /><br />PS: Are you a Christian?Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84692278439000129122011-07-21T16:48:34.169-07:002011-07-21T16:48:34.169-07:00@Some Guy - It's inconclusive, because you onl...@Some Guy - It's inconclusive, because you only have one instance in 2,000 years. So you could reasonably say, "we think the laws of nature might conceivably have been violated" (whatever that means), but that doesn't accomplish much. And I say "at best", because you're setting yourself up for a plausible naturalistic explanation to be found at some point in the future, as could be claimed for the firebombing of Sodom.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-74873218737090336842011-07-21T15:48:23.893-07:002011-07-21T15:48:23.893-07:00Thank you for your response.
What is your argumen...Thank you for your response.<br /><br />What is your argument to support the following assertion that you made:<br /><br />"Verifying whether or not laws of physics were violated at an event 2,000 years ago, will always at best be inconclusive."Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-17553995707451546052011-07-21T15:35:40.788-07:002011-07-21T15:35:40.788-07:00@Silly atheists - By conceding that the only proof...@Silly atheists - By conceding that the only proof of God's hand can be through a direct violation of the "Laws of Nature", jayman777 loses the debate from the onset. Verifying whether or not laws of physics were violated at an event 2,000 years ago, will always <i>at best</i> be inconclusive.<br /><br />As an analogy, take the story of the destruction of Sodom by fire raining down from the sky. Let's assume for sake of discussion that the story was based on a kernel of truth. It's only within the last 300 years that we have a naturalistic explanation for balls of fire can fall from the sky (e.g. meteors). IOW, the story of Sodom being destroyed no longer requires God to violate the Laws of Nature. If a Christian has a problem with this fact, it's only because he's put himself in a stupid corner.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71008473595222308372011-07-21T10:05:05.720-07:002011-07-21T10:05:05.720-07:00JS Allen ???????JS Allen ???????Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.com