Why Bother??

pinksoir

I read this forum pretty much everytime I'm on the internet, but only comment when I feel I can add something to discussions. It's really interesting and very entertaining. But for a long time it was extremely aggrevating, especially when reading arguments from theists as to why they believe what they do.

I, like the majority of people on this forum (probably), started out life as a Christian. I was brought up by fairly bohemian parents, but attended a Protestant choir school and sang to God in a beautiful cathedral every day of the week except Saturday,and twice on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays, for eight years. I used to love it and was a good Christian boy. But as I got older i began to question my beliefs, though a lot of the time they were fleeting concerns. For a long time I just ignored any possibility other than God. But I studied philosophy in university and that opened my eyes to a lot. After my degree I became very interested in cosmology and then subsequently biology. I read a lot on both subjects, still do in fact, and feel I have a pretty good grasp on various scientific theories. Enough with the life story anyway!

The point of this post is to ask "why bother trying to convince someone who is so steadfast in their belief, as many of the Christians who post here obviously are, that their belief is unfounded and incorrect?"

After I began frequenting this forum I would spend a good few nights trying to get to sleep attempting to understand how people can hold such steadfast beliefs despite all the evidence that points to a much more elequent explanation than 'Gad done it'. The fact is that any believers I do know are more or less completely unversed in any science, and they have no desire to educate themselves.

One such episode sums it up nicely: I was in a bar with some school friends and a few of us were discussing the origins of the universe and we were getting into a quite heated discussion over alternative theories when a Christian friend of mine piped up with "this is why it's much easier to believe in God." Needless to say the discussion came to an abrupt halt.

I always assumed that theists always knew, deep down, that what they believed was untrue. It's just so obvious when you have read the relevent information.

But then the other night I was out in a friends house. He has been reading a lot of Michael Tsarions work and, for some reason he buys into it. And every time that we go over to his house he brings up all of Tsarion's whackjob theories. But the thing is he really believes this stuff. And no matter how much myself and others, some of whom have degrees and masters in science, try to explain to him about established scientific theories, especially evolution, he does not budge on his position. He has not read anything about evolution and his understanding of it is much like the simplistic one shown on various creationist websites. His arguments against it usually boil down to "yeah, but its just a theory", "your so close-minded", "you can't ignore the facts" and other generic gems. The funny thing is that one time he put on a video courtesy of the good people at Liberty University to try and justify that belief. Nuff said!

The funny thing is that ideas such as extraterrestrially guided evolution by way of gene manipulation is a lot more plausable on the surface than theism is. It's at least possible that some alien race has evolved so far as to be capable of such things. Though there is absolutely no evidence for it in our genes as any biologist would tell you.

The strange thing is that he is an intelligent person. As are my Christian friends. The thing that they have in common is the fact that they have not taken the time to educate themselves in science. They have a remedial idea of evolution and are more or less ignorant of any cosmological theories. Which leads me to believe that intelligence is insufficient unless you bother to educate yourself. And further more that you can choose to believe something but cannot choose not to believe something. Sounds oxymoronic, I know, but the thing is, if you educate yourself it is nearly impossible to cast aside the things you learn and which make logical sense such as evolution, in favour of religion. Whereas it is much easier to choose not to educate yourself and test your beliefs, that is to say to choose to believe.

Which leads me back to the question "why bother trying to convince someone who is so steadfast in their belief, as many of the Christians who post here obviously are, that their belief is unfounded and incorrect?". Especially since the people you are trying to convince have no interest in reading about any of the things of which you are trying to convince them.

The other night in my Tsarion-minded friend's house did it for me. I finally realised that some people want (or choose) to believe so much that anything you say will be ignored and their belief rationalised in their own minds despite the evidence that is accessible by all.

"This is why it's much easier to believe in God." It's true, ignorance is bliss. In many ways I was happier when I believed in God. Or perhaps it was that I was a child...

Sorry about the long post.

cheers,
Karl.

Scofflaw

I agree with you almost entirely - there's little point in trying to persuade those for whom belief is more important than reason. I'm not even sure that persuading someone out of their faith is a positive step.

However, as I'm sure you're aware, believers are rather prone to making outrageous claims as to how facts and/or science supports their belief.

Most people who are not trained in science cannot distinguish between science and pseudoscience, and the last thing we need is for believers to further muddy the waters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

pinksoir wrote:

"This is why it's much easier to believe in God." It's true, ignorance is bliss. In many ways I was happier when I believed in God. Or perhaps it was that I was a child...

Sorry about the long post.

cheers,
Karl.

Very nice post Karl, you should do it more often:)

pinksoir

Yes, and you're right of course, it is very important for those with scientific knowledge to represent science to the best of their ability. I in no way claim to be an expert in any particular science but I do have a good understanding of the important theories, as do many of the posters on this forum.

It just seems that nearly every debate/discussion turns out to be an exercise in convincing a believer that their beliefs are wrong. But the important thing to remember is that, unless someone wants to analyse or critically assess their beliefs, the excersise is pointless. I mean the question in my post to be taken in the least facetious and/or rhetorical way possible; what does arguing with a brick wall achieve?

Perhaps a rather simplistic analogy of theism versus atheism isthat of a terminally ill patient. Atheists, given the choice would rather know the truth, that they were going to die, and theists would rather not know. All the evidence and facts are there and readily available, what one wishes to do with those facts is entirely up to themselves...

cheers,
Karl.

pinksoir

Asiaprod wrote:

Very nice post Karl, you should do it more often:)

Thanks. I do read this forum religiously (if you'll pardon the terminology) but more often than not what responses or input I could give to any particular discussion have been put forward already by the regulars. And then some!!

I have really learned a lot from this forum. A quality read!

rockbeer

Yes, great post Karl. I ask myself the same almost every time I get sucked in to one of *those* discussions. I'm new to A&A but have pursued many a lost cause in other chat rooms.

TBH it's often the ignorance and closed-mindedness that believers demonstrate about their own religions that drags me in.

Having studied a certain amount of history, I often find that I know more about christianity than it's proponents, and I can't seem to resist taking issue with their factual mistakes and presumptions.

I realize that I should know better by now

I'm like you though - most of what I want to contribute has already been said faster, better and more succinctly by others.

pH

I think that if people's religious beliefs where purely private matters then there would be little point. However Ireland has a long (and sad in my opinion) history of social oppression based on the beliefs of the majority religion.

Magdalen Laundries, access to contraception and family planning, persecution of homosexuals etc.

Still today we see episodes like the 'D' abortion case, a situation inextricably linked with religious faith. Access to films, literature, when we can shop and when we can drink are still today curtailed by faith based pressure.

The power that faith based groups wield is primarily due to their numbers, the less people who publicly profess this faith the less power it has. Its numbers are dwindling and less and less do public officials turn to church authorities for advice (or even Permission) on social policy, but to some extent it is still happening in Ireland today.

So we have one of two options, attempt to change these faiths' positions on these social matters (which given they have written rules from God is unlikely) or try in every possible way to erode their base, so that the Catholic Church's position on abortion will mean exactly as much as Scientology's position on psychology.

I really have no problem with groups of people getting together on the Sabbath to sing hymns and pray to their God. I have a problem with them trying to tell me not just how to live my life, but attempting to make me a criminal because I do things they they believe their God has proscribed.

pinksoir

@rockbeer - I also have a keen interest in the historical bases of Christianity. Everything from the written records of Jesus in Buddhist texts, to archaeological evidence, to the reliability of the gospels as a source of historical fact. One of the most interesting things is the space of time between Jesus' 'death' (which of course there is much debate over. There is evidence that he in fact died in Kashmir years after his official biblical death and resurrection) and the first written record, which was at least 20 years. Plenty of time for exaggeration and manipulation for agenda's then.

My equation is this:
Jesus' death
+ years between that and letters of Paul
= “Well, one fella came close. Went by the name of Homer. Seven feet tall he was, with arms like tree trunks. His eyes were like steel, cold, hard. Had a shock of hair, red like the fires of Hell.”

@pH - those are valid arguments against a faith-based state as opposed to a secular one, but arguing with someone over the merits of their religious beliefs is still a waste of time unless they are willing to analyse and critically assess their beliefs. People will always rationalise what they want to rationalise.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I think that if people's religious beliefs where purely private matters then there would be little point. However Ireland has a long (and sad in my opinion) history of social oppression based on the beliefs of the majority religion.

Magdalen Laundries, access to contraception and family planning, persecution of homosexuals etc.

Still today we see episodes like the 'D' abortion case, a situation inextricably linked with religious faith. Access to films, literature, when we can shop and when we can drink are still today curtailed by faith based pressure.

The power that faith based groups wield is primarily due to their numbers, the less people who publicly profess this faith the less power it has. Its numbers are dwindling and less and less do public officials turn to church authorities for advice (or even Permission) on social policy, but to some extent it is still happening in Ireland today.

So we have one of two options, attempt to change these faiths' positions on these social matters (which given they have written rules from God is unlikely) or try in every possible way to erode their base, so that the Catholic Church's position on abortion will mean exactly as much as Scientology's position on psychology.

I really have no problem with groups of people getting together on the Sabbath to sing hymns and pray to their God. I have a problem with them trying to tell me not just how to live my life, but attempting to make me a criminal because I do things they they believe their God has proscribed.

Well put.

I think there's some good to be gained from giving the believer a little measure of doubt, even if you haven't changed their mind. If there's no challenge, then heterodoxy becomes unthinkable.

Secularism - the idea that public life should not be controlled by religion - is always worth arguing for. Doubt and heterodoxy are keys to secularising the believer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not even sure that persuading someone out of their faith is a positive step.

I completely agree with this. It is something that one must tackle on one's own, should they choose to. Life, existence and the universe are so infinitely fascinating and there is so much to try to understand. Personally, I hope that by the end of my life I will have as good an understanding of the three as is possible (among many other things, but most of all). But of course everybody's values and hopes differ.

Call me a Nietzschean, but it just seems such a shame to see people settle for a life of mediocrity because their faith prescribes it. Meek inheriting the earth and all that!

Zillah

I have a very powerful urge to attack poorly built arguments, be it politics, morals or philosophy. Most theist have very badly constructed positions so I find myself attacking them a lot.

Theist positions are often based on misconceptions (life had to come from somewhere) and lies (being an Atheist means you have no morals), both of which are fairly easy to set straight.

Finally, I think most believers behave entirely logically given their beliefs. If a Christian thinks God wants him to treat homosexuals like second class citizens then it is entirely logical for him to do so. If a Muslim thinks God wants him to die attacking Western Imperialists then it is entirely logical to do so. Hence, if I want to condemn such actions I must also condemn the beliefs that breed them. It is a very irrational position to say "I accept and respect your belief in God and the Bible but I expect you to not act on it."



Regardless, the ignorance bred belief is very easy for me to understand, I was a confused child once. Confusion breeds error. What seems alien to me are the people who, despite being well educated and intelligent, despite having a thorough understanding of evolution, cosmology, geology etc, despite all that, they still maintain, truly and deeply, that the world is 5000 years old and that all humans come from Adam and Eve. To me that is nothing short of insane.

Zillah

Zillah wrote:

I have a very powerful urge to attack poorly built arguments, be it politics, morals or philosophy. Most theist have very badly constructed positions so I find myself attacking them a lot.

I wouldn't say "most" but yeah it's the bad argument I argue about.
If I find atheists making stupid arguments/claims, I'll call them on that too.

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

I wouldn't say "most" but yeah it's the bad argument I argue about.
If I find atheists making stupid arguments/claims, I'll call them on that too.

Lots of material for you to get your teeth into on this forum then.

PDN

PDN wrote:

Lots of material for you to get your teeth into on this forum then.

I mainly had gaiaonline.com in mind, I like the regular posters in christianity here

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

rofl

sorry for the slightly OT post but I just had to say, bluewolf.. awesome sig

truly fantastic, if I was wearing a hat I'd tip it in your direction.

--edit

you mind if I steal it?

da_deadman

Scofflaw wrote:

I agree with you almost entirely - there's little point in trying to persuade those for whom belief is more important than reason. I'm not even sure that persuading someone out of their faith is a positive step.

I agree with this idea too. To persuade someone out of their faith could leave them psychology and spiritually weak as it may have been a step that they were not ready for. They may look for quick, easy answers as opposed to finding something that satisfies them personally.

Reading other threads in this forum about how people became atheists it is often something that just happens in their own head. Something (or more than just one thing) will not make sense and you’ll question it with yourself. This may set the ball rolling and lead towards atheism.

Pinksoir wrote:

I do read this forum religiously (if you'll pardon the terminology) but more often than not what responses or input I could give to any particular discussion have been put forward already by the regulars. And then some!!

I have really learned a lot from this forum. A quality read!

Yes that about sums it up for me too. I’ll start reading a thread and start getting own ideas for a response and then I’ll read that some of the A&A regulars have beaten me to it (which is usually a good thing because some of the people here have a much better knowledge of science and philosophy than I do).

PDN wrote:

Lots of material for you to get your teeth into on this forum then.

LOL = PDN: 1 – Atheists: 0

Mordeth

Mordeth wrote:

rofl

sorry for the slightly OT post but I just had to say, bluewolf.. awesome sig

truly fantastic, if I was wearing a hat I'd tip it in your direction.

--edit

you mind if I steal it?

thank you, go ahead

pinksoir

Scofflaw wrote:

I think there's some good to be gained from giving the believer a little measure of doubt, even if you haven't changed their mind. If there's no challenge, then heterodoxy becomes unthinkable.

He he! Sew seeds of doubt with the hope that at least one will grow into a tree of knowledge?

Zillah wrote:

Finally, I think most believers behave entirely logically given their beliefs. If a Christian thinks God wants him to treat homosexuals like second class citizens then it is entirely logical for him to do so. If a Muslim thinks God wants him to die attacking Western Imperialists then it is entirely logical to do so. Hence, if I want to condemn such actions I must also condemn the beliefs that breed them. It is a very irrational position to say "I accept and respect your belief in God and the Bible but I expect you to not act on it."

It's a tired example, but the Westboro Baptist church receives the same amount of respect from me as any other sect. Indeed they believe wholeheartedly that they are the only true Christians and this can be supported by reference to the Bible.. Everything that they preach or do can be supported by the Bible. It may go against the common ethical feeling of the majority of people, even, and probably especially, other Christians, but at the end of the day it's as valid an interpretation of the Bible as the next one. And I can't see how one sect can claim to have the right interpretation over another purely based on equally unfounded personal (or group) belief.

Zillah

bluewolf wrote:

I wouldn't say "most" but yeah it's the bad argument I argue about.

Well...considering they're theists I'd say that by definition their position is quite weak. With any given example I could explain why. I'm an atheist, which means I've never encountered a good argument for God.

karen3212

I for one am very glad that people argue against belief without evidence/data.

I want people to push more for science and data based policies.

I mean rather that just instinctive reactions: for example that they would look first on the data on the effects on the mother or society for abortion/unwanted pregnancies in the miss D case. I would much rather people use evidence for all policy than any God based theories.

I don't comment very often, I'm still woking on finding data for opinions I have on countries with large atheist societies, but it is hard to find or compare countries who have hugely different natural resources.

PDN

pinksoir wrote:

My equation is this:
Jesus' death
+ years between that and letters of Paul
= “Well, one fella came close. Went by the name of Homer. Seven feet tall he was, with arms like tree trunks. His eyes were like steel, cold, hard. Had a shock of hair, red like the fires of Hell.”.

I love the reasoning. Let's see, Paul's first epistle (Galatians) was written about 48AD, that would make it 19 years after the death of Christ. We also know that Paul spent a good bit of time hanging out with the guys who had been Christ's constant companions for the last 3 years of His life.

So, this would be the equivalent of me talking to people who had witnessed a major event in 1988 - let's say the plane that blew up over Lockerbie. I would expect that they were still capable of giving a fairly accurate account of what they saw and heard.

However, if your reasoning is of comfort to you ...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

elvis died not too long ago, and there are already a large number of people who believe, sincerely that he is not dead despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Does that sound at all familiar?

We have many advantages over the people of jesus's day, not the least of which is photographic evidence of elvis's corpse, medical records, media coverage etc. Most people in america today are somewhat literate, so they can see the evidence for elvis being dead.. they just choose not to accept it.

thousands of people visit graceland every year on a... well, let's call it a pilgramige. They revere elvis, he is referred to as the 'king'. Not the king of rock and roll, just 'the king'.

ring any bells at all?

Dades

Nice OP pinksior.

PDN, when are around for an A/A forum meetup. It would make so much more worthwhile.

I love this forum recently.

PDN

Mordeth wrote:

elvis died not too long ago, and there are already a large number of people who believe, sincerely that he is not dead despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Does that sound at all familiar?

We have many advantages over the people of jesus's day, not the least of which is photographic evidence of elvis's corpse, medical records, media coverage etc. Most people in america today are somewhat literate, so they can see the evidence for elvis being dead.. they just choose not to accept it.

thousands of people visit graceland every year on a... well, let's call it a pilgramige. They revere elvis, he is referred to as the 'king'. Not the king of rock and roll, just 'the king'.

ring any bells at all?

Of course the time gap between Elvis' death and today is already 11 years longer than the time gap between Christ's death and Paul's first epistle.

One big difference, of course, is that the followers of Jesus were absolutely adamant as to the fact that He did die. It was His opponents who spread the story that He hadn't really died, because the evidence of His post-Resurrection appearances were so widely believed by the general population (this was not years later, but actually at the time).

Your Elvis argument by analogy would only hold true on the following conditions:
a) The followers of Elvis admitted freely that he was truly dead.
b) The civic authorities in Memphis felt that the reports of Elvis appearing after his death were so credible that they could not be denied. Therefore they spread the story that Elvis didn't really die and that the doctor and photographers were either crazy or bribed to tell lies.
c) Elvis appeared after his death to 500 people at one time. A record of this appearance (1 Corinthians Chapter 15) was published and widely distributed while the majority of those alleged witnesses were still alive, making it easy for them to contradict the report if it were untrue.
d) Not only were the followers of Elvis prepared to say that they had seen him alive after his supposed death, but they stuck to their story even when mercilessly tortured and even executed.

If all the above were true then I think we would be all shook up.

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

Nice OP pinksior.

PDN, when are around for an A/A forum meetup. It would make so much more worthwhile.

I love this forum recently.

Sounds like a lynch mob to me.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Sounds like a lynch mob to me.

I'm sure you'll be given every opportunity and, er, encouragement to recant

Asiaprod

PDN wrote:

Sounds like a lynch mob to me.

Nope, strictly a nails and wood job:D

*no offense:)*

pinksoir

PDN wrote:

I love the reasoning. Let's see, Paul's first epistle (Galatians) was written about 48AD, that would make it 19 years after the death of Christ. We also know that Paul spent a good bit of time hanging out with the guys who had been Christ's constant companions for the last 3 years of His life.

So, this would be the equivalent of me talking to people who had witnessed a major event in 1988 - let's say the plane that blew up over Lockerbie. I would expect that they were still capable of giving a fairly accurate account of what they saw and heard.

However, if your reasoning is of comfort to you ...

I was being facetious of course.

pinksoir

PDN wrote:

It was His opponents who spread the story that He hadn't really died, because the evidence of His post-Resurrection appearances were so widely believed by the general population (this was not years later, but actually at the time).

But how do you know this? (Without using the Bible for evidence as that would be what's being contested). Roman records?

PDN

Many historians readily accept the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and Caesar. Plato wrote between 427-347 B.C., with our earliest copies of his works dating from the 900s (1200 year span), of which 7 copies have survived. Aristotle wrote between 384-322 B.C., and his earliest works are dated from the 1100s (1400 year span), with 49 surviving copies. Thucydides wrote around 460-400 B.C.; our copies of his works are from the 900s (1300 year span), with 8 copies in existence. Caesar's life was chronicled from 100-44 B.C. Our earliest copies of the chronicles of Julius Caesar date from the 900s (1000 years) and we have 10 surviving copies.

The New Testament, on the other hand, was written between 40-100 AD and our earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the 130s (less than 100 years) and we have 5000 Greek copies, 10,000 Latin copies and 9300 copies in other languages.

karen3212

PDN wrote:

Many historians readily accept the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and Caesar. Plato wrote between 427-347 B.C., with our earliest copies of his works dating from the 900s (1200 year span), of which 7 copies have survived. Aristotle wrote between 384-322 B.C., and his earliest works are dated from the 1100s (1400 year span), with 49 surviving copies. Thucydides wrote around 460-400 B.C.; our copies of his works are from the 900s (1300 year span), with 8 copies in existence. Caesar's life was chronicled from 100-44 B.C. Our earliest copies of the chronicles of Julius Caesar date from the 900s (1000 years) and we have 10 surviving copies.

The New Testament, on the other hand, was written between 40-100 AD and our earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the 130s (less than 100 years) and we have 5000 Greek copies, 10,000 Latin copies and 9300 copies in other languages.

Oh wow, I always thought we had some kind of original bible pages somewhere.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

The New Testament, on the other hand, was written between 40-100 AD and our earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the 130s (less than 100 years) and we have 5000 Greek copies, 10,000 Latin copies and 9300 copies in other languages.

I have heard that alright.
I think that is only fragments of the manuscripts of the New Testament? Is it not?
Can you elaborate?
A link would be nice and or link to book would be good.
Regards

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have heard that alright.
I think that is only fragments of the manuscripts of the New Testament? Is it not?
Can you elaborate?
A link would be nice and or link to book would be good.
Regards

Yes, the earliest portions are, not surprisingly when we consider the centuries that have passed, fragments.

The Bodmer Papyrus (c.200AD) contains 14 full chapters from John's Gospel.

The Chester Beatty Papyri, (200-250AD) contain considerable portions of many New Testament books. You can go and see them since they are in Dublin.

Here is an excellent chapter by FF Bruce: http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The New Testament, on the other hand, was written between 40-100 AD and our earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the 130s (less than 100 years) and we have 5000 Greek copies, 10,000 Latin copies and 9300 copies in other languages.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the New Testament describes various "miracles" including a human being rising from the dead (though no one actually saw this happen).

Its like comparing Uri Gellers website website with the Irish Times.

It always puzzled me why the "Well these people were actually there" argument is used as proof all this happened. How many fantastical things are reported every day in the tabloids, from claims by real people who "were there"? Do we believe them? Of course not.

Would you ask Tom Cruise if L. Ron Hubbard was the real deal?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the New Testament describes various "miracles" including a human being rising from the dead (though no one actually saw this happen).

Its like comparing Uri Gellers website website with the Irish Times.

It always puzzled me why the "Well these people were actually there" argument is used as proof all this happened. How many fantastical things are reported every day in the tabloids, from claims by real people who "were there"? Do we believe them? Of course not.

Would you ask Tom Cruise if L. Ron Hubbard was the real deal?

If Tom Cruise believed it enough to suffer torture and execution then I might listen a bit more closely.

Of course if you want to object to the reliability of the New Testament on the grounds that you have a predisposition to reject the concept of miracles then that is a perfectly permissible argument. I, of course, was specifically addressing the very different point about the alleged time lag between Christ's life and the biblical accounts of that life. I don't blame you for wanting to switch the focus from that particular issue.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

...
so you lend credence to the beliefs of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 that they will go to heaven and be given 72 virgins? and all the suicide bombers who believe the same thing?

just because people are willing to die or suffer for their beliefs is not a good reason to believe they are in any way correct. all it shows is their fanatacism.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

If Tom Cruise believed it enough to suffer torture and execution then I might listen a bit more closely.

Why?

I've no doubt that Tom Cruise does believe strongly in Scientology. That doesn't mean it is true.

Plenty of people down the years have suffered terrible torture and death for beliefs they hold.

But that is only evidence that they believed them, not that their beliefs were true. In fact they could not be all true, since most religions contradict each other.

PDN wrote:

Of course if you want to object to the reliability of the New Testament on the grounds that you have a predisposition to reject the concept of miracles then that is a perfectly permissible argument.

I would hope most people have a predisposition to reject miracles.

PDN wrote:

I, of course, was specifically addressing the very different point about the alleged time lag between Christ's life and the biblical accounts of that life.

Considering that false rumors about people like refugee's can appear days after an incident, 40+ years I think is long enough for an entire mythology to grow up around one man, particularly with the people who are interested in worshiping him as a savor

PDN wrote:

I don't blame you for wanting to switch the focus from that particular issue.

I only bring it up because you seem to be saying "No no, look Paul knew people who knew Jesus"

My response to that would be "And....?"

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

pinksoir wrote:

But how do you know this? (Without using the Bible for evidence as that would be what's being contested). Roman records?

Many historians readily accept the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and Caesar. Plato wrote between 427-347 B.C., with our earliest copies of his works dating from the 900s (1200 year span), of which 7 copies have survived. Aristotle wrote between 384-322 B.C., and his earliest works are dated from the 1100s (1400 year span), with 49 surviving copies. Thucydides wrote around 460-400 B.C.; our copies of his works are from the 900s (1300 year span), with 8 copies in existence. Caesar's life was chronicled from 100-44 B.C. Our earliest copies of the chronicles of Julius Caesar date from the 900s (1000 years) and we have 10 surviving copies.

The New Testament, on the other hand, was written between 40-100 AD and our earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the 130s (less than 100 years) and we have 5000 Greek copies, 10,000 Latin copies and 9300 copies in other languages.

Without wishing to rain on the parade - no-one disputes that the New Testament was written. What is at issue is accuracy and corroboration. The facts detailed by those accepted as 'historical' writers are not accepted as facts merely because they are found in their writing. Caesar's work, for example, was definitely written as propaganda, and contains heavy elements of spin along with, probably, some outright lies. Plato and Aristotle's works could be by entirely different people without reducing their value.

The corroboration for the New Testament life of Jesus, both in terms of contemporary literature, and in archaeological terms, is extremely weak.

The reference by Josephus is disputed, and strongly looks like a later interpolation. The reference by Tacitus is very brief, and repeats only that 'Christ' was the founder of the Christian sect, and put to death by Pilate - which is almost certainly simply what Tacitus was told by Christians, since he has Pilate's title incorrect. Suetonius' reference is only a reference to a 'Chrestus', who he refers to in the present tense in Nero's reign.

Undoubtedly, we have evidence for Christians, and undoubtedly we have evidence that the New Testament was written quite early. However, it is possible today to still find first-imprint copies of L. Ron Hubbard's works, and we certainly know there are Scientologists, but that doesn't make Scientology any more accurate.

Would I really consider accurate accounts of the life of someone who lived in the early years of the 20th century, written in the 1980's using the 'eye-witness' recollections of his aging followers? Not really, unless there was a lot of independent corroboration - particularly if the claims made were extraordinary in any way.

There's no corroboration from Roman records of the life of Jesus as recorded by the New Testament. Not only that, but the NT accounts themselves are contradictory, and appear to have been written to suit different purposes at different times in the early Church.

cordially,
Scofflaw