Earl

NOMAD: All that we know is what DID happen, and in the span of less than 300 years Christianity went from a small religious sect within Judaism, to taking over the greatest Empire in the hisory of the Western World.

OMNEDON 1: Still kicking this theory around, Nomad?

For those of you who don't know, last spring/summer Nomad (taking his cue from some xtian writer) tried to claim that the rapid rise of xtianity in the Roman Empire demonstrated something about the veracity of its claims. He was soundly pummeled for making such a connection, and for not being able to answer the objections that others raised to such a preposterous claim.

But now, a little time has gone by. And what do we see?

Evidently he's dusting off this old hobbyhorse, and is preparing to ride it for us again.

EARL: Howdy all. I haven't posted in a long while and I have time only for a quick post. I noticed this thread has gone over a number of themes that others have debated with Nomad numerous times. Evidently few of the participants changed their views as a result of these debates.

Many moons ago I debated Nomad on the miraculous early success of the Church. See <a href="http://ii-f.ws/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=28&t=000048&p=4" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=28&t=000048&p=4</a> .

See also page 5 of that thread. I also see that Nomad recommends people read our debate on the empty tomb <a href="http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000195" target="_blank">www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000195</a>

I too would recommend reading this debate (mostly between Secweblurker and myself).

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Earl ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Earl:
[B]NOMAD: All that we know is what DID happen, and in the span of less than 300 years Christianity went from a small religious sect within Judaism, to taking over the greatest Empire in the hisory of the Western World.

OMNEDON 1: Still kicking this theory around, Nomad?

EARL: For those of you who don't know, last spring/summer Nomad (taking his cue from some xtian writer) tried to claim that the rapid rise of xtianity in the Roman Empire demonstrated something about the veracity of its claims. He was soundly pummeled for making such a connection, and for not being able to answer the objections that others raised to such a preposterous claim.

But now, a little time has gone by. And what do we see?

MICHAEL: We see Nomad still thinking it is really neat that top-down conversion got an Empire -- actually, the old religion remainrf popular and were not eradicated until a couple of centuries later. So it took five centuries and legal diktat backed by force to put an end to pagan beliefs in the Roman empire. I don't know why Nomad keeps coming back to this. It's not really very interesting, and certainly not a useful argument for Christ-inanity.

Earl, I bet this link won't work because it's on the old server....
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000195" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000195</a>

I think this one might:

<a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000195" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000195</a>

Another thread where we discussed this same ridiculous idea, and Nomad was soundly spanked, is this one:

<a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000329&p=" target="_blank">Taking History Seriously</a>

Michael

Nomad

Quick point, then back to Dennis...

Where did I say that Mohammed made up the Koran? I said, specifically that I believed that he, or a disciple wrote it. If you had asked me who wrote the books of the Bible, I would have given a similar answer in those instances where we know the author of specific books of the Bible.

Now, no more strawmen please. Thanks.

Well Dennis, you made the claim that the people of the 1st Century were basically credulous boobs. I am looking for:

a) your evidence to support such a claim, and

b) why is this relevant, as people of all ages appear to be quite credulous? At least that is what your post appeared to say.

The argument that all of the people of the 1st Century "were totally rational people who wouldn't accept an idea unless it was thoroughly investigated" was never made by you or me, so why bring it up?

I am just looking for the evidence that supports your beliefs Dennis. With luck you will still offer us some.

Umm... no, Nomad did no such thing. I am asking why you think that people were more credulous in the 1st Century than they are at any other time in history. After all, if your argument is based on the credulity of the audience of the day, then you need to connect it in some fashion to evidence that they were more credulous than other people of other times and places. Your confused posts on the subject don't even come close to doing this, BTW, so I am giving you another chance to at least try.

You offered a couple of unsourced words from Sanders, and treat that as an argument? I am astonished that any true sceptic would let you off so lightly. Sadly, I cannot do this. The point you tried to make was that Christianity spread quickly because 1st Century people were credulous, and I want to know what this has to do with anything. The rest of your post pointed out that people are still pretty credulous, so this is hardly a satisfactory answer, is it?

Well, give us his argument, and a source please. Don't just tell us that he mentions somewhere that ancient people just "made stuff up". That is hardly interesting, nor is it an argument.

I'm sorry, what is your evidence that anyone had a dream that Jesus rose from the dead? Further, what is your evidence that 1st Century people were uniquely credulous, and therefore susceptible to such things?

Again, I do not see why you think that this is important. Paul was an eye witness to the Resurrection that Christians believe in. So was John. Now, if you think that an eye witness did not write John, then please tell us why, and what your evidence happens to be. Out of curiosity, but when you read a biography or history, do you reject it because it contains reports from people, but is written by an author that was not an eye witness to everything he wrote? If that is the case, then you must have a very odd view of biographies and histories.

Well, I am just trying to understand your confused arguments and apparent double standard. If, on the other hand, you reject all non-first hand accounts in history and biographies, then you are at least consistent, but extremely limited and limiting in what you will accept about history.

Nomad

Nomad

Hey Earl

Long time no see. I recommend the links as well. Interesting how one's perceptions appear to be shaped by one preconceptions, no?

In any event, do not fall for the fallacy of arguments from popularity. For an atheist to "win" a debate on the Secular Web (accoring to his fellow true believers), he need only show up. The innanity of his arguments certainly will not deter the crowds from cheering.

In any event, welcome back.

Nomad

Vorkosigan

NOMAD: I am asking why you think that people were more credulous in the 1st Century than they are at any other time in history.

Nomad returns to this theme twice:

I'm sorry, what is your evidence that anyone had a dream that Jesus rose from the dead? Further, what is your evidence that 1st Century people were uniquely credulous, and therefore susceptible to such things?

For the second time, Nomad, Dennis never said people in the 1st century were uniquely credulous. He merely stated that they were credulous. Let's see what Dennis actually said:

• DENNIS: In the superstitous and credulous society of the 1st century, people had visions and dreams. Not particularly the best way to gain knowledge, but popular at the time and still popular enough today to support "psychics" who charge $2.99 a minute.

Note how Dennis links people of their time with people of ours, equally credulous.

So you now have a non-point. I have no doubt you will try and repeat it again -- your debating style, as someone has already noted, is the classic "broken record -- but since I have recorded this here, it will save everyone the trouble of correcting you. Again.

After all, if your argument is based on the credulity of the audience of the day, then you need to connect it in some fashion to evidence that they were more credulous than other people of other times and places.

No, we simply need note that they were humans, as credulous as those who believed that Wovoka was the messiah, Hong Xiu-chuan the younger brother of Jesus, psychics can foretell the future, and that giving Pat Robertson money is a good thing.

Your confused posts on the subject don't even come close to doing this, BTW, so I am giving you another chance to at least try.

The only confusion here is yours.

Paul was an eye witness to the Resurrection that Christians believe in. So was John. Now, if you think that an eye witness did not write John, then please tell us why, and what your evidence happens to be.

Paul never saw any resurrection. He had visions. John was not an eyewitness of anything. The Passion story is an obvious fiction, so "john" saw nothing. His story is as made up as the others.

but when you read a biography or history, do you reject it because it contains reports from people, but is written by an author that was not an eye witness to everything he wrote?

Yet another "broken record" theme. The gospels are not biography or history, but myth and propaganda. They are not written by people with an to getting the facts right, but by individuals eager to spread their religious nonsense. They contain numerous fictions, inventions, borrowings and copyings.

Michael

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Nomad:
In any event, do not fall for the fallacy of arguments from popularity.

You're an odd one to argue this, considering that you consider the popularity of Christianity an argument for it. That's why you keep returning to this "takeover of the Roman Empire theme."

The innanity of his arguments certainly will not deter the crowds from cheering.

Yes, Dennis' ideas do look silly reflected in your confused versions of them.

Michael

Kosh

Un-f****ingbelievable! You come here to "defend"
your beliefs and then post stuff like this which
shows you don't even know some of the basics
about early Christianity. Paul didn't show up
till what, 2 or 3 years AFTER the crucifiction
(if it happened at all). His own testimony never
claims to have met Jesus or witnessed the crucifiction first hand.

Just keep it up Nomad, you may be the best asset
on our team!

Nomad

Interestingly, though you wished to ride to Dennis' rescue, you failed completely to do so Michael. If the people were not uniquely credulous, then we can hardly expect this to be a factor in a uniquely extraordinary event. On this basis it is a non-point, and Dennis will have to return to the drawing board and explain what happened. On the other hand, there is a chance that Dennis will wish to speak for himself, so I can wait.

And on this basis, as people are credulous, we should not accept anything that they believe at any time, so long as we find it incredible. Of course, people are free to be sceptical about everything, and perhaps a few are, but in this particular case I am interested in what hypothesis one wishes to advance to explain at the beginning of Christianity. You have already told me that you do not know, nor do you care. Fair enough. Dennis made an effort, and perhaps this is the best he can come up with, but I am actually interested in the supporting evidence he has to offer. Telling us that people are credulous is hardly interesting, so what other factors might he have for us to consider?

Of course he saw the Resurrection, and he tells us this in the same place that he tells us that Peter, the disciples, James, and five hundred other individuals saw the same thing. See 1 Corinthians 15:5-8. Now, if you wish to assert that his experience was different, or not an eye witness account, then so be it, but I would rather consider your arguments, rather than your assertions.

Evidence please, no assertions.

I have already asked Dennis for evidence to support his belief in this assertion as well. Now I will ask you.

Your assertions really are quite tiresome Michael. Perhaps they work with your students, but in a forum in which one is expected to support one's beliefs with actual evidence, this is simply pathetic. Offer something more substantive please.

Sigh. Yet another boring assertion. do better, or stick with subjects about which you can actually contribute something interesting Michael.

Just because you are in a forum dominated by sceptics that do not question your assertions does not mean you have offered anything substantive here. If you wish to participate in discussions, you will be expected to offer evidence.

Nomad

Earl

NOMAD: Interestingly, though you wished to ride to Dennis' rescue, you failed completely to do so Michael. If the people were not uniquely credulous, then we can hardly expect this to be a factor in a uniquely extraordinary event. On this basis it is a non-point, and Dennis will have to return to the drawing board and explain what happened. On the other hand, there is a chance that Dennis will wish to speak for himself, so I can wait.

EARL: Just a quick note to point out the obvious. Nomad is the one who has appealed to the early popularity of Christianity as evidence of this religion's truth. Therefore he has the burden to show that these people were particularly trustworthy. Skeptics do not have the burden to show that the early Christians were especially gullible, unsophisticated, and so forth.

What's that, you say? Don't we accept all the time the testimony of ordinary people as sufficient to establish the truth of their claims? Absolutely not. Uncorroborated testimony by itself is not particularly good evidence of anything let alone of a miracle which requires FAR MORE in the way of evidence than mere personal (hearsay) testimony.

Even if we had firsthand testimony from witnesses of the resurrection, by itself this would still be poor evidence because we would have no way to check who these witnesses were, and we would have only their say-so rather than any corroboration with hard evidence. But guess what? Even if we did know exactly who these witnesses were, and even if we had their firsthand, unedited personal testimony about their witnessing of the resurrection--things we're not at all close to possessing--that STILL wouldn't constitute sufficient evidence to warrant rational belief in the resurrection. (Paul's experience of the risen Jesus would have been indistinguishable from a common vision, that is, a paranormal encounter with a ghost. I don't care how honest the person is: if she claims to have seen a ghost I will not begin to believe that ghosts exist based only on her personal testimony, because I have a civil duty to base my important beliefs on the proper level of evidence.) If we were talking about any old event, such as a war, a thunderstorm, or some such thing, then yes this evidence would be sufficient, although even in this case the evidence would allow only for a probable conclusion. But we're talking about a miracle and therefore the ordinary standards of evidence do not apply!

Nomad's entire (fallacious) argument from popularity is defeated just by this issue of the burden of proof. I don't care how many people accepted Christianity without being coerced to do so. (But of course there was also coercion beginning with Constantine's laws against paganism, and prior to this there were only "Christian" heterodoxies not overwhelming popularity of any "Christianity.") I don't care how fast and how wide the religion spread. The spreading of a religion is simply not surprising to a skeptic. Religions are popular precisely because God is not around and life is so hard. It's simply a blatant non sequitor to say that Christianity's truth is in any way established by this religion's popularity. Yet we should expect that Nomad will continue to use this argument.

Vorkosigan

Interestingly, though you wished to ride to Dennis' rescue, you failed completely to do so Michael. If the people were not uniquely credulous, then we can hardly expect this to be a factor in a uniquely extraordinary event. On this basis it is a non-point, and Dennis will have to return to the drawing board and explain what happened. On the other hand, there is a chance that Dennis will wish to speak for himself, so I can wait.

I'm glad we agree that you have made a non-point. There is nothing unique about resurrection beliefs, various gods have died and risen throughout history. No unique credulity required. So this criticism of Dennis fails completely.

Your assertions really are quite tiresome Michael. Perhaps they work with your students, but in a forum in which one is expected to support one's beliefs with actual evidence, this is simply pathetic. Offer something more substantive please.

Sure, Nomad. Just offer us evidence that the 50 or so gospel writers are writing a relatively dispassionate history. They said bluntly that they were writing religious propaganda. Perhaps you should take them at their word.

Michael