Letter Re: Religious Things

Go back to page 9

Dan Responded:
This will be my last reply to you. I have enjoyed our debate over the past few years, but I feel it has reached a point where I feel very comfortable in my own theories. I haven't been debating you out of a desire to convince you, but rather out of a desire to see if you could convince me. It is the same process I used when converting to atheism - to see if the atheists could convince me, rather than me convince them. So, because I feel there is little left to cover with you, and because of how fundamentally different our perspectives are on evidence, logic, belief, and analogy, I see no reason to continue this further. This will be my last response, and you can respond back if you wish but I will not reply. Much thanks,
Dan
On Caesar: I've made the differences between Caesar's assassination and Jesus' resurrection crystal clear. One was witnessed, one wasn't. One had all witnesses agree he was assassinated, one had a divided group on whether or not he resurrected. One was a natural event, one was supernatural. One fits the cultural context, one contradicts theological context. Yet despite these factual points, you continue to reference Caesar as a valid analogy throughout your response. This is unacceptable.
On Miracles: You once again provoke me into response of whether I view miracles as "infinitesimal" and whether this impacts my interpretation of scripture. You specifically ask: "tell me that you don't actually believe that the chance of a miracle is infinitesimal. I responded specifically to this two emails ago with this: "I'm 80% convinced the Resurrection didn't happen, but if it did, I'm 100% convinced the Resurrection didn't mean what Christians thought it did." So that means I give the Resurrection miracle a 20% likelihood of occurring. You tell me, does 20% represent the word "infinitesimal"?
You also seem to tie my belief that miracles were "infinitesimal" to the reason I converted. This is not true. I converted to atheism based on the writings of Shelby Spong, Elaine Pagals, and Sam Harris, which as far as I can remember, said nothing on the subject of likelihood of miracle. In fact, Spong is Christian. I converted way before reading anything by Ehrman, and Ehrman is the only one who makes the point about the likelihood of miracles. Also, I made it explicitly clear multiple times that "infinitesimal" miracles were a belief of historians like Ehrman, not a personal belief of my own. You have spent so much time dwelling upon this subject, and how my beliefs tie into it, that is has almost ruined the debate for me. It's such a complete and utter dead end, yet you continually think it will lead somewhere. This is another reason why I am done with the debate.
I demonstrated how, even if we say all those miracles HAPPENED, they still didn't represent anything that Christianity tries to tell us they mean. If anything, the best we could say is that the Jewish God is real and that Jesus was a deception. This is due to the number of crystal clear theological rules that God would have to break in order to use Jesus in this way (human sacrifice, law abolishment, singular sin atonement, terribly misleading Messiah prophecies). You gave no response to these issues other than to say they are my "personal opinion," which is a convenient way for you to excuse yourself from an argument you cannot win.
In any case, let's be clear that whether the miracles happened or not, Christianity is still a farce, which is the only thing that matters.
On God's Limitations: Let's be very clear on who is limiting God. Whenever God does something in a stupidly illogical way, I say "why did he do it this way? He could've done it much better this way." Then you say "He did it this way because maybe x, y or z could've happened."
In other words, you make up excuses, which are also stupidly illogical, to cover up God's stupidly illogical behavior and planning system. You cover up one factually stupid event (why didn't Jesus clearly talk about universal salvation?) with many hypothetical, stupid excuses (because the disciples would've dragged him out of town, or God didn't want to be too clear about it). You are the one inventing up scenarios which restrict God's options. For example, you said the disciples could've drug Jesus out of town. This is restricting God by saying Jesus could've been manhandled to the point of ruining God's plan. This is YOUR claim of restriction when you make these statements. I am the one who says God isn't limited. I am the one saying God could turn Jesus' body invisible if he wanted to avoid manhandling.
My point has never been to limit God's power, or say he could only do things one way and not another. My point is to say that, knowing what we know, God is either limited in options (thus not God), or God is an unjust imbecile concerning universal salvation (thus not a God worthy of worship).
You go on to say that "Jesus was God manifested in the flesh, and thus had the limitations of being in a physical body." Bravo for gobbling up nonsensical Christian apologetics. Since when is walking on water a limitation of a physical body? Or curing neurological disorders like blindness with a wave of your hand? Or resurrecting dead people on command? They simply aren't. Christians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim Jesus was limited in the body, while simultaneously claiming Jesus performed miracles like walking on water to prove he was God. It's pathetic, illogical, incomprehensible blabber.
On Paul's Conversion: My point of bringing up this particular point is to show that Paul's conversion was entirely dependent upon heavenly visions. This is a fact. Yet you claim "And which passage says that the ONLY thing that turned Paul from Jew to Christian was hallucinatory evidence? That his encounters with Christians, before or after the incident on the road to Damascus, had nothing to do with it?" Apparently someone here needs a basic Bible lesson.
Paul "violently persecuted the church of God and was trying to destroy it." Paul had a "heavenly vision" in which God questions his actions. God turns him BLIND, then gives him directions and says to wait for someone. This person comes, unblinds Paul, and tells Paul that since he got to see "the Righteous One and to hear his own voice" that Paul should now become a "witness to all the world." Paul agrees, saying "After that, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout the countryside of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance." Acts 26:6-20
The vision directly led to Paul's conversion. This is fact, accepted by the vast majority of Christian scholars. The verses are crystal clear. He was obeying the orders of the heavenly vision.
Gal 1:11-12 "For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did receive it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
However, Paul then complains that "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" 1 Cor 1:22. It's blatant hypocrisy for someone who's conversion story depended upon a "heavenly vision." Your ignorance on this subject is unwarranted.
You also ask "Which passages of Paul's writings say (that he didn't believe in Jesus due to lack of OT prophecy fulfillment." Paul used to be a Jew. He says Jews demand signs, and that the crucifixion is a stumbling block for them. It is very safe to assume that Paul, having been a Jew, also thought the crucifixion a stumbling block since it was completely out of bounds for a Jewish Messiah.
You also ask "And where does it say that he believed the encounter was only a hallucination?" He claims it was a heavenly vision. I claim it was likely epilepsy or hallucination or both.
Paul's reasons for conversion, and his subsequent hypocrisy concerning how others should convert, is so plain to see that I feel it a complete waste of time to debate with you.
Using the Gospels to Disprove the Resurrection: In your response, you reply to 5 specific points of mine by repeating the same point. That since the Gospels say Jesus Resurrected, I can't use them to show that Jesus wasn't Resurrected. Do you not grasp how idiotic of a concept this is? The four Gospels were stories passed down by the BELIEVERS. I'm going to use an analogy to show how ignorant your point is, though I'm sure you're going to twist it up inside your head to justify it somehow.
12 friends are told their dead friend Bob is on a mountain. When they get to the mountain, 6 think it's just some stranger. The 6 others think it's Bob. The 6 who think they see a stranger don't write it down since it's not important. The 6 who think it was Bob write down their account. They also say Bob could morph into strangers, and that Bob could randomly disappear out of their sight in order to surprise them. Skip forward 2000 years. A person like you comes along claiming that these 6 accounts are 90% proof that Bob rose from the dead, simply because they say Bob rose from the dead. Don't you see the ridiculousness? It is not worth debating for me.
Believers vs Nonbelievers.
The fact that you think I shouldn't be allowed to use the Gospels to show the Resurrection event as unlikely boxes me into a corner which is rigged unfairly in your favor. The only sources we have are from believers, despite the fact that non believers existed. I have given reasons why the non believers are trustworthy and why the believers are untrustworthy. You attempt to say that non believers are cowards who wanted to run back home instead of become martyrs for a cause. It can be safely said that you don't fundamentally understand martyrdom, the culture, or the state of mind of these disenfranchised people. This is waste of time for me until you get to a point where you can speak rationally about the psychology of martyrs and believers of dogmatic systems. I suggest you read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer to get you started in this direction. This is a waste of time for me at this point.
On being a "Texas Sharpshooter"
You claim I am picking and choosing verses to prove the point of inflation. You claim I am following the "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy. However, you don't understand the premise of this fallacy. To quote, "The fallacy does not apply if one had an ex ante, or prior, expectation of the particular relationship in question before examining the data." Let's see. The Gospels stories were oral stories written down 40+ years after the events. Is there any expectation for inflation? Obviously, yes. Is there an expectation for later Gospels to have more inflation than earlier Gospels? Obviously, yes. Do we see clear implications of inflation in the evidence following this pattern? Obviously, yes.
Since you disagree that inflation would ever crop up in these stories, it is a waste of my time to debate you. You have no understanding of oral tradition, nor of its malleability over time by social groups.
You try to disprove supernatural inflation. You do this by referencing an earthquake, which isn't a supernatural event. You do this by referencing who sees angels in John, which doesn't have any implications for the inflated supernatural event of Jesus himself appearing at the tomb with angels. You do this by claiming Disciples doubted Jesus in Luke after seeing him, despite this being the second "doubt" due to "joy and amazement" - thus being an exaggeration of their state of shock, not doubt due to disbelief. You do this by claiming Thomas doubts Jesus on sight, despite absolutely no implication in the verses that he does.
You are unable to grasp my argument. It concerns supernatural inflation of events. I gave 3 lines of inflation for 10 claims, encompassing 25 verses and all four Gospels. In response you make 4 claims, one which was an outright lie, one of which was purposely misleading, and two which have no implication upon the supernatural context of my argument. You believe 40 year old oral traditions would have no inflation, and that later written Gospels has no reason to be more exaggerated than earlier ones. You believe in fundamentally illogical concepts, and until you get a better grasp upon rationality, it is a waste of time to debate you.
Two Last Points: You claim "most atheists reject supernatural claims, but that doesn't mean they're somehow demanding evidence for supernatural claims." This is so completely ridiculous. When you used to be atheist, you must've been angry at God or something, because you have no fundamental understanding of how atheism works. Atheism is entirely reliant upon science, and science always demands evidence. Theories can only be proven with positive evidence. So far, there has been zero positive evidence of a God ever existing or influencing anything in the world. This is why there is no such thing as a science branch devoted to examining God's interaction with the world. There is as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for the existence of invisible monkey demons.
Secondly, I find it most striking that you stick to your guns of "my view is that only God knows who's going to Heaven or hell." This is despite obvious verses in the Bible that say "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which to be saved." Acts 4:12.
It's so funny how you avoid a topic that Paul would've gladly proclaimed to the masses. I guess Christians these days no longer find it tasteful to advertise Hell like they used to. So hard to keep up with the trends.
2/21/11

I responded:
"I've made the differences between Caesar's assassination and Jesus' resurrection crystal clear. One was witnessed, one wasn't."
Which, as I pointed out in the last letter, is irrelevant. If I see a tree that's fallen over, should I conclude it didn't fall over, since I didn't actually see it do so?
"One had all witnesses agree he was assassinated, one had a divided group on whether or not he resurrected."
Which merely makes it "questionable", as I agree it is. But if, hypothetically, we had some people arguing early on that Caesar wasn't assassinated, I wouldn't conclude that it was "unlikely" that he was, but would weigh the differing evidences to determine which was more likely, exactly as I've done with Jesus. All things considered, I find Jesus' resurrection far more likely than His having not been resurrected. I can understand why some people would believe Jesus wasn't resurrected when He was, but I find it very hard to fathom why some people would believe Jesus was resurrected when He wasn't.
"One was a natural event, one was supernatural."
Which is only a problem for those who reject supernatural events out-of-hand.
"One fits the cultural context, one contradicts theological context."
Actually, it fits it just fine. At best, you're arguing that other details of the Gospels don't fit the context. But since the resurrection itself is a detail that occurs in all four Gospels, it's silly to argue that it doesn't fit with the Gospels.
"You once again provoke me into response of whether I view miracles as "infinitesimal" and whether this impacts my interpretation of scripture. You specifically ask: "tell me that you don't actually believe that the chance of a miracle is infinitesimal. I responded specifically to this two emails ago with this: "I'm 80% convinced the Resurrection didn't happen, but if it did, I'm 100% convinced the Resurrection didn't mean what Christians thought it did." So that means I give the Resurrection miracle a 20% likelihood of occurring. You tell me, does 20% represent the word "infinitesimal"?"
It doesn't, which is why I was asking you for clarification. You first said that the chances were infinitesimal and that miracles were always the least likely possibility, then later said that the chances were 20% in this case. Because these two statements were contradictory, I wanted clarification from you, so I was asking you if you changed your mind towards miracles, misspoke about it, or what. If I'm just going with "what you said last", then I'd have to take the "20%" claim as accurate, but it bothers me to do so when you won't tell me whether your "infinitesimal" claim was a misstatement or a belief you've since abandoned. This suggests to me that you still believe your original statement. If you don't, I would have expected you to say so. So, basically, I don't know which of the conflicting statements is accurate, making it difficult for me to argue with you. So I guess I'm glad that our conversation is ending now.
"Also, I made it explicitly clear multiple times that "infinitesimal" miracles were a belief of historians like Ehrman, not a personal belief of my own."
No, you certainly did not. Here is an exact quote of the paragraph in which you said it:
"Historians show what probably happened in the past, but miracles, by their very nature, are always the least probable explanation for what happened. The chances of a miracle occurring are infinitesimal. If historians can only establish what probably happened, and miracles by their definition are the least probable occurrences, then more or less by definition, historians cannot establish that miracles have ever probably happened. They cannot show that a miracle, the least likely occurrence, is the most likely. This is true of the miracles of Mohammed, Hanina ben Dosa, Apollonius of Tyana -- and Jesus. What would be a more probable explanation for these events? Nearly any explanation you can think of that doesn't involve a miracle."
While you do talk about historians in this paragraph, you never once state or suggest that the chance of a miracle being infinitesimal is something THEY believe. And even if you intended to have done so, you were arguing in favor of the point, making it quite clear that you agreed, not disagreed, with the idea. There's no way that anyone reading the above paragraph would conclude that you didn't believe that the chance of a miracle occurring is infinitesimal. You were clearly and explicitly arguing in favor of the idea.
"You have spent so much time dwelling upon this subject, and how my beliefs tie into it, that is has almost ruined the debate for me. It's such a complete and utter dead end, yet you continually think it will lead somewhere. This is another reason why I am done with the debate."
Then all you had to do was tell me the truth. Did you misspeak? Have you changed your mind since making it? Or do you somehow feel that "infinitesimal" and "20%" are both accurate? You won't tell me, making it very hard to move ahead in the debate. Why didn't you just tell me what you do believe, and why you said it, so we could move forward?
The fact that you won't tell me that you misspoke, leads me to believe that you probably didn't misspeak.
The fact that you won't tell me that your attitude towards miracles has changed since making the statement, leads me to believe that your attitude towards miracles probably hasn't changed.
This makes it very hard for me to believe that you were telling the truth when you said that you felt the chance of Jesus being resurrected was "20%". If you would just tell me whether you misspoke or changed your attitude, then it would be very easy to believe that your "20%" statement was truthful. At the very least, I would have been glad to give you the benefit of the doubt so that we could move forward. But you've been very hesitant to give me any sort of clarification, and it's been frustrating.
"I demonstrated how, even if we say all those miracles HAPPENED, they still didn't represent anything that Christianity tries to tell us they mean."
I disagree, obviously, but what we were debating was whether the resurrection happened. If you want to say that the Christian understanding of the significance of the resurrection is faulty, that's fine. But that's not what I'm interested in debating.
"You gave no response to these issues other than to say they are my "personal opinion," which is a convenient way for you to excuse yourself from an argument you cannot win."
No, it's a way to excuse myself from an argument that I'm not interested in engaging in. I wanted to debate whether the resurrection happened, not what the significance of it was.
"In any case, let's be clear that whether the miracles happened or not, Christianity is still a farce, which is the only thing that matters."
You're welcome to your opinion, but I have yet to hear of anyone who believes that Jesus was resurrected but that Christianity is still a farce, which suggests to me that it's not a position that is tenable. That "Christianity is a farce" seems to be primarily (if not exclusively) the position of those who don't believe Jesus was resurrected in the first place.
"On God's Limitations: Let's be very clear on who is limiting God. Whenever God does something in a stupidly illogical way, I say "why did he do it this way? He could've done it much better this way."
Actually, your pattern of behavior in our conversation suggests otherwise. I've pointed out to you repeatedly where your response is that God must have been unable to do it any other way. If your response had been what you suggest above, then that's what I would have argued.
"Then you say "He did it this way because maybe x, y or z could've happened."
In other words, you make up excuses, which are also stupidly illogical, to cover up God's stupidly illogical behavior and planning system. You cover up one factually stupid event (why didn't Jesus clearly talk about universal salvation?) with many hypothetical, stupid excuses (because the disciples would've dragged him out of town, or God didn't want to be too clear about it)."
And, again, you're missing the point. I was simply arguing that God not doing a certain way COULD have been due to other factors that His being "unable " to. I even said that it could have been for other reasons that I'm not comprehending. I was simply trying to make the point that God NOT doing something could be because He CHOSE not to do so, not because He was UNABLE to.
"My point has never been to limit God's power, or say he could only do things one way and not another. My point is to say that, knowing what we know, God is either limited in options (thus not God), or God is an unjust imbecile concerning universal salvation (thus not a God worthy of worship)."
No, you've repeatedly said that God must be limited, and showed no comprehension of the idea that God could have chosen not to do so. You didn't even seem to consider the latter option.
"You go on to say that "Jesus was God manifested in the flesh, and thus had the limitations of being in a physical body." Bravo for gobbling up nonsensical Christian apologetics. Since when is walking on water a limitation of a physical body? Or curing neurological disorders like blindness with a wave of your hand? Or resurrecting dead people on command? They simply aren't. Christians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim Jesus was limited in the body, while simultaneously claiming Jesus performed miracles like walking on water to prove he was God. It's pathetic, illogical, incomprehensible blabber."
Only if you misunderstand it, as you clearly do. None of those were physical feats, any more than Moses parting the Red Sea was a physical feat. Jesus didn't walk on water because He was exceptionally light. Having supernatural powers doesn't mean that you're not limited in your body. He still had regular human strength, as far as I can see.
"On Paul's Conversion: My point of bringing up this particular point is to show that Paul's conversion was entirely dependent upon heavenly visions. This is a fact. Yet you claim "And which passage says that the ONLY thing that turned Paul from Jew to Christian was hallucinatory evidence? That his encounters with Christians, before or after the incident on the road to Damascus, had nothing to do with it?" Apparently someone here needs a basic Bible lesson.
Paul "violently persecuted the church of God and was trying to destroy it."
And who's to say that their faith and resistance didn't impress Paul to some degree. Obviously, it wasn't enough, in and of itself, to turn him into a Christian, but it may have played a factor in his later acceptance of Jesus.
"Paul had a "heavenly vision" in which God questions his actions. God turns him BLIND, then gives him directions and says to wait for someone. This person comes, unblinds Paul, and tells Paul that since he got to see "the Righteous One and to hear his own voice" that Paul should now become a "witness to all the world." Paul agrees"
Are you saying the actions of Ananias played no part in converting Paul? None at all? Read what Ananias says to him, "Jesus…has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." (Acts 9:17). But you're saying that what Ananias did was irrelevant to Paul's acceptance of Jesus.
"saying "After that, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout the countryside of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance." Acts 26:6-20"
Being obedient to the heavenly vision doesn't mean that it was the heavenly vision alone that caused him to convert.
"The vision directly led to Paul's conversion."
But was it SOLELY the vision that led to Paul's conversion?
"This is fact, accepted by the vast majority of Christian scholars. The verses are crystal clear. He was obeying the orders of the heavenly vision."
Yes, he was obeying the orders. But why? Did his witnessing of the martyrdoms of Stephen and other Christians play a part in his eventual acceptance of Jesus?
"You also ask "Which passages of Paul's writings say (that he didn't believe in Jesus due to lack of OT prophecy fulfillment." Paul used to be a Jew. He says Jews demand signs, and that the crucifixion is a stumbling block for them. It is very safe to assume that Paul, having been a Jew, also thought the crucifixion a stumbling block since it was completely out of bounds for a Jewish Messiah."
Uh-huh. So which passages of Paul's writings say that he didn't believe in Jesus due to lack of OT prophecy fulfillment? Your answer doesn't address the issue. You're saying that he didn't believe in Jesus because there were prophecies in the OT that he felt Jesus didn't fulfill. Which OT prophecies are you talking about, and where does Paul say that they were a problem for him?
"You also ask "And where does it say that he believed the encounter was only a hallucination?" He claims it was a heavenly vision. I claim it was likely epilepsy or hallucination or both."
So it's just your opinion. OK.
"12 friends are told their dead friend Bob is on a mountain. When they get to the mountain, 6 think it's just some stranger. The 6 others think it's Bob. The 6 who think they see a stranger don't write it down since it's not important. The 6 who think it was Bob write down their account. They also say Bob could morph into strangers, and that Bob could randomly disappear out of their sight in order to surprise them. Skip forward 2000 years. A person like you comes along claiming that these 6 accounts are 90% proof that Bob rose from the dead, simply because they say Bob rose from the dead. Don't you see the ridiculousness? It is not worth debating for me."
Let me put it this way - I wouldn't use those six accounts as evidence that Bob didn't rise from the dead. I might question them, based on various factors - such as the miraculousness of the events, but stories that say an event happened are not evidence that the event didn't happen.
"The fact that you think I shouldn't be allowed to use the Gospels to show the Resurrection event as unlikely boxes me into a corner which is rigged unfairly in your favor."
That's a little like saying that using the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination to show the assassination of Caesar as unlikely boxes them into a corner.
"I have given reasons why the non believers are trustworthy and why the believers are untrustworthy. You attempt to say that non believers are cowards who wanted to run back home instead of become martyrs for a cause."
No, I'm just showing you that they had more to gain from denying Jesus than they did from accepting Him, since you claimed the opposite was true. People naturally gravitate towards the path of least resistance, which, in this case, was the "let's not follow Jesus" path.
"It can be safely said that you don't fundamentally understand martyrdom, the culture, or the state of mind of these disenfranchised people."
I do know that people don't become martyrs for causes that they don't believe in. No, martyrdom doesn't prove a given cause is true, but it certainly shows that the believers do truly believe. And I find it very, very unlikely that the earliest Christians would have believed in Jesus' resurrection strongly enough to die for it if, in fact, Jesus wasn't resurrected. I can understand why, if Jesus was resurrected, some people (even former followers) would want to believe He wasn't. But I really can't understand why, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, some people would want to believe He was.
"You claim "most atheists reject supernatural claims, but that doesn't mean they're somehow demanding evidence for supernatural claims." This is so completely ridiculous. When you used to be atheist, you must've been angry at God or something, because you have no fundamental understanding of how atheism works. Atheism is entirely reliant upon science, and science always demands evidence. Theories can only be proven with positive evidence. So far, there has been zero positive evidence of a God ever existing or influencing anything in the world. This is why there is no such thing as a science branch devoted to examining God's interaction with the world. There is as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for the existence of invisible monkey demons."
Shot your own argument in the foot, there. Is science demanding the evidence for invisible monkey demons? If you reject something as existing, then you aren't demanding evidence for its existence. Only if you accept the possibility of something existing would you be asking for evidence for it.
"Secondly, I find it most striking that you stick to your guns of "my view is that only God knows who's going to Heaven or hell." This is despite obvious verses in the Bible that say "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which to be saved." Acts 4:12."
And that conflicts with only God knowing who's going to heaven or hell how, exactly?
3/19/11