RCH

I'm jumping in kind of late here, but you might ask if they believe that Cassie Bernall, one of the Columbine High School victims, was killed because she professed her faith in God to her killer. This legend was established established among Christians within weeks (if not days) of the murders. You would have a contemporary, personal example of how fast these things can happen. Provided you can convince them that the story is false, of course.
For more details see <a href="http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/carrier1.html" target="_blank">this article by Richard Carrier</a>

Cretinist

Just like Jesus!

I wonder why Jesus is reported to have told so many people not to tell anyone about the miracles he performed...

Sojourner553

Why are so many people stuck on the 500 witnesses story "having" to be a lie. (That is to say, I agree with King Arthur on this.)

When Elvis Presley died, there were countless stories of people claiming they saw him alive -- It was the hysteria from people who loved him that made them "see" ordinary things and interpret it according to their desires. This is not lying, because in their minds, they believe it to be true.

It is the same type of people who "see" ghosts -- ie are predisposed to want to believe that kind of stuff to begin with -- and interpret ordinary events within this framework. I had a religious Mexican maid who told my son that the howling wind outside that made the fence bounce open and shut was in reality spirits. You see, it's all in the interpretation of ordinary facts.

The stories of resurrected people were nothing new during that times -- As there were numerous mystery gods within many religions all conveniently getting themselves resurrected, and no doubt "seen" by many of their adherents -- either directly or through "visions" or "signs". The Jesus resurrection stories received no less a treatment from faithful believers.

Sojourner

King Arthur

Thanks Sojourner. The more intelligent atheists here seem to get the point.

Clutch

Sojourner, what have you been reading? There is virtually complete agreement on this thread, and on the 500 People thread, that the important issue is not whether it's a lie, but whether it counts as evidence. It's doesn't -- for reasons that have been laid out in both threads. CX's hilarious dialogue is an example of how such a claim might arise via people "confirming" stories that they believe their hearers already have evidence for, telling them want they want to hear. Almost every deflationary explanation of the claim that's been offered has been one that does not implicate lying in the strictest sense.

So, what are you talking about?

Vorkosigan

Actually, I gave several reasons for thinking it is probably a lie. Others have given other reasons. So far, no one weighing in against this position has dealt with even a single reason I or anyone else gave for thinking Paul was lying about this. The smug tone of your initial paragraph, Sojourner, would not be justified even if you actually had anything to say that bore on the discussion at hand.

Nobody is "stuck" on anything (the only person who has accused Paul of lying is me, and my initial post did not identify Paul. I have no idea what you've been reading, Sojourner). Nobody can be stuck on anything. Because all we have is the usual farrago of insults from the peanut gallery in Camelot. There are good reasons to assume Paul is lying, as opposed to generalized "seeing" of the Elvis variety or of Peter's speculations variety, which I certainly have no trouble with.

Vorkosigan

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

King Arthur

There are no good reasons to assume Paul is lying. Paul could simply have been reporting an incident that he had heard of and believed. After all, he believed in the resurrection of Christ! Why would he not believe an account that 500 had seen him?

There is no case for it being a lie. I have gone back to the Greek and shown that it was highly unlikely to have been an interpolation too.

There is no case. It is obviously all about "lie" in opposition to Clutch. I say that it doesn't have to be a lie and it is probably not due to all the tremendous information I have given as opposed to others who think they have given substantive replies but who have not really.

Vorkosigan

Better than usual! It took you three whole paragraphs this time to get to a snide remark.

Clutch

King Arthur,
Let's look at the initial post of the thread, hmm?
Note the first question. Could anyone help me tackle this? Why, sure! Contributors to the thread have debunked each of these claims. For example, the final apologist claim, or at least it's presupposition; we have many historical instances, including many within our lifetime, of people willingly dying for things that any rational person ought to have known were false -- things they were clearly in an epistemic position to recognize as false, though they seem to have found a way to avoid this realization. Various people have offered this sort of rebuttal assistance to xeren.

Another way to help out is to point out that the claim of 500 people is evidentially empty. As I and many others have done. One explanation of its vacuity is that Paul may very well have simply made it up because it sounded good, and wrote it down in a deliberate attempt to deceive. Vorkosigan has suggested this, has offered evidence for it, and yet has correctly maintained that it would be very difficult to establish decisively. There are also more general reasons for regarding it as empty, which Peter Kirby, and I, and others have detailed at length, and to which you have made no response except periodically to proclaim your genius. None of these other reasons requires that Paul, nor anyone else, deliberately set out to manufacture the claim of 500 witnesses out of whole cloth -- though again, that is certainly one explanation.

Your assertion that this is "obviously all about 'lie'" is groundless, and shows no awareness of what has actually been written in the two relevant threads.

On a lighter note, your relentless self-ascription of scholarly depth and logical acumen reminds me of another such self-ascriber: "Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius! I like the sound of that!" Like Wiley, your own such auto-plaudits seem inevitably to preface your self-immolation by one inept means or another... to the general, if somewhat guilty, amusement of all.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

Kosh

'Tis a silly place.