MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

Sorry, I have to interject on this one because it's something I cover specifically in my book: Jenny said misremember, not that they wouldn't remember it at all.

I understand what she said, I am just saying it shouldn't be said regarding THAT particular subject...we are ultimately talking about a man that supposedly rose from the dead and she is talking about how 20 years later, people forget shit like that...and as I said, bullshit.

The example I've always used is the Oklahoma City Bombing. I remember sitting in my Biology class when we heard and felt the blast. I remember that when we were told a bomb had gone off downtown, someone asked whether it was downtown Oklahoma City or downtown in our suburb. I remember my exact response: “There’s no way it was Oklahoma City, you moron. Do you realize how big a bomb would have to be to feel it this far away?” (Even then, I was a smart ass and had a habit of putting my foot in my mouth.)

You don't say?

I remember my best friend and I jumping into his car and heading downtown since we both had first aid training. (We were young and naïve, thinking we could help, never considering we would probably just get in the way.)

Good intentions has no age requirement.

I especially remember the screeching U-turn we made when we heard on the radio that investigators thought they might have found additional bombs in the rubble. This was the basis of the story as I retold it over the years, and not surprisingly, that is the extent of what I remember.

Looking back there is much more that I do not remember.

You remembered the bombing tho...they remembered the Resurrection tho. You don't have to remember every little detail, but the jest of it was there was a bombing in OKC.

I can’t for the life of me remember to whom I had made the sarcastic comment, though I seem to think I could narrow it down to a few specific people who I remember having been in that class.

That is you..everyone is different...Paul remembered, you didn't.

I have no idea if my friend and I simply left class in the ensuing chaos or if we told anyone what we were doing. I don’t even remember what I did after we turned around—I wouldn’t think I would have gone back to class, but I remember spending some time watching the news on a TV in another class-room. (Though actually, that might have been before we decided to try to go and volunteer. But again, I don’t remember.)

You have a shitty memory, apparently.

There are also details over which my friend and I have argued as the years have passed. I remember the class immediately coming to a standstill with the interruption. I remember someone sticking her head in to tell us what had happened. My friend, however, specifically remembers us only hearing the news after class had let out—specifically citing someone who had been upset that we hadn’t been informed earlier. Both of us have specific logical reasons that convince us that the events unfolded exactly as we remember them, and although these details don’t appear to be reconcilable, neither of us was ever willing to budge.

Then there are the details that I have crafted in my own mind. A few years after the fact, I couldn’t remember if we had been in Biology or Human Physiology. My friend said he was absolutely certain it had been Biology. Although I concur now, I’m not sure if it’s because I actually remember it or because his certainty convinced me and just made me think I remembered it. Likewise, the exact time of the blast is a matter of historical record, but in my mind, I tend to want to re-member my Biology class being earlier in the morning.

All the examples you gave are the same--I'm sure people remember those events, but I imagine that if pressed, there would be numerous discrepancies to actual occurences.

True, I gotcha...but the main idea is that there was a bombing in OKC...no one is disputing that fact...and likewise; the main idea was that Jesus Resurrected, and no one is disputing that..at least, not the early church.

---

He never intimated that it did, you fool. All he said was that indoctrination, as a method of bringing people into a certain belief, leaves them preferring stunted, simplistic answers delivered in a tone of authority, especially if that belief is supposed to govern much of a person's life.

Well, that is what I got out of it because otherwise, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever how someone came to get their belief...hell, someone could be indoctrinated with truth...so if they were indoctrinated with truth, then all of that other crap doesn't really matter, now does it?

If Jesus ACTUALLY rose from the dead, and someone is indoctrinated with the belief that Jesus actually rose from the dead...then what would be the problem?

You know what else is a fallacy? The strawman.

Maybe consider, you know, actually responding to what people say in future, instead of what you imagine them to say? All the fallacies you spot seem to be coming from the bits you imagine, after all.

Keeping trying, Esquil...eventually I will let you win an argument against me...eventually.

---

Apparently, you don't know what the genetic fallacy is. Nobody is arguing that your claims are false because of indoctrination; merely that indoctrination typically results in, and universally explains, harebrained idiots such as yourself who refuse to admit, after their claims are refuted and counterarguments are offered, that beneath the veneer of confidence lie empty concepts and hollow delusion.

Usually when someone claims that someone else has been "indoctrinated", the person that is making the accusation usually thinks that the indoctrination is based on something false, naïve, stupid...whatever it is.

I've never heard someone say "He's been indoctrinated with the truth of 2+2=4!!!"

Because as I mentioned before, if the indoctrination was based upon truth, then I doubt the poster would have made the freakin' statement...so again, that's how I took it..and as I said...GENETIC FALLACY.

[KUSA]

I can't believe King Tut is still flapping his beef curtains.

[Mudhammam]

Usually when someone claims that someone else has been "indoctrinated", the person that is making the accusation usually thinks that the indoctrination is based on something false, naïve, stupid...whatever it is.

I've never heard someone say "He's been indoctrinated with the truth of 2+2=4!!!"

Because as I mentioned before, if the indoctrination was based upon truth, then I doubt the poster would have made the freakin' statement...so again, that's how I took it..and as I said...GENETIC FALLACY.

I can see your point...

If I choose to ignore 50+ pages of debate... (assuring you that facts, such as 2+2=4, are demonstrable, and that your faith, by definition, is not).

...Which seems to be something you've quite adeptly perfected.

[dyresand]

HM has the power of faith +100 to ignorance +100 to ignoring scientific findings and history.
I have logic and reasoning +99999999inf to not believing what a book and or pastors tell me.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

I can't believe King Tut is still flapping his beef curtains.

It's a miracle! The bigger fish he had to fry must have cooked themselves!

[Esquilax]

Well, that is what I got out of it because otherwise, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever how someone came to get their belief...

Sure it does; you can come to correct beliefs for irrational reasons, and that would mean it would be irrational for anyone else to accept those beliefs sans evidence, even if they turned out to be true.

Additionally, how you come to your beliefs is still a part of what makes you you. As I specifically explained, in the post you're quoting, those who are indoctrinated tend to be more satisfied with simplistic answers given authoritatively.

It's actually kinda bothersome that you assert that it doesn't matter how someone comes to their beliefs, as a response to a post explaining how it does matter.

hell, someone could be indoctrinated with truth...so if they were indoctrinated with truth, then all of that other crap doesn't really matter, now does it?

You can have correct beliefs for bad reasons. If someone believed in the existence of the Platypus because their parents told them one existed, and this was before we had any evidence of such a thing, then even though they're technically correct, they had no good reason to think that, and other people would not be justified in accepting the claim as true.

The reasons why you hold certain beliefs matter. If they didn't, you wouldn't have spent the past few weeks arguing for intelligent design and the resurrection of Jesus; you understand that the reasons for beliefs matter, or else you wouldn't spend so much time explaining yours.

If Jesus ACTUALLY rose from the dead, and someone is indoctrinated with the belief that Jesus actually rose from the dead...then what would be the problem?

Because there would be no method by which that indoctrinated person could distinguish that true belief from any false belief. That seems like a pretty big problem.

Keeping trying, Esquil...eventually I will let you win an argument against me...eventually.

This is your problem, you're operating under the mistaken belief that you get to decide who wins any given argument or debate. You don't; your position on an argument you're involved in is obviously biased. Of course you think you're in the right and demonstrating it; if you didn't then you wouldn't be holding that position, now would you? But you don't get to spin the fact that you've managed to convince yourself of an idea you already believed into some broader win.

Notice I'm not doing that, because unlike you I understand that my position on this is both obvious- if I'm still holding the position in question- and irrelevant to the actual reality. Actually, your constant appeals to "winning" are very telling; when a rational person argues, he does it from a position where his mind can be changed, if the opposing argument is better. You seem to be focused on something else; the factual accuracy of your position doesn't seem to matter as much to you as winning does. It's like you've chosen your dog, right or wrong, and this is just a game to you.

But truth isn't something you win at, it's something you mold your positions to fit. You need to start leaving the conclusions as to the efficacy of your argument to other, non-biased parties.

The ones who, for some reason, have done nothing but disagree with you.

[His_Majesty]

[Jenny A]

[dyresand]

HM if i see you in hell I'm going to just point and laugh at you.
Also i will really enjoy the theists disparity and tell them to get over it because
well god only loves specific people.

[Mudhammam]

If I choose to ignore 50+ pages of debate... (assuring you that facts, such as 2+2=4, are demonstrable, and that your faith, by definition, is not).

...Which seems to be something you've quite adeptly perfected.

Huh?