Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Butters · 10-30-2002, 11:54 AM

Posted by Rad,

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But when it comes time to apply this argument to reality, Geivett goes overboard. For instance, in defending the possibility that it would be reasonable to accept that there is no unintentional or human cause for an event, he brings up Quine's notion of a "recalcitrant" experience which is "one that stubbornly resists explanation within the framework of a given paradigm or web of beliefs" (182). All well and good. But then he doesn't show even a hint of sarcasm or qualification when he calls the resurrection of Jesus (183)."a recalcitrant experience of the highest order," so "bodacious" that "if [it] doesn't count as a violation of presumed natural law, then nothing does" This is an astonishingly absurd statement. Certainly even he can think of something that is more certainly a violation of natural law than a mere resurrection, which is accomplished on a regular basis today using CPR and electric defibrillators, and which is also known to happen naturally, however rarely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A mere resurrection? Is Carrier just trying to be funny? Is he suggesting Jesus did exist and rise from the dead then, but it was a NATURAL occurrence?

Well hey, now we're getting somewhere. Chistians and atheists can call a truce!! We can finally room together!! Jesus existed, and so did thousands of disciples and the apostles, and the only REAL problem we have is whether the resurrection was just a natural event. That would mean Jesus and the apostles were simply mistaken.

I like this Carrier guy. Can't wait to hear his take on the feeding of the 5000.

Ther is one little itsy-bitsy problem though. There were was no CPR equipment or defillabrators back then. So I guess we are down to resurrections which happen "naturally, however rarely." Thus, to discount Geivett's reasoning using Carrier's, all we have to believe is that the resurrection of Jesus simply a rare but natural event. Right?

I love these links you guys give. They totally contradict ten other theories, and in this case, all the arguments against life after death, or the possibility of resurrection. Carrier has simply opened a can of worms, which I'm sure he will not lift a finger to reclose.

Wrong yet again! Carrier is not saying it did or did not happen, just that even if it did, it could not be counted as )."a recalcitrant experience of the highest order," so "bodacious" that "if [it] doesn't count as a violation of presumed natural law, then nothing does"

Claims of ressurection are a dime a dozen, Now if someone had recorded the "many saints" that got up and wandered around, or if there were records in China, India, etc. of the sun darkening, that would be something.

Ion · 10-30-2002, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Ion,

1)While posting links to URLs is a very fine thing, it is customary to explain: what specifically the link is about and HOW specifically the link relates to a point or points
being made. If possible and the format allows it,
a short excerpt would help in doing those things.

2)I'm sure that the link in question does not claim that each and every item you mentioned in connection with Julius Caesar constitutes in and of itself "undeniable
proof" that it was connected with J. Caesar. That is evidently what you were claiming
(or did I misunderstand?).

3)The site I linked to involving the Shroud of Turin would take the average person weeks to get
through since it involves many technical papers.
Therefore I know darned well that you haven't read
it. How, then, can you make any claims about the
level of authenticity that the Shroud holds vis a
vis the historical Jesus?

4)When you make a claim about point X in a thread
it is your obligation to articulate the proofs for that claim. Merely linking a URL does
not do that. (I linked the Shroud of Turin site
NOT to support any particular claim I made in this
thread but because I thought you genuinely unaware
of the Shroud's existence).

Cheers!

Leonarde,
<a href="http://www.shroud.com" target="_blank">www.shroud.com</a> writes:
"The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man.".

I asked, and I ask again:
So?

When it is just "...a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man.", what do you prove with "...a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man."?

In contrast with my question, have you read and learned from this post below?

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man:
Let's see --
Julius Caesar wrote volumes about his own life, much of which still exists.

Accounts of many other contemporaries of Caesar, including Cicero -- a sometime ally, and sometime enemy who was murdered by Caesar's partisans -- provide independent accounts of Caesar's actions.

Numerous biographies written in ancient times, including some whose authors were alive at the time.

Numerous artifacts specifically connected to Caesar.

Against that we have the fantastic stories of the NT written decades after the alleged events and the Shroud of Turin, which "probably" was his -- not.

Christian wishful thinking indeed is alive and well.

Ion · 10-30-2002, 05:07 PM

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

Radorth · 10-30-2002, 06:24 PM

Quote:

In Matt 24:30, Jesus allegedly prophesized that "...all the tribes on the earth..." were going to see Jesus' resurrection during that lifetime.

He's talking about the end of this age, not the resurrection. No commentary I've ever read alleges any such thing.

Quote:

It is a big thing: if true, then it is unique.

That is precisely Geivitt's point. You apparently agree with him, so that means you rationally need to believe in the resurrection, as Carrier himself clearly asserts. Maybe you should read the link yourself.

Rad

Radorth · 10-30-2002, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Wrong yet again! Carrier is not saying it did or did not happen, just that even if it did, it could not be counted as )."a recalcitrant experience of the highest order," so "bodacious" that "if [it] doesn't count as a violation of presumed natural law, then nothing does"

So? Ion just asserted it was unique! And that is what virtually all atheists argue, that it can't happen therefore it did not happen. But the only way he can beat Geivett is to now say "well OK, resurrection is not that big of a deal." How about the virgin birth then? Does that qualify as bodacious?

Carrier has trapped himself, and loses one argument or the other by saying a miracle is not bodacious. What if Geivitt had used the example of the feeding of the 5000?

If we are to believe Doherty and Carrier, some of the better atheist arguments are now history.

Nice try though.

Rad

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

leonarde · 10-30-2002, 06:50 PM

Ion,

1)There are MULTIPLE conversations going on on this thread: among them me and you; me and FM;
Radorth and FM; Radorth and various other persons;
etc. etc.

2)When I address you in a post that generally means that my comments are for you and you alone.
In giving you the Shroud link I was responding to
your personal complaint that there were
absolutely no 'archaeological artifacts'
related to Jesus of Nazareth. You are just plain
wrong on that assertion. There are at least 2 such
artifacts. (NOWHERE did I assert that everyone accepts the authenticity of these artifacts; but
in all probability----given that there are 6 billion people on this planet----there must be some who deny your "undeniable" Caesar artifacts---at least some individual ones. Least
you misconstrue me------yet again!!!----I believe
in the historicity of J. Caesar, Alexander the Great, Jesus of Nazareth, etc. But believing in someone's historicity is not the same as
accepting as genuine each and every artifact purported to be connected with that person)

3)I've long since given up thinking you could follow even your own line of reasoning on these threads.

Cheers!

Ion · 10-30-2002, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

...
3)I've long since given up thinking you could follow even your own line of reasoning on these threads.

Cheers!

Sorry to read that you have given up thinking that I could follow my line of resoning:
that's your defficiency.

Ion · 10-30-2002, 10:42 PM

Radorth,
Matt 24:30 writes:
"...and then all the tribes on the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming...".

This is about Jesus' resurrection, expected during that lifetime (Matt 16:28 "...there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."), but "...all the tribes on the earth..." didn't see it.

In fact, other than 12 cultists who allegedly saw it, nobody on earth saw it.

I tell you, historically Jesus is an Invisible Man.

lpetrich · 10-31-2002, 02:53 AM

Richard Carrier was merely suggesting that the appearance of resurrection was not a big deal, since that does sometimes happen in the form of passing out for a while.

Also, RC implies that JC's resurrection was too piddlingly small an event to be worthy of an omnipotent being -- why not something like rearranging the stars?

Jack the Bodiless · 10-31-2002, 03:06 AM

There have been numerous cases of medieval burials being exhumed and deep fingernail scratches being found on the inside of the coffin lid.

Yes, "resurrections" were fairly common before modern medical science. Unfortunately.

10-30-2002, 05:07 PM	#193
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-30-2002, 06:50 PM	#196
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Ion, 1)There are MULTIPLE conversations going on on this thread: among them me and you; me and FM; Radorth and FM; Radorth and various other persons; etc. etc. 2)When I address you in a post that generally means that my comments are for you and you alone. In giving you the Shroud link I was responding to your personal complaint that there were absolutely no 'archaeological artifacts' related to Jesus of Nazareth. You are just plain wrong on that assertion. There are at least 2 such artifacts. (NOWHERE did I assert that everyone accepts the authenticity of these artifacts; but in all probability----given that there are 6 billion people on this planet----there must be some who deny your "undeniable" Caesar artifacts---at least some individual ones. Least you misconstrue me------yet again!!!----I believe in the historicity of J. Caesar, Alexander the Great, Jesus of Nazareth, etc. But believing in someone's historicity is not the same as accepting as genuine each and every artifact purported to be connected with that person) 3)I've long since given up thinking you could follow even your own line of reasoning on these threads. Cheers!

10-30-2002, 10:42 PM	#198
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	Radorth, Matt 24:30 writes: "...and then all the tribes on the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming...". This is about Jesus' resurrection, expected during that lifetime (Matt 16:28 "...there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."), but "...all the tribes on the earth..." didn't see it. In fact, other than 12 cultists who allegedly saw it, nobody on earth saw it. I tell you, historically Jesus is an Invisible Man.

10-31-2002, 02:53 AM	#199
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Richard Carrier was merely suggesting that the appearance of resurrection was not a big deal, since that does sometimes happen in the form of passing out for a while. Also, RC implies that JC's resurrection was too piddlingly small an event to be worthy of an omnipotent being -- why not something like rearranging the stars?

10-31-2002, 03:06 AM	#200
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	There have been numerous cases of medieval burials being exhumed and deep fingernail scratches being found on the inside of the coffin lid. Yes, "resurrections" were fairly common before modern medical science. Unfortunately.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.