• Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s not necessary about how to frame my life. I just want to believe true things. If someone can make me believe in things that aren’t true then they can limit my ability for self determination and making good decisions with my life. That’s why a lot of our conversation has revolved around evidence and what would be a good enough standard of evidence to accept an extraordinary claim like someone rising from the dead after 3 days and ascending to a place called heaven which is supposedly a paradise.

    I think the fundamental difference we have and why we seem to be reaching different conclusions is in his much stock we place in the bible. To me as a non believer it’s just a collection of anonymously written stories. Maybe some of the characters in those stories are even real but I have no more reason to believe the extraordinary claims of the bible than the stories of King Arthur who may well have been a real king but I doubt be had a magical sword pulled from a stone.

    I’m not saying everyone one should have the same standard of evidence but I hope I’ve at least managed to convince you that I am being quite reasonable in not accepting such an extraordinary claim. I definitely appreciate your willingness to engage and have an interesting discussion either way though.

    • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, I understand where you’re coming from, which is why I’m citing historical analysis of the Bible. Most scholars don’t think King Arthur was real, and if he was, the stories weren’t written when he was alive, so you can’t put any stock in the story because no witnesses were around to verify nor dispute it. On the other hand, even if you believe the Bible is a book of myths, there are still historical facts that have been independently verified, like:

      • There was a guy named Jesus who got crucified[1]
      • The disciples were real people[2]
      • Paul’s letters (or at least most of them) were written by Paul while he and at least some of the disciples were still around[3]
      • The early church was significant and persecuted[4]

      Because the early church was significant and the disciples were real people, I conclude that they were famous.
      Because they were famous, I conclude that if they said anything surprising, word would have gotten around.
      Because Paul’s letters were written while the disciples were around, and the disciples were famous, I conclude that if he said anything surprising about the disciples, they would have heard about it.
      If the disciples heard a story about them that never happened, they would have confirmed it, denied it, or evaded the question.
      If they confirmed a story, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, but it does mean they wanted people to believe it’s true.
      If they denied a story, that would have been surprising, and word would have gotten around, so there would have been some mention somewhere.
      If they evaded commenting on a story, that means they wanted people to believe it’s true (and hints that it was untrue, but that part doesn’t really matter for my purposes here.)
      Thus, if Paul wrote something about the disciples while they were around, and there’s no mention anywhere of them denying it, that indicates that the disciples wanted people to believe it’s true.

      Paul wrote about Jesus appearing to the disciples after resurrection, and there’s no mention of them denying it. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the resurrection was true, but it does mean that the disciples were at least complicit and refused to deny it even in the face of persecution. As for conclusions from there, see my earlier comment.

      Is that line of thinking solid enough, depending on historically verified facts instead of taking the Bible as an accurate account at face value?


      Also, something that bugged me about your earlier comment: You say you make no claim as to whether a god exists, you just aren’t convinced. And you say there’s no proof for a lack of a god. Yet you also said that you think aliens causing the resurrection (or appearance thereof) is more plausible than a god existing.

      Aliens having the technology, knowledge, and motivation to cosplay as God is already highly unlikely, whether in a world with a real god or not. Jesus being the real deal is fairly likely if in a world with God, but impossible if in a world with no god.

      So if you’re telling me that Jesus being the real deal is less likely than aliens cosplaying God, that tells me you think there being no god is significantly more likely than God existing. In the absence of evidence in either direction, they should be treated as equally plausible (though not equally valid, as burden of proof is still a thing.) The fact that you don’t tells me you actually do lean towards the lack of a god.

      Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m definitely biased towards God existing. I’d just like you to introspect and examine your bias so you’re aware of it. Though I’d also appreciate it if you adjusted your parameters and leaned a little more this way ; )


      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus ↩︎

      2. https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qn6r4/are_there_any_historical_proof_that_all_12/ ↩︎

      3. As previously cited ↩︎

      4. Tacitus again ↩︎

      • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The King Arthur analogy was definitely not perfect, and to be totally clear, I’m willing to grant that Jesus was likely a real person and even his disciples and that he was crucified. I don’t have a problem with those particular claims because they are fairly ordinary and I understand there is at least some evidence of Jesus which is about as good as you can get for a random carpenter that lived at that time (as opposed to an emperor or something who would have a lot more evidence).

        My problem is solely with the claim that God exists and Jesus was resurrected. These are quite extraordinary claims I think you will agree, so I need a much higher standard of evidence. What you’ve presented here is not strictly evidence, but an assumption that because the claims weren’t denied by the disciples specifically (as far as we know) that these extraordinary claims are likely true. I disagree, as I don’t think that lack of recorded denials counts as evidence otherwise we might believe all kinds of things. To me it reads as a number of assumptions leading to an extraordinary conclusion.

        In terms of the aliens being more plausible, my comment was a bit toungue in cheek and hyperbolic. May main point is they are more likely to exist in my mind because we already have examples of intelligent life. Sure they might not be interested in us but aliens by definition have alien motivations so who knows? It’s at least possible but if someone made that claim I would also likely reject it due to lack of evidence.

        I also have to disagree strongly with the idea that there are two unprovable hypothesis and therefore a 50/50 chance. The number of competing hypothesis doesn’t mean they are equally strong and therefore equally likely. I could just as easily claim that, once again, there is an invisible dragon under your bed and given you can’t provide evidence to disprove it and I can’t provide evidence to prove it, we have to conclude it’s a 50/50 chance which is clearly wrong.

        You are correct though that I think the possibility of God existing is far far less than the possibility that there is no God. That’s why I’m an atheist after all. Everyone has their own standards of evidence though and reasons for believing or not as I said before. It’s ok for us to keep our respective positions but with more understanding of each other.

        • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Makes sense. I guess I’m not so much demonstrating that the resurrection is true as that, if it’s not true, the accounts surrounding it are still very extraordinary and probably worth looking into.