Why be good?

[abaris]

I BELIEVE YOU because in the absence of evidence to the contrary about your character, your motivations, your mental state, etc., I have no reason to believe that you would lie about something important to you.

Neither did the apostles.

So, do you believe Harry Potter too? There's the same kind of evidence for his existence as there is for the apostles - scripture. It's only your personal opinion to put more stock in the bible.

[Randy Carson]

RESPONSE TO LAX'S REALLY IMPORTANT POST - AS REQUESTED

Seriously? That was your big point? I had suspected, when you first started, but I had hoped otherwise;

It's kinda convenient to say that you had "suspected" the direction my line of questioning was leading AFTER the fact. But I do appreciate you letting everything play all the way out to the end. (If you really knew the cards I was playing, you might have given your friends a "heads up" by PM, though.) I won't call you a liar...let's just say you were "lax" in exposing of my intent.

I guess you just decided to ignore the entirety of your own thread on the reliability of the new testament, then? Hardly surprising, for one so dishonest.

That's an interesting conclusion. Why do you think I have abandoned the reliability thread when we're here discussing the reliability of the authors in another thread. Obviously, it's not a concept I have abandoned; it's more like I've doubled-down, actually. Here, let's just say you were "lax" in making that connection between the threads.

Okay, so here's the difference, oh king of equivocations: The people of this forum are people you can talk to, people whose identities are confirmed, who are currently alive to confirm their experiences and, in many cases, have had their identities confirmed visually by others here.

Oh? To me, they are just login names and avatars...I can't confirm their identities. I'm not likely to meet any of them in person. And while there are people in the forum who CLAIM to have met them in person there are still problems:

1. Why should I believe anything that CD, Steel and Parkers (the boys) have said about their near-death experiences or speaking with others who had NDE's?
2. Why should I believe the people who claim to have met the boys? They are friends and BIASED.
3. How do the people who have met the boys know with certainty that the boys are being truthful about their experiences?
4. While anyone one who has met them might be willing to "die" for their beliefs that the boys have told the truth, how does that prove that the boys were honest when these friends don't actually KNOW that the boys were being honest?
5. I have been told repeatedly in this forum that eyewitness testimony is the weakest forum of testimony; yet, here we are...relying on the eyewitness testimony of the boys (and Kitty, too, here) that what they experienced and heard is true. Isn't that weak testimony?

So, you see, objections that are raised about the reliability of the gospels could be raised against the boys, but no one here doubts the latter. Why is the former any less credible?

The gospel authors, by contrast, were anonymous, the names on the books added later by people in no position to know, and regardless of your baseless, fiat assertions of certainty, the scholarly consensus, from people actually studying these things, disagrees.

1. On the one hand, it does not ACTUALLY matter who the authors were; what matters is whether we can verify the truth of what they wrote.
2. OTOH, since the names of the authors WAS known in the Early Church (and hence added later to the flysheets of the books), it is a nice little bonus that these specific authors were in a position to speak authoritatively.

You also have no idea, by that token, whether they endured any form of torture or threats, but even if they did, so what? People can endure those things and still be mistaken; the martyrs of every other religion are testament to that, if we are to take christianity as true.

You mean other than the fact that extra-biblical evidence reports Nero was blaming the Christians for the fire in Rome, or that Roman officials recorded in their official correspondence that they were questioning Christians or even that the NT records the deaths, imprisonment and punishments of the early believers?

Lax, I have said repeatedly that people die for mistaken beliefs ALL THE TIME. However, people are not typically willing to be tortured and killed for something they know they made up.

That the early church fathers vouched for the character of the people who happened to confirm what they already believed, and would keep them seated in a position of power, is immaterial; their bias is obvious.

It might be good to recall that these were ADULT converts to Christianity. The earliest believers, the first generation, didn’t hear the gospel from their parents; so much for the “indoctrination” theory that is bandied about frequently in this forum. These were people who were just as intelligent as you, and they were actually members of another faith (Judaism), and they still accepted the gospel based upon the testimony and witness of the apostles. The apostles, by the way, had to go through the same process of coming to terms with who Jesus really was. They were just as skeptical as you are…but three years of witnessing miracles culminating is seeing the risen Jesus convinced them. And they never gave up those beliefs…even unto death.

Now, is it also reasonable to assume that members of this forum might be biased in their support of the boys? Just asking.

Given the above, and the supernatural nature of the claims, in a world where the supernatural hasn't even been demonstrated as possible, it is not reasonable at all to accept that what they wrote about Jesus was true. Hell, even if we lived in a world where the supernatural had been demonstrated as possible, we still could not say more than that the authors believed what they wrote... and possibly not even that, given the severe lack of evidence in support of either conclusion.

“It is not reasonable at all”? Really? I think the amount of evidence is far more compelling than you suggest.

Which, of course, is all secondary to the main point, which is that you are only pretending that you know who the authors of the gospel are. Whether consciously or not, I don't care; you have no good reason to believe the authors are the ones on the epigraphs.

I’m pretending to know? I laid out my argument for the traditional authorship in the Historical Reliability thread.

We had to spend a day contorting ourselves through these ridiculous games for this? Really?

If you had more important things planned, I hope you didn’t cancel them on my account.

Are we going to get an apology for the insane overreach with which you began this stillbirth of an argument? Or are you going to stick to your dishonesty guns to the last?

Of course I’m sticking to my guns. There was no overreach, and there will be no apology because none is warranted.

Now, I have responded to your post at length. Please return the courtesy by responding to the three questions I posed to Cthulhu Dreaming earlier this morning. Thanks.

---

---

---

Why is what the authors of the gospels wrote about the things they saw any less credible than the things you wrote about (highlighted above for clarity)?

OK, let me try something different to capture your attention here: WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS SAW WHAT THEY PENNED DOWN?

They don't even put that claim out themselves and they spin quite different tales. So these are obviously not eyewitness accounts but a collection of tales that were floating round at the time in question.

Two of the four gospels contain passages which show that the author was either an eyewitness or based upon interviews conducted with eyewitnesses.

---

---

---

Here, I'll play:

Thank you, Parkers. Discusson is much more persuasive than simply hurling foul language at me.

Why is what the authors of the gospels wrote about the things they saw any less credible than the things you wrote about (highlighted above for clarity)?

Because unlike our experiences, they aren't verifiable.

What do you have in mind when you say "verifiable"?

And how could any member of this forum verify the experiences that any of you three had?

Alternatively, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt - and take you at your word - but not do the same with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Because if push comes to shove, you could get hold of the Reserve records for his branch of service and verify his service -- including his presence in combat -- from their records. You could also find his squad-mates and interview them.

Agreed. That would add credibility (for the record, I do not doubt your service record). But would that help us to know what was in CD's mind when he was facing death? Would that prove beyond a doubt that you never thought of God when you personally were confronted with death? Would that eliminate the possibility that the marines with whom Mike spoke weren't simply trying to maintain their "tough guy" image?

All we really have is your testimony (oral if given to friends in person and written in your service records and this forum) about what you saw, heard and experienced personally and from others.

Your claim to be telling the truth is strong...just as strong as the same claim made by the Apostle John at the end of his service record.

Can you explain what makes YOUR write up of YOUR personal experiences more believable than theirs?

Because claiming to have been in combat -- or in my case, to have gone into the danger of a working fire -- is much more believable than claiming to have been the son of God.

But we're not talking about Jesus' claim to be the Son of God. Not yet, anyway. We're only trying to establish the claim of reliability for the service records of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than this one that you're mounting, Pigeon.

You are truly a man of many talents, Parkers.

[abaris]

Two of the four gospels contain passages which show that the author was either an eyewitness or based upon interviews conducted with eyewitnesses

---

---

Based upon interviews conducted with eyewitnesses - I love that. Probably with check, recheck and double check to be on the safe side. Boy, have you got no clue of how authors in the old world went about their business.

But at least we moved away from the eyewitness being the only explanation and we're back to hearsay.

Tell me, do you believe the Vita Karoli Magni also to be a true to the letter eyewitness account?

[Randy Carson]

Of course you all did. And I really appreciate the fact that no one said a word in advance and let the whole thing play out to the end. That was nice.

I did post three questions to CD a moment ago...care to answer them?

Please feel free to peruse the why would they lie gallery of idiocy which we have encountered many times before you. If you think we were at all surprised by you turning over high card with a pair on the board, here's a pro tip, Randy: We all see the pair on the board.

Oh...of course. You all saw it coming and although you were actually bored by the whole thing, you let it play out all day and then merely feigned anger when I turned over my hole cards? Damn, you guys are good. I never picked any of that up throughout the day or even after I raked your chips.

But seriously, let's deal with the content of your argument here...

Why is what the authors of the gospels wrote about the things they saw any less credible than the things you wrote about (highlighted above for clarity)?

You have yet to demonstrate the following:
1) Who the writers of the gospels were
2) That they saw what they wrote down rather than wrote down oral history
3) That, even if we take 1) and 2) out of the equation and make some ridiculous logical leaps to get where you want us to be, that just because a person believes something and relates that, this makes it true. See Frederic Bartlett's experiments on reconstructve memory. (note: I hesitate to even put this last one in here, because I know you'll skip right over the first two points. Please prove me wrong.)

Yet to demonstrate who the authors were? I know you know that I posted this in the Historical Reliabilty thread, so why would you claim I have not demonstrated this? You may not agree...in which case the burden is now on you to prove why my evidence is wrong, btw...but I demonstrated why the traditional authorship of the gospels is acceptable.

Additionally, while it is a nice bonus to know that the authors really were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it is not a requirement that we know this in order for the content of the gospels to be true. However, John specifically makes the claim that he was the apostle who recorded all the events in that gospel in John 20. Luke tells us very clearly that he has interviewed the witnesses and is making an orderly account. And I discussed Matthew and Mark in the other thread.

So, actually, I'm skipping over the last one after having responded to the first two. Fooled ya!

Alternatively, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt - and take you at your word - but not do the same with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

You shouldn't. If you cared to verify it, you could do so. Makes literally no difference to me. If you were skeptical to the point where any part of my story makes you think I was lying, you are free to investigate and come to your own conclusion. Either way, it is something that you could find out.

How? By coming to your home and asking you face to face? Isn't that what Luke did? By following you around and listening to you tell of your experiences with combat veterans in front of many audiences both large and small? Isn't that what Mark did?

Can you explain what makes YOUR write up of YOUR personal experiences more believable than theirs?

Well, mine doesn't have zombies running around. Mine doesn't have conflicting accounts of Jesus' childhood, birth, death. Mine doesn't have men walking on water or multiplying fish, or magical healing, rising of the dead, a claim to have been written by illiterate lower class peasants from rural Galilee, proven to be pseudepigraphical. I am the primary source for my story.

And as I'm constantly being told here, eyewitness testimony is the WEAKEST form of evidence. So, which is it? Should I believe what you say precisely because your are promising me you are telling the truth? Or should I reject your story because other atheists here believe such testimony to be weak?

You folks, as a group, want to have it both ways. It's either one or the other...and which it is simply depends on the opinion of the atheist with whom I am speaking, apparently.

So, those things. But still, make up your own mind. I will trust that the people who know me will trust my story, and that is all that matters to me.

I wonder if any of the apostles ever went to bed thinking the same thing after a tough day.

---

I BELIEVE YOU because in the absence of evidence to the contrary about your character, your motivations, your mental state, etc., I have no reason to believe that you would lie about something important to you.

Neither did the apostles.

So, do you believe Harry Potter too? There's the same kind of evidence for his existence as there is for the apostles - scripture. It's only your personal opinion to put more stock in the bible.

Has J.K. Rowling ever suggested that she was recording actual history?

---

Two of the four gospels contain passages which show that the author was either an eyewitness or based upon interviews conducted with eyewitnesses.

Based upon interviews conducted with eyewitnesses - I love that. Probably with check, recheck and double check to be on the safe side. Boy, have you got no clue of how authors in the old world went about their business.

And your credentials as a professional historian are...?

But at least we moved away from the eyewitness being the only explanation and we're back to hearsay.

Luke 1
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Gee, Luke was aware of lots of accounts of Jesus. It appears that He got more press than some in this forum care to admit.

[IATIA]

And as I'm constantly being told here, eyewitness testimony is the WEAKEST form of evidence. So, which is it? Should I believe what you say precisely because your are promising me you are telling the truth? Or should I reject your story because other atheists here believe such testimony to be weak?

Eyewitness testimony can be significantly strengthened through corroborating evidence of which the gospels have none. Whereas, evidence and statements provided by the posters here can be corroborated if one were so inclined as to put forth the time and effort.

[Randy Carson]

And as I'm constantly being told here, eyewitness testimony is the WEAKEST form of evidence. So, which is it? Should I believe what you say precisely because your are promising me you are telling the truth? Or should I reject your story because other atheists here believe such testimony to be weak?

Eyewitness testimony can be significantly strengthened through corroborating evidence of which the gospels have none. Whereas, evidence and statements provided by the posters here can be corroborated if one were so inclined as to put forth the time and effort.

Could the evidence and statements of the authors of the gospels be corroborated if one were so inclined as to put forth the time and effort?

[SteelCurtain]

You have yet to demonstrate the following:
1) Who the writers of the gospels were
2) That they saw what they wrote down rather than wrote down oral history
3) That, even if we take 1) and 2) out of the equation and make some ridiculous logical leaps to get where you want us to be, that just because a person believes something and relates that, this makes it true. See Frederic Bartlett's experiments on reconstructve memory. (note: I hesitate to even put this last one in here, because I know you'll skip right over the first two points. Please prove me wrong.)

Yet to demonstrate who the authors were? I know you know that I posted this in the Historical Reliabilty thread, so why would you claim I have not demonstrated this? You may not agree...in which case the burden is now on you to prove why my evidence is wrong, btw...but I demonstrated why the traditional authorship of the gospels is acceptable.

Additionally, while it is a nice bonus to know that the authors really were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it is not a requirement that we know this in order for the content of the gospels to be true. However, John specifically makes the claim that he was the apostle who recorded all the events in that gospel in John 20. Luke tells us very clearly that he has interviewed the witnesses and is making an orderly account. And I discussed Matthew and Mark in the other thread.

So, actually, I'm skipping over the last one after having responded to the first two. Fooled ya!

You have asserted these things, not demonstrated them. Big difference. We do not know who the original authors are, we most certainly know their names weren't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The last point was certainly important. Even if we accept your bald assertion that the writers really were M,M,L,J, that doesn't lend any credibility whatsoever to their story.

You shouldn't. If you cared to verify it, you could do so. Makes literally no difference to me. If you were skeptical to the point where any part of my story makes you think I was lying, you are free to investigate and come to your own conclusion. Either way, it is something that you could find out.

How? By coming to your home and asking you face to face? Isn't that what Luke did? By following you around and listening to you tell of your experiences with combat veterans in front of many audiences both large and small? Isn't that what Mark did?

However you need to verify it if you cared to. It's up to you, as the skeptic about my story or anyone else's. Whatever would be adequate for you. If nothing would be adequate, fine. I could care less whether you believe me or not.

Well, mine doesn't have zombies running around. Mine doesn't have conflicting accounts of Jesus' childhood, birth, death. Mine doesn't have men walking on water or multiplying fish, or magical healing, rising of the dead, a claim to have been written by illiterate lower class peasants from rural Galilee, proven to be pseudepigraphical. I am the primary source for my story.

And as I'm constantly being told here, eyewitness testimony is the WEAKEST form of evidence. So, which is it? Should I believe what you say precisely because your are promising me you are telling the truth? Or should I reject your story because other atheists here believe such testimony to be weak?

You folks, as a group, want to have it both ways. It's either one or the other...and which it is simply depends on the opinion of the atheist with whom I am speaking, apparently.

How many times have I said that you shouldn't believe our testimony on the merits of the testimony alone, unless you care to? Why is it that you keep ignoring anything any of us says that doesn't fit with your strawman? Is your argument so formulaic that you just plow through any pothole and pretend it went the way you wanted it to?

I'll say it again. You don't know me. You don't know anyone here. You should not take anything anyone says here just at face value unless you have sufficient reason to do so, or if the stakes are low enough that skepticism isn't warranted.

The biggest failure of these arguments is treating the claims as if they are the same. I am claiming that I served in the military, that I helped to facilitate a support group, and that I met men and women who claimed to remain to be atheists during the most intense firefights and battles.

The gospels are claiming resurrections, zombies, magic water/wine tricks, multiplying fish, conflicting genealogies, magic healing, walking on water, Jesus controlling the weather, pigs demon possessed running off of cliffs, spitting in eyes to cure blindness, and so much more ridiculous blather.

To pretend that the same criteria are needed to corroborate the two or that the same level of incredulity is required for both accounts is ridiculous.

So, those things. But still, make up your own mind. I will trust that the people who know me will trust my story, and that is all that matters to me.

I wonder if any of the apostles ever went to bed thinking the same thing after a tough day.

You seem to be making the case that they didn't. Either way, it is irrelevant.

[Kitty Galore]

LOL...you are funny Randy. I like you.

Verification. Plus, you said you believed "the boys" and me, then asked why you should believe them. Seems that since you believe them (and me) you could answer your own question. Right?

Is it that you believe these things happened, you just doubt the claim about then considering there is a magic sky man, or heaven, when they were in these situations?

Otherwise, there IS verification that CD was close to death twice in the last few years.

[abaris]

And your credentials as a professional historian are...?

My degree from the University of Vienna.

And as for your Luke quote, that's standard procedure for the time in question. It's basically a plea for being taken seriously. As you would know if you had any experience with ancient books and documents.

[SteelCurtain]

Eyewitness testimony can be significantly strengthened through corroborating evidence of which the gospels have none. Whereas, evidence and statements provided by the posters here can be corroborated if one were so inclined as to put forth the time and effort.

Could the evidence and statements of the authors of the gospels be corroborated if one were so inclined as to put forth the time and effort?

Certainly. But corroborating a story requires primary sources, and, most importantly, not starting out with the conclusion that that they're real.

You Christians aren't so good at that last part. 

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning that you've embarked on works just as well for the Greek gods, the Roman gods, Mithra, Allah, Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda, Amun Ra, Isis, Thor...