DEBUNKING THE CONSPIRACY THEORY

[Dystopia]

I guess pigs can fly.

Dunno, but I once saw a pig riding a bike during a circus performance. Not kidding.

[Brian37]

It is a made up story period, humans do not survive rigor mortis.

[Exian]

I don't have to know what happened in order to know what didn't happen.

Then you're just asserting that, aren't you? Because you admittedly don't know (and don't seem to care to investigate).

If I'm asserting that Jesus never came back from the dead, then you're asserting he never shot off like a firework and exploded in midair leaving a crucifix shape floating in the sky, or whatever else impossible thing humans can't do.

Lets move this away from something you're biased towards: There is an unscalable mountain with a pig on top and an eye-witness who says he saw the pig fly up there. You don't have to know what happened in order to know the pig didn't fly up there.

I'm not biting, Exian.

The Conspiracy Theory is just one alternative explanation of the rise of Christianity. I'm showing why it fails to satisfy.

That's fine. Debunk'em all. But also keep in mind that humans don't come back from being that far dead.

[Esquilax]

Esq-

I'll give you this: you appear to be among the brighter members of the forum. So, you may have the ability to actually study the source material that occupies professional historians and to read their analysis of it.

So, why not use your obvious intellectual prowess to explain to everyone here why several thousand PhD's around the globe - each of whom having spent decades of their lives studying ancient languages, travelling to foreign countries, pouring over ancients parchments, scrolls and papyrii, etc - are simply WRONG in their professional judgment that Jesus was a real person and that the five minimal facts that emerge from their studies are valid?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the existence of a historical Jesus is largely irrelevant to the claims made about him. Existence is a necessary, but not sufficient quality of Jesus-the-messiah, and given that other necessary qualities of the same narrative have not been provided (such as the sheer possibility of the supernatural) it's really little more than one small step. As such, I'm willing to take Jesus-the-man as read for the sake of argument, though I don't accept that this and the five facts you've listed can be used as evidence of the resurrection, and the reasons why are going to be the subject of a blog post once I've gotten that up and running.

What I don't like, though, are arguments like this one, where you attempt to rebut a position without input from the people that hold it, using talking points that may or may not actually be things that they hold to be true, without any assurances that even if they are accurate reflections of the position, that they represent the totality of that position. Apologists do this a lot, speaking for their opponents and, just coincidentally I'm sure, concluding that their arguments fall flat; in your case, your OP is so deep in your echo chamber that I can't possibly trust your conclusion that therefore, the conspiracy theory isn't viable. How could I look at an argument that consists solely of a representation of the position being refuted, from the perspective of a man who disagrees with it?

Alternatively, if you do concede that the five minimal facts cannot be denied, then would you care to propose your own theory which takes into consideration and accounts for all five of these facts with greater probability and explanatory scope than the Christian argument for a supernatural resurrection?

Because so far, I don't see that you actually have any real explanation...just a lot of empty denials.

First of all, this "you all haven't given any alternative solutions," refrain of yours is completely irrelevant, because if you're asserting that therefore your solution is correct then you're committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. Don't be that guy.

Secondly, here's my alternative: the five facts do not matter in the least. They have no bearing on the claim of the resurrection.

No, I'm serious: even taking them as facts, they do not demonstrate, or even concern, the mechanism or source of your proposed supernatural explanation, and hence cannot be taken, cumulatively or singularly, as evidence for the resurrection. They're just a list of unconnected facts, with no pathway between them and your conclusion; to say "therefore, Jesus was god and resurrected from the dead," would be a complete non-sequitur.

I can list five vaguely connected true things, and then a false (or if I'm being charitable, under intense dispute) "fact" too, Randy. It's not hard: my old room in Australia was found empty after I slept in it the night before, I'm married to an American citizen, my wife underwent a change of heart and ceased being a christian around the time she met me, her family believes that I've met them, we live on a second floor, and I teleported from Australia to America.

The first four things are true, and verifiable to a much higher degree than the minimal facts you presented, and yet the last one is not. The last one is a lie I told; actually I went to America in a plane... well, a series of planes. Since the first four facts do not contribute any additional, verifiable information that could be taken as evidence of my supposed teleportation, the actual act itself, then one may have no trouble at all in accepting the first four while discarding the last; after all, the last claim is supernatural in origin, and the supernatural has not been demonstrated as possible.

There is no appreciable difference, in that crucial, relevant area, between my set of five facts, and your minimal facts. Therefore, the minimal facts are similarly irrelevant to your conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead supernaturally. It's as easy as that.

[IATIA]

Since you do not believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead, you must have some theory that you believe explains the five minimal facts.

What is it?

You have yet to prove that jesus was dead in the first place (and for sake of argument, I am giving you, for this post only, the possibility that jesus even existed)

[robvalue]

It is really sad that Randy is still committing the most basic of logical fallacies after having them explained repeatedly. So can he not understand how fallacies work, or does he think they don't apply to him?

He should know his audience by now. We're not suddenly going to forget how logic works.

[Catholic_Lady]

Following again. Another interesting thread, Randy.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think you need to stick to the common definition of fact instead of your own made up one.

G'day.

So, you have nothing. Gotcha.

This 'argument' has been done to death so many times it's not even funny. When you present a case that is not top heavy with fallacy laden logic people might take you seriously.

Until then, pigeon gotta coo, amiright?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It is really sad that Randy is still committing the most basic of logical fallacies after having them explained repeatedly. So can he not understand how fallacies work, or does he think they don't apply to him?

He should know his audience by now. We're not suddenly going to forget how logic works.

He doesn't care, pigeon and all that. Lucky we're in the UK rob where we have a decent education system and don't have to deal with this silliness too often ^_^

[robvalue]

Here's a quick lesson in evidence and scepticism.

I just went outside to put my bin out. We have two colours, blue and green, and they alternate weekly. One is recycling, one is general waste.

I don't know for sure which bin is meant to be out (I really don't, this just happened) as I've not been keeping count from official sources. But everyone else on the street put out their blue bin. That is enough evidence for me that it's very likely the blue bin this week, so I follow suit. It's a mundane issue, of only moderate importance.

Now, if everyone on my street claimed to have just seen a dragon walk past, I'd instantly dismiss that evidence as woefully inadequate because the claim is extraordinary. I'd need a far more reliable source to even consider it a possibility.

Same here. The ressurection is an extraordinary claim. A bunch of written accounts attesting to it is not any better than my neighbours telling me they saw a dragon. The bible authors, like my neighbours, could concoct any story they like to make it seem plausible. I don't care. As soon as their story includes a dragon, they need to provide suitable evidence or I'm done listening to them.

Christians would generally not accept textual accounts as evidence of other extraordinary claims. It's plain and simple special pleading. "My story is special". Clearly you are convinced, that is fine, although this argument is not the thing that convinced you. Sceptics are never going to be convinced by this. I'm amazed you haven't learnt that by now. I can only assume you know full well you're not going to convince us, and are just trying to score brownie points.