Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nobody Dies for a Lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    How about Francisco J. Ayala, the biologist and philosopher, former Dominican priest and President and Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science?
    Sorry to snip your post, I'd add Lawrence Principe, who's Drew Professor of the History of Science at Johns Hopkins University and has two PhDs, one in History of Science (Johns Hopkins) and a second from University of Indiana (Organic Chemistry). He's also a devout Catholic.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Even a person with average, and in some cases below average intelligence can earn a Ph.D if they put in the time. One of my wife's friends has made a career out of going to college and has earned several degrees, including a Ph.D. Might sound impressive, but sit down and talk to her for 10-minutes and you quickly realize that she's really not all that bright.

      Which is how I feel about Dimbulb. He might have a doctorate, but after several years of debating him on tWeb, I have seen nothing to convince me that his intelligence is anything but average at best.
      Both you and OBP are correct to a point. I'm a PhD student in history (I'd rather not get into more detail here, some of you guys know specifically what I do), but a PhD can be more of an exercise in patience and a willingness to keep slogging it out than a sign of intelligence. Though, you generally have to be fairly intelligent in the first place to get into a PhD program.

      This is part of a larger discussion, but the American PhD system is pretty close to broken.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
        Your source admits the numbers are conjecture and also doesn't indicate whether it's counting infants. Based on looking at information regarding this on other sites, the 35-40 seems to be including those who die at young ages. This is problematic for determining how old people, once past their youth, would live, due to the high infant mortality rate screwing things up.
        Check the discussion of the lifespan numbers there AND in the linked paper.

        Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
        For example, I looked at the average lifespan of Benjamin Franklin and his 14 siblings (the source you cite claims lifespans were fairly stagnant until the 19th and 20th centuries so this was before they rose). Their average lifespan was a rather low 36 years. However, four of them didn't even make it to the age of 6. If we don't count those, then their average lifespan is increased to 49, with the earliest death being at the age of 35, the proposed average. In fact, two of them (including Benjamin) lived to be over 80! This showcases the effect that infant deaths can have in skewing lifespan averages and how they must be removed in order to find out how long the typical adult would live to be.
        This is true, but doesn't change the later evaluation I made based on lifespan rather life expectancy.

        Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
        As long as I'm on the subject of founding fathers, an amusing note: John Adams, the second president, lived to be 90 years old. Want to know how long it took for that title of "oldest-living president" to be taken away from him? (note I am referring to how long they lived period, not their age when assuming the presidency) It was nearly two centuries later, with Gerald Ford, though Herbert Hoover admittedly did come close. Sure, John Adams was obviously a particularly long-lived individual for his time period. But it certainly shows how even during time periods when the average lifespan was around 35-40, people could outlive the majority of people in today's world, to the point it took nearly two centuries to elect someone who ended up living a longer life.

        Well, it's behind a paywall so I can't view it. But the abstract note indicates that the hard data regarding lifespans at the time is "rather disappointing" which indicates uncertainty regarding the low lifespan people ascribe to it.
        Most of the articles I read indicated that the conjecture was made by assuming lifespans and life expectancy would not be significantly longer in the ANE than they were in the 1700s, when we begin to have better data. I consider that a reasonable assumption. But even if we use the lifespan number, those numbers and the date, plus the starting age of a credible "witness" to the life of Jesus (at least 10 years old), plus the far flung state of the Christian community, makes it extremely unlikely that very many eyewitnesses were alive for the writing of the gospels or Acts. Paul's letters, perhaps, and most likely none for John and Acts.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by psstein View Post
          Both you and OBP are correct to a point. I'm a PhD student in history (I'd rather not get into more detail here, some of you guys know specifically what I do), but a PhD can be more of an exercise in patience and a willingness to keep slogging it out than a sign of intelligence. Though, you generally have to be fairly intelligent in the first place to get into a PhD program.

          This is part of a larger discussion, but the American PhD system is pretty close to broken.
          Also it is indication of a certain level of expertise in a very specific field and does not somehow turn one into a polymath by any means. You might be a world's leading authority in, say, organic chemistry but a hopeless inept buffoon when it comes to virtually everything else.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Many are the times I have heard that Christianity is to be believed because, "nobody would give their lives for a lie." Many of these same people then argue that climate change and the impact of fossil fuels is a myth - a lie.

            So what do you do with this?
            You are barking up the wrong tree.

            There is a big difference between dying for a cause you believed in and dying for a cause you KNEW was a lie.

            How is it you don't see it?
            Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              OK. I've been back. I definitely cast doubt on "apostolic martyrdom" as credible evidence that Jesus was who he is claimed to be. That is because I do not find it to be credible evidence. There are simply too many other possible explanations for me to accept the most "out there" of the possibilities. I've outlined what I think those are in other posts. I'll let those stand.

              As for the rest, my experience is that any attempt to clarify my thoughts/intentions is for naught, so I think I will save myself the typing.
              You did not - you implied that it was not evidence - no mention or caveat about the type or reliability. You knew full well that I took exception to the ridiculous notion that it wasn't evidence at all.

              It doesn't need clarification - you just can't own up to having either said something stupid or just overstated your point.
              Last edited by Teallaura; 04-21-2018, 11:41 PM.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                So consider the possibility that Jesus is actually not "god" or a miracle worker. His message of "love one another" and "return love for hate" and "forgiveness is yours" is a powerful one, one that has the potential to revolutionize the world. If it is backed by a widespread belief that it "comes from god," it could change the world. Am I correct that folks believe it is impossible that someone might look at that message, recognize its power and potential, and dedicate their lives to pushing this message forward, knowing that backing it with the power of "it comes from god" is untrue, but necessary for the message to take root? This is an "impossible" scenario?

                It is certainly not a proven scenario, by any stretch of the imagination. But it is one of many possible/plausible scenarios of "what happened." I don't see anything about it that is "impossible."
                Translation: no, I'm not gonna answer, so there.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  Ok.

                  There is not a mountain of evidence surrounding the resurrection. There are at best six accounts.
                  Three of these were definitely written by people who weren't there, and are based at least partly on the other, earlier accounts. Their veracity is dependent on that of the earlier accounts.
                  One was written by another person who wasn't there, and is repeating what he has been told.
                  One was probably written by some-one who wasn't there, but it's hard to be certain since we don't know who wrote it. However, it includes large swathes of text from an earlier account, so is unlikely to be an eye-witness account, and anyway includes details that the author could not possibly have known, as well as other indications that the author wasn't concerned with accuracy.
                  Which leaves the last one. It might be an eye-witness account, but the earliest versions contain no description of the resurrection. That is a later addition, and shows that the early church had no problem in rewriting history.

                  The evidence surrounding the resurrection shows only that people believed it had happened and were willing to make up stories to further that belief - not that it actually had happened.
                  All the accounts agree - in fact, the degree to which they agree is highly indicative of authenticity. Your procedure here, as MM points out, results in the dismissal of most of ancient and a good bit of world history. You just tossed every ancient source I can think of - Pliny (excepting Vesuvius), Tacititus, Josephus. et cetera, et cetera. Gallic Wars go bye-bye, half of Roman history goes with it, all of Egyptian history and its 'lookie, lets revise the thing again' tendency.... Seriously, no ancient documentary evidence would withstand that criteria - and worse, it doesn't really tell us about either veracity or reliability - there are far better ways to evaluate those things.

                  The accounts themselves read nothing like myth - ever hear a Hercules story where he runs out on his friends when a fight starts? The events were written of both in living (e.g. people still alive to verify) and written (pesky Roman officials and their darned record keeping) memory - even though we don't have the extant records, people of the First Century did - and certainly Theophilus would have had access to the people and documents that would have verified Luke's account - which makes the accounts as fiction implausible to a ridiculous degree - too many facts that are too easily checked. Early Christianity unquestionably arose in Jerusalem - which makes both the Christ myth and the hidden body theories nonsensical - too many non-Christians who really didn't like Christianity were there to say 'no, there was no crucifixion' or ' yeah, He's buried in Bob's backyard' - but instead, Christianity gains followers and a major stepping stone. Too many extra-Biblical sources verify way too much of the accounts to dismiss them summarily as you are attempting to do.
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    I would be interested in knowing if if the life expectancy of 35-40 years for the people living in the first century Mediterranean that you've referenced is the average life expectancy (which would have been influenced by the high rate of infant and child mortality) or the age to which an average person, having survived childhood could expect to live. Because if what you're talking about is the average life expectancy it's not really that strong of an argument against the claim that there were still eyewitnesses living when the documents of the NT were written down, given that a person who managed to survive infancy and childhood would have a considerably higher life expectancy than the average.
                    Yeah, that!!!!
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      Investigating accounts does not automatically include interviewing eyewitnesses.
                      Reaching - and irrational. The society in question is highly verbal - even in our modern, document laden society eye witness interviews are the first stage of any investigation in which they are available.

                      Luke and Acts read VERY much like a modern legal brief - and given the address in Luke, they may actually be a brief. It's simply nonsensical to assume eye witness interviews were not part of his investigation - in a highly verbal society, that would have been an extremely strange way to investigate and if it is a brief, it would be an incompetent procedure. Nothing in the books supports the assumption that Luke didn't investigate his sources as stated - and it's irrational to assume he didn't talk to eye witnesses during his investigation, given the facts.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by psstein View Post
                        ...

                        This is part of a larger discussion, but the American PhD system is pretty close to broken.


                        I'm seeing a knight hoping around on one leg hollering 'It's just a flesh wound!'...
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                          You are barking up the wrong tree.

                          There is a big difference between dying for a cause you believed in and dying for a cause you KNEW was a lie.

                          How is it you don't see it?
                          It's not that I don't see it. I believe it would be very rare for someone to die for something they know to be a lie. But that is not the only possibility here. Some of the other possibilities include:

                          1) They weren't dying for their belief about who/what Jesus was, but rather for the benefit they thought his teachings would bring to humanity.
                          2) They didn't die at all (we only have fragmentary evidence for what happened to the original apostles
                          3) They actually believed it was true (the memory/self-delusion problem, or the problem of historical accuracy).
                          4) They weren't killed because of those beliefs, but because of their association with the sect (we have scant records of what they did or did not say before they died).

                          In other words, there are a host of historical possibilities besides "they died for a lie." When all of these possibilities are looked at (and there is no way to determine which of these is truly "what happened," or if it was something else entirely), the false dichotomy of "nobody would die for a lie, so it must be true," becomes evident (to me, at least).
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            You did not - you implied that it was not evidence - no mention or caveat about the type or reliability. You knew full well that I took exception to the ridiculous notion that it wasn't evidence at all.
                            Teal, if you have read any of the other exchanges I've had with Sparko, you would no that I seldom argue "there is no evidence," and I have not done so here either. We have stories about the martyrdom of the apostles in Acts and references in some of the epistles. Those are clearly evidence that the early apostles died for their faith. My position is that this is inadequate evidence to support the proposition, "Jesus lived and died exactly as described in the gospels," which I believe is the position being put forward here. I don't find it to "not be evidence." I find it to be "inadequate evidence" to support the claim.

                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            It doesn't need clarification - you just can't own up to having either said something stupid or just overstated your point.
                            Apparently, at some point, I must have irritated you in some way. It's the only thing that makes sense given the nature of your recent exchanges with me. Whatever it is, if I was being inappropriate, I apologize. Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to say.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Translation: no, I'm not gonna answer, so there.
                              No - that's not the translation. I said exactly what I meant to say.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                It's not that I don't see it. I believe it would be very rare for someone to die for something they know to be a lie. But that is not the only possibility here. Some of the other possibilities include:

                                1) They weren't dying for their belief about who/what Jesus was, but rather for the benefit they thought his teachings would bring to humanity.
                                2) They didn't die at all (we only have fragmentary evidence for what happened to the original apostles
                                3) They actually believed it was true (the memory/self-delusion problem, or the problem of historical accuracy).
                                4) They weren't killed because of those beliefs, but because of their association with the sect (we have scant records of what they did or did not say before they died).

                                In other words, there are a host of historical possibilities besides "they died for a lie." When all of these possibilities are looked at (and there is no way to determine which of these is truly "what happened," or if it was something else entirely), the false dichotomy of "nobody would die for a lie, so it must be true," becomes evident (to me, at least).
                                I've never thought the "nobody dies for a lie" to be a persuasive apologetic. In truth, we only have first century data about what happened to Peter, Paul, and James. The grisly martyrdom stories are significantly removed from the apostles' lifetime.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                53 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X