Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8973 total)
185 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 180 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,677 Year: 7,425/23,288 Month: 1,331/1,214 Week: 1/342 Day: 1/71 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hitch is dead
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 195 of 523 (852413)
05-10-2019 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by AZPaul3
05-09-2019 9:39 PM


Christopher Hitchens writes:

We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.

I would agree with this if it removed the "On every side..." bit.
I do believe there is "a side" of religion that can be beneficial and useful and even necessary for certain people.
People are simply so varied in their differences. And "religion/faith" is simply such a broad topic/idea.

I have no problems with an argument stating that this group of people would be a small minority.
I simply have an issue with an argument stating that such people do not exist at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2019 9:39 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 291 of 523 (875378)
04-24-2020 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by GDR
04-24-2020 12:00 PM


Re: no rational argument ?
GDR writes:

I'll take you word for it that cosmic evolution happened naturally without any further interference from a cosmic intelligence.

Biological evolution however then requires an agency in order to emerge within the cosmic realm.

I don't think you understand.

Cosmic evolution IS the agency required for biological evolution to emerge.

Cosmic evolution creates and distributes various elements through star creation/explosion and planet creation.

Once you have a planet, with the various elements, and the various conditions created by "being a planet" - power from a sun, weather, elements... you now have the everything required in order for biological evolution to begin and continue to occur until the power or elements run out.

We don't know every last detail of these processes... yet.
But every detail we do know (and we know many) shows us that they all occur without any intelligent agency required.

Extrapolating that the "last details" we do not yet understand will also show that no intelligent agency is required may be incorrect... or it might be correct.
-but it is reasonable
-and parsimonious
-and based on all the available evidence
-is not a "belief" (it is a tentatively held, reasonable extrapolation based upon all the currently available evidence.)

Saying that the "last details" we do not yet understand will require an intelligent agency may also be incorrect... or it might be correct.
-but it is unreasonable
-not parsimonious
-goes against the evidence, not based upon it
-is a "belief" (a hope it's real, even though nothing actually shows it is required.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 04-24-2020 12:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by GDR, posted 04-24-2020 6:25 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 336 of 523 (875510)
04-27-2020 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by GDR
04-24-2020 6:25 PM


Re: no rational argument ?
GDR writes:

Explain how you get from a mindless universe, held together by mindless mathematical laws to sentient life able to discover and understand those laws.

I did:

quote:
Once you have a planet, with the various elements, and the various conditions created by "being a planet" - power from a sun, weather, elements... you now have the everything required in order for biological evolution to begin and continue to occur until the power or elements run out.

We don't know every last detail of these processes... yet.
But every detail we do know (and we know many) shows us that they all occur without any intelligent agency required.


What part do you not understand?

Cosmic evolution creating plants and suns?
Suns giving power?
Having elements on planets?
Having weather on planets?
How weather and elements and power can give rise to early life?
How early life evolves into modern life?

There's lots of information on all parts.
Not all parts have concrete, fully understood answers.
But all parts have lots of information we know about them.
And all the information we know of all the parts - show that God is not required.

As a Christian I believe that God resurrected Jesus. Scientifically we understand that when you're dead and unless there is a resuscitation you stay dead. Science can say that the resurrection does not conform to scientific law. However, Christian understanding is that this was a one time event and that there is no appeal being made for science to support it. It is outside of scientific law. If one is a atheistic then the whole idea of resurrection is impossible. If however one is a theist then we are left to appeal to other sources and form our own opinion as to whether or not we accept that belief as historical.

This is one instance, if correct, that this is something that if true would require divine intervention.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Everyone is allowed to believe whatever they want.
As long as you're not hurting others - you won't go to jail for it.

But whatever beliefs you (or I) may have:
-none of the facts above disappear
-there is evidence, and factual support for a tentatively held, reasonable conclusion (not a belief) that all that exists is here without God
-there is no evidence, and no factual support for a belief that God is required for this universe to be here

Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

Edited by Stile, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by GDR, posted 04-24-2020 6:25 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 347 of 523 (875542)
04-28-2020 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Phat
04-26-2020 2:57 PM


Re: Rereading earlier replies in this thread
Phat writes:

Rethinking about the basic differences in our respective thought processes. For believers, the evidence does not have to be (indeed likely is not) "evident" to whosoever studies it.

What you are referring to is the difference between "support" and "evidence."

It is a tricky subject, with many subtleties.
But the word "evidence" does have a meaning already... and it is not the same as "support."
Trying to mince the two together so that they mean the same thing removes the significance behind having a word such as "evidence" in the first place.

Support: This is the idea of a specific piece of information pointing towards a specific conclusion - but it disregards all other informaion.
Evidence: This is the idea that all the available information points towards a specific conclusion - you are no longer allowed to disregard other information if you're using the term "evidence."

The two terms are kind of confusion, here is an example to help show the differences:

The story of the Blind Men and the Elephant:

quote:
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.

Now, to talk about support vs. evidence.

At the point where each individual man only gets the information they are individually aware of... the "support" and "evidence" they receive are the same thing.

Touching the side and thinking the elephant is a wall.
-if this is the only information available, then this information supports the idea that the elephant is a wall and this information is also evidence that the elephant is a wall.

However, what if the men talk to each other? Or what if a sighted person comes along and discusses the full picture with them?
This is where the idea of "support" vs. "evidence" becomes clear.

Once all the information is available, the situation changes to this:

-Touching the side of the elephant is still information that "supports" the idea of the elephant being a wall
-However, this is no longer "evidence" of the elephant being a wall because there is more information available that does not align with the elephant being a wall (walls don't have trunks and tusks and tails and ears...)

Bringing it back to your statement:

or believers, the evidence does not have to be (indeed likely is not) "evident" to whosoever studies it.

What people are explaining to you:

"Evidence is always evident to everyone."
-this is referring to the elephant; the full picture

If believers cared enough to review all the information, then they would not be able to "choose" what is evident... there are never 2 (or more) possible answers to evidence. Evidence is always a single conclusion... or else it's not evidence. It's just support.

If believers do not care to review all the information, or purposefully ignore certain areas of knowledge... then they are left with "support" for their position.
All kinds of information exists that supports all kinds of different beliefs.

You just don't get to call it "evidence" unless you take an honest, all-information-available, encompassing position and look at it objectively.

If not - then we need another word: Super-evidence! that means "taking an honest, all-information-available, encompassing position."
But, in normal language, the word "evidence" is already used to refer to this "looking at all available information" idea.

The area you may want to focus on is this:
-conclusions based on past or current evidence can be misleading or incorrect.
-but, again, this is only confirmed/understood/known/identified by gaining more information... more support and then the conclusion of the "current evidence... now including the additional just-learned information" may be different from what was previously shown by the previous evidence.
-but this, if you accept it, is what we refer to as "Science."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Phat, posted 04-26-2020 2:57 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Phat, posted 05-01-2020 12:39 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 384 of 523 (875729)
05-04-2020 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by GDR
05-03-2020 8:26 PM


Plenty to gain
GDR writes:

There was nothing to be gained by fabricating the whole story but a great deal to be lost.

Who says they fabricated the whole story?
The greatest lies contain much truth.

There were also many things to be gained by fabricating the whole story, or parts of it:
-food, shelter
-money
-power
-respect

There was minimal to lose by fabricating the story, or parts of it:
-your life - but the likelihood of this was incredibly low - about the same risk of "losing your life" in almost all aspects of life, then.
-people may yell at you, so you just move on to the next town and try again

It's the same sort of risk assessment many snake-oil salesmen face throughout history.
Many still do it today (televangelists) - many things to be gained as well as a great deal to be lost.

They do it today.
They did it hundreds of years ago.
They did it thousands of years ago.

There have always been people who like to embellish storytelling in order to gain whatever-they-can from it.

I'm not trying to say "therefore, the Bible must be fake!"
I'm just trying to say that the line "There was nothing to be gained by fabricating the whole story but a great deal to be lost" is really a non-starter. Just think about it for a minute instead of making assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by GDR, posted 05-03-2020 8:26 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by GDR, posted 05-04-2020 2:15 PM Stile has responded
 Message 390 by GDR, posted 05-04-2020 7:21 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 396 of 523 (875752)
05-05-2020 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by GDR
05-04-2020 2:15 PM


Re: Plenty to gain
GDR writes:

If the feeding of the 5000 was a fabrication it would throw the whole Gospel into disrepute

It may be for you - and that is unfortunate.
But I don't think that's universally true.

I believe the feeding of the 5000 is a fabrication.
I do not throw the whole Gospel into disrepute - the Bible stories describe many good lessons.

The Christians of that era were counter cultural and persecuted.

Sure.

There wasn't money, prestige or power in what it was they were doing.

Of course there was.
Perhaps not "all the money" or "all the prestige" or "all the power" - but no one has that anyway
There certainly was money, and prestige, and power to be gained amongst the Christians of that era.
Perhaps not "to the level that GDR finds compelling" - but your position contains an obvious bias.
This doesn't mean the incentives did not exist at all.

My argument doesn't show that such incentives were definitively used, either.
We are too far removed from the situation to clearly understand what actual incentives were or were not used.
But to say these incentives did not exist, or could not possibly have been used - is just as silly as saying you are well aware of exactly what incentives were definitely used.
Such things are, unfortunately, lost to history.

They were being taught to give away their money, be humble and eschew the privileges of power which they didn't have anyway.

Just as all Christians today are being taught the same thing.
And we still have televangelists and other scammers.
Do you think such people didn't exist thousands of years ago?
That the early Christian movement was immune to the failures of human morality?
Now that's stretching the truth...

Their adversaries held all the power whether it be the Herodians, the Levites or the Romans.

No one in all of human history has ever held "all the power."
Your inclusion of such obviously false axioms in order to promote your belief is telling of the cracks that you're trying to pretend don't exist.

It is stronger to admit weaknesses that exist, and focus on the truth behind your strengths than it is to put up an impenetrable facade that is clearly permeable to anyone who takes more than a passing look.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by GDR, posted 05-04-2020 2:15 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by GDR, posted 05-05-2020 12:44 PM Stile has responded
 Message 403 by Phat, posted 05-05-2020 1:15 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 475 of 523 (876008)
05-11-2020 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by Phat
05-10-2020 2:55 PM


Re: Historical and/or Fiction
Phat writes:

The belief that I have that will annoy people the most is that not only is Jesus necessary for life, empathy, and love to even exist but that He will judge the humanists for professing themselves to be wise when they are, in fact off the mark. (no pun intended)

1. Following evidence is done because we know humans are stupid.
If we were wise - we wouldn't need evidence to show us what happens in this reality, we would already know it.
Everyone who follows the evidence is admitting that we are not wise - we are stupid and make stupid human mistakes - therefore, we need to follow evidence to be able to trust our knowledge about reality. Because, so far, evidence has shown us that it's the best method we are aware of to identify aspects of reality.

But, because we're stupid, we're completely open to any better "knowledge" systems.
All you have to do is beat evidence's track record.
If you can't do that, then, obviously, whatever you have is not "better."

It should be noted that you, yourself, also follow evidence for almost everything you do.
I take it you look both ways before crossing a street? Just like the rest of us stupid, mistake-prone humans.

2. You seem to be the only one professing to be wise and know "what is necessary" and "who will be judged" just because you know it - because Phat is so wise as to know what God is saying?

It's hypocritical.
Which can be annoying, but is mostly just sad.

Do you not understand that such a statement in itself is claiming to be the wisest of all - claiming to know the mind of God Himself without any possibility of human error?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Phat, posted 05-10-2020 2:55 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 476 of 523 (876011)
05-11-2020 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by GDR
05-05-2020 12:44 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
GDR writes:

Most of what Jesus taught was counter-cultural.

Was it?
I thought it's one of your major points that "the golden rule" (which is, really... "most of what Jesus taught...") is pretty much present in all cultures?

There were no atheists in their day.

I doubt that.

The History of Atheism wiki says "Philosophical atheist thought began to appear in Europe and Asia in the sixth or fifth century BCE."

Just because something isn't popular - doesn't mean it didn't exist.

As far as the incentive to raise the funds go I think that we can simply look at the life style of Paul. He moved around constantly, was driven out of many communities with his life often being threatened, as while as being alienated from the culture and beliefs that he had grown up with and had been strongly committed to.

Yet he did get food and water and shelter by "followers" everywhere he went.
Sounds like incentive to me.
As much incentive as anyone ever has... travel, accommodations, food, friends...

I never said they were all instant sultans.

I understand you don't want them to have any other incentive - that's clear.
And I'm also not saying I know what their incentive was.

But to say that you do know exactly what their incentive was, for sure, and that no other incentive could possibly exist - that's also clearly false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by GDR, posted 05-05-2020 12:44 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by GDR, posted 05-11-2020 5:16 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 477 of 523 (876014)
05-11-2020 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Phat
05-05-2020 1:15 PM


Re: Plenty to gain
Phat writes:

he failures of human morality exist in all cultures and at all times.

I'm glad you agree with me - this is what I was saying.

If you want to stay consistent in your acknowledgment of the failures of human morality, you would do well to look the gift horse of global humanism in the mouth and see it for what it really is.

You seem to suggest that I think Global Humanism is immune to the failures of human morality?
Why would you think that?

I'm the one saying the failures of human morality exist everywhere...

The rest of your post is... really strange, and seemingly irrelevant. Let me know if the Roman Catholic Church refuses to name another Pope after Francis. Until then... the prophecy of "only two more popes after JPII" is equivalent to "there will be thousands more popes after JPII."

But then, in order to do that you would have to acknowledge that humanity will never move forward without Holy Communion with God (through Jesus) and this is the sticking point that believers and non-believers will; forever remain stuck at.

I think humanity can easily move forward with or without Holy Communion with God (through Jesus.)
It doesn't seem to add much, or even exist at all.

I progressed just fine without it, anyway.
Why wouldn't others be able to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Phat, posted 05-05-2020 1:15 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 482 of 523 (876041)
05-12-2020 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 478 by GDR
05-11-2020 5:16 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
GDR writes:

I think that we can have a fairly good understanding of their incentive. Say I had been a follower of Jesus 2000 years ago. Suddenly this man I had been a disciple of is humiliating crucified by the Romans. Obviously a messiah can't be crucified by the enemy so I come to the realization that Jesus was simply a failed messiah. However a couple of days later Jesus shows up again but He is different some how. He has been resurrected and tells us that we are to spread His message, as confirmed by God with the resurrection, to the nations. That seems to me to be the likely incentive.

And let's say that none of that actually happened.
Doesn't the story seem a bit more enticing than 'nothing at all?'

That seems like a very likely incentive as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by GDR, posted 05-11-2020 5:16 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by GDR, posted 05-12-2020 12:23 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 488 of 523 (876100)
05-12-2020 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by GDR
05-12-2020 12:23 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
GDR writes:

Firstly who would believe it unless there was considerable support from a large group of eye witnesses.

Anyone who believed there was a large group of eye witnesses. Regardless of whether or not such eye witness accounts actually occurred.

Again... I'm not saying it "was" fabricated.

But it's obvious that it could have been fabricated.
And your arguments to the contrary are easily discarded in the face of what people are capable of in reality.

Such fabrications (purposefully or not) still happen today.
And people still believe in them today. What do you think "Fake News" is all about? 2 different stories about the same event... one must be fabricated (purposefully or not.) Yet there are always plenty of people who believe both sides.
And we have the internet and plenty of tools to investigate and do fact checking that were completely unavailable back then.

To imply such fabrications would be impossible... when they still happen today, with all the tools now available to us... is pretty silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by GDR, posted 05-12-2020 12:23 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by GDR, posted 05-12-2020 3:10 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 491 of 523 (876105)
05-12-2020 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by GDR
05-12-2020 3:10 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
GDR writes:

I'm not sure why you would say that.

You said: "Firstly who would believe it unless there was considerable support from a large group of eye witnesses."

That, to me, implies a rhetorical question with the answer being: "If the eye witnesses didn't exist - then no one would have believed the story and the Christian religion would have fizzled before it began."

Therefore, my response "To imply such fabrications would be impossible..."

That being said, however, I understand if I mis-read your implications and took your reasoning to a level you did not intend.

I have simply claimed that it is less likely to be a fabrication, than that they got it essentially correct for the reasons that I have given.

Sounds good to me.
Of course, I disagree. Especially about the "essentially correct" part - for the reasons I have given.

But such is the never-ending discussion and fun


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by GDR, posted 05-12-2020 3:10 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by GDR, posted 05-12-2020 8:13 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 503 of 523 (876209)
05-14-2020 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by GDR
05-12-2020 8:13 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
GDR writes:

I don't see how anyone can read the NT without realizing that the authors firmly believed the eye witnesses, and it is generally conceded that the Gospel of John was written by an eye witness, either John son of Zebedee or John the Elder and probably the latter.

I actually agree with this.

I just go a few more steps.

With this information, and the following:
-how (un)reliable we know eye witnesses are
-how reality-ignoring we understand religions can be
-how "my-way-or-the-high-way" we understand religions can be
-how we know the speed of which the hope of "a saviour" can flourish through an oppressed population
-everything we know about mob-mentality
-everything we know about history's ability (or lack-of) for "fact-checking"
-everything we know about story-telling
-everything we know about how stories-to-embellishment-to-myths were major/popular historical tools
-everything we know about how the game "telephone" works

...how can anyone read anything in the Bible (or any other ancient religious or even folk-lore-related text) and say "Yup - this happened, no doubt."

I understand this doesn't show "it didn't happen."
But to be convinced it did happen - with all we know about how humans operate - pushes the boundaries of credibility (for me.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by GDR, posted 05-12-2020 8:13 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by GDR, posted 05-14-2020 3:26 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 517 of 523 (876465)
05-20-2020 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by GDR
05-14-2020 3:26 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
GDR writes:

Some of the accounts around the resurrection are inconsistent, but there is no disagreement about their assertion that the resurrection happened.

And whenever a group of adults gets around a Ouija board... they all agree that "something supernatural" happened.
(The doors slammed when no one moved them / the vase fell and broke on it's own / the voices were real / no one was actually moving the slider ...)
Even though it did not.

Do you think a $15 piece of cardboard you can buy from Wall Mart is a portal to the supernatural dimension and skeptics just haven't caught on to it yet?

Eye witnesses can be correct - sure.
But they can also be incorrect - even about the general idea they "all agree on."

That's why eye-witnesses are considered extremely unreliable.

As you agreed, they believed that God had resurrected Jesus, and it would be something very difficult to believe without having overwhelming evidence.

Exactly.
But it's quite easy (and fits the mold) for making up a great story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by GDR, posted 05-14-2020 3:26 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by GDR, posted 05-20-2020 3:33 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 519 of 523 (876512)
05-21-2020 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by GDR
05-20-2020 3:33 PM


Re: It is about sacrificial love
GDR writes:

Name me one person who has based their life on what came from a Ouija board.

You say the resurrection happened.
I doubt it.

You then claim that eye witnesses are reliable support for it because "anyone seeing a car accident may not remember the details - but the car accident occurred."
I counter this with "many can play with a Ouija board and agree that something supernatural happened - even though nothing supernatural actually did."

My idea of Ouija boards is not supposed to show that the Resurrection didn't happen.

My idea of Ouija boards is to say that your claim of "the car accident actually happened" is not sufficient to show that eye witnesses are reliable, even for the major details.

Sure if there is only one or even two eye witnesses. In this case there were numerous eye witnesses.

Hundreds/thousands of eye witnesses have been known to be incorrect about claimed occurrences of the supernatural - the Ouija board is only one simple example.
Think of things like psychic entertainment shows, or haunted house conventions...
In fact, where eye witnesses are concerned - sometimes mob mentality travels easier in larger crowds - and then higher numbers of people claiming the same thing means even less, not more support.

GDR writes:

There is no motivation for making it up.

We've been over this already:

GDR writes:

Stile writes:

Yet he did get food and water and shelter by "followers" everywhere he went.
Sounds like incentive to me.
As much incentive as anyone ever has... travel, accommodations, food, friends...

I never said they were all instant sultans.

I understand you don't want them to have any other incentive - that's clear.
And I'm also not saying I know what their incentive was.

But to say that you do know exactly what their incentive was, for sure, and that no other incentive could possibly exist - that's also clearly false.

Well, in reading ancient history we can see that there were certainly disincentives, starting with the stoning of Stephen.

Message 478

There are motivations for making it up.
There are motivations for not making it up.

You think the not-making-it-up motivations are obviously greater.
I disagree.

That's the whole point we're discussing - you don't get to simply claim that everything I've already said doesn't exist. It does exist - you can review the posts, if you'd like.

Look what happened to Stephen. He would have been an eye witness. He suffered a torturous death rather than saying - ya ok we were only kidding.

Many other people following many other religions (that don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ) have also died torturous deaths instead of saying they were kidding about there non-resurrection-including religions.
Many others have died for totally non-religious reasons that also turn out to be incorrect (wars for terrible, stupid, created reasons...)

Does that lend evidence that the Bible is wrong and we need to do a body count?

Or, as I say, is it possible for people to die-for/promote/support "great/big ideas" that are not entirely correct about reality?

Not only that, if they had made it up it isn't at all what they would have come up with.

Coming back from the dead isn't a good enough "hook" for you?
Strange - it seems rather large to me.

Not only that they would have shown themselves in a much more positive light.

Not if they wanted to sound realistic.
Characters always seem more realistic if they are not in such a "more positive light."

It's gotten so bad in popular fan fiction, there's even a meme to make fun of it: called a Mary Sue.

I think people who told stories almost all the time would be able to identify that painting too much of a "positive light" comes off as unrealistic.
It's a fairly basic concept.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by GDR, posted 05-20-2020 3:33 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by GDR, posted 05-21-2020 5:35 PM Stile has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020