A Comment

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 10:35 PM 08/03/1999 -0700, you wrote:
WALKER

>Is it safe to assume that you believe that the textbooks used by the

>teachers who taught you who Alexander the Great was are "unbiased,

>disinterested and contemporary records"? 


TILL
The fact is I was taught very little about Alexander the Great, but
comparing him to Jesus would be like comparing apples to oranges (in other
words, the fallacy of false analogy).  There are records that refer to
Alexander the Great that certainly originated with unbiased sources.  After
all, references to him in the records of countries he conquered wouldn't
exactly be biased sources.  The fact that historical characters like
Alexander the Great were referred to in the writings of friends and foes
alike underscores the absurdity of someone trying to claim that there is as
much evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Alexander the
Great, because no contemporary record made any references at all to a man
who presumably went about performing all sorts of amazing deeds, was
followed by great multitudes, and was eventually raised from the dead.  This
kind of silence in the records of that time is hard to explain.  

Despite the overwhelming evidence that Alexander the Great existed, one
would have to be hopelessly naive to believe that everything recorded in
ancient records about him is historically accurate.  There are undoubtedly
exaggerations and outright legend in some of those records.  For the sake of
argument, let's just assume that everything written about Alexander the
Great was myth or legend. That would mean only that millions of people have
believed that this man was an actual historical person when in reality he
wasn't, but in that event, no one who would have been deceived by a
"history" that is purely legendary into living his/her life on the premise
that Alexander the Great was a real person.  No one would have wasted his
life preaching the historicity of Alexander and trying to lure people into a
cult built around the premise that Alexander was a real person.  No one
would have contributed over his/her lifetime thousands of dollars to support
institutions dedicated to propagating a belief that Alexander was a real
person who demanded that everyone accept certain "commandments" he had
issued as infallible laws that had to be obeyed. No one would have No one
would have persecuted or killed anyone for not believing that Alexander was
a real person.  In a word, nobody would have done much of anything except
believe a historical claim that turned out to be false.  Can Walker even see
the difference?

It's interesting to see that Walker, who made all sorts of claims about the
suffering and martyrdom of the apostles, didn't even attempt to corroborate
his claim that any such thing as this had actually happened.

WALKER

> Yet the writings and letters that became the New Testament are not.  Why?  


TILL
Well, explain to us why you don't accept the historicity of the writings in
the Bhagavad-gita or the Zoroastrian Avesta, and then maybe you will
understand why I doubt that the NT writings aren't reliable history.

WALKER

>What makes them "unbiased" as opposed to Paul's letters for example?  


TILL
Walker is very confused.  I'm not saying that the NT writings and letters
are unbiased.  I'm saying the opposite, that they are the biased writings of
people who were trying to promote a Christ myth, and so they must be
evaluated in that light.  If I'm not going to accept uncritically what
biased writers who gave us the Qur'an, the Avesta, the Bhagavad-gita, the
Book of Mormon, etc. said, then why should I simply assume that everything
said in writings intended to promote the Christian religion are accurate.

WALKER

>What makes them "disinterested"?  


TILL
Well, that's just the point.  The NT writings aren't disinterested.  They
are the works of those who were very INTERESTED in promoting a religious
view.  You see, Walker, the matter is as simple as this example.  If three
people said that they saw John Doe walk into a bank, pull a gun, and rob it,
but John Doe's mother, sister, and brother testified that he was at home
with them at the time, whose testimony would you consider to be more
reliable if you were a member of the jury hearing his case?  A reasonable
person would have to recognize that the testimony of Doe's mother, sister,
and brother was biased because of an obvious interest that they would have
in keeping a member of their family out of prison.  

Does that help you in any way to see the difference in biased and unbiased,
interested and disinterested testimony, Walker?

WALKER

>It doesn't appear that he gained great contemporary wealth and power for his

>devotion the the 1st century church.  What he received was the opposite.

>Why is one document "history" and the other "fraud"?  


TILL
If you can't see the difference in documents that were written by the
sycophants of a religious leader and those of someone who was not a member
of the cult, then there is something wrong with your ability to critically
analyze.  Would you apply what you are saying to the Bhagavad-gita or the
Avesta or the Qur'an?  If not, why not?  Why shouldn't the writings in the
Bhagavad-gita (do you even know what it is?) be accepted as historically
accurate writings?  If you can't see that the writings produced by fanatical
followers of a cult leader are likely to contain exaggerations and even
downright false claims, then you must have your brain on hold.

WALKER

>I suspect that the vitriol in your response belies a much deeper,

psychological >reason for turning away from God.  

TILL
And I suspect that you have chosen to attack me personally and impugn my
motives in order to draw attention away from the fact that you cannot answer
my arguments and cannot give evidence to support your claim that the
apostles suffered persecutions and martyrdom for preaching the resurrection
of Jesus.

WALKER

>You wage war over grammar and conventions and miss

>the message it seems.  You've read and reread the Bible and the Lord didn't

>speak to you, or you didn't hear Him.  The Lord does what pleases Him.  You

>know that one, yes?

>


TILL
I know that this is typical biblicist nonsense that is unverifiable and
untestable.  Just as Saleem has been asking repeatedly in his postings, I
will now ask you to explain to us just why all of these emotional references
to personal experiences, conversations with God, and such like that you
irrational Christians try to pawn off as evidence should be accepted as real
evidence but similar experiences of Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc. should not.

If you are at all able to conduct a rational discussion of an issue, why
don't you try to answer that?

WALKER

>I will say it again differently.  If I'm wrong I've lost nothing.  


TILL
This is a resort to Pascal's wager, and this so-called argument has been
refuted countless times.  Many of these refutations have shown that you are
very wrong in saying that if you turn out to be wrong, you have lost
nothing.  If you are wrong, you will have lost, just for starters, your
intellectual integrity.  That alone should be enough to make anyone mired in
religious superstition stop to reconsider his situation.

WALKER

>I look back at the pleasures this world has given me in the past and I can only

>borrow from Peggy Lee and say, "Is that all there is?"

>


TILL
Hmmm, that's strange, I look back at the pleasures of this world and think
how fortunate I was to have been born to enjoy them.  Your complaint was
answered by the poet Philip Freneau in "The Wild Honey Suckle."

        If nothing once, you nothing lose,
        For when you die you are the same;
                The space between was but an hour,
                The frail duration of a flower.

If my view is right, then I was nothing before I was born.  I simply didn't
exist.  When I die, I will return to what I was... nothing.  In Freneau's
perspective, and also mine, one cannot complain that he has lost anything in
the deal, because having lived was a complete gain.  If one had never lived
at all, he would have always been nothing, but in the act of having been
born and having lived for a time, he at least gained the space in between
nothing and nothing.

I don't expect you to agree at all with this, so I will point out that your
position is based on flawed reasoning called the fallacy of undesirable
consequences.  This occurs when someone argues that a position cannot be
right because if it is right, undesirable consequences will ensue.  Those
who so reason fail to recognize that reality is reality, and no matter how
undesirable reality may be, the negative aspects of reality cannot change
what reality is.  In other words, if this life is all that we have, the fact
that you may find this undesirable will not change it.

WALKER

>Can you afford to gamble against even the possibility that you could spend

>eternity in perpetual suffering?  


TILL
Well, why are you gambling on Christianity when it might be true that Islam
is the right religion?  Can you afford to so gamble?  If you are a member
of, say, the Baptist sect of Christianity, how can you afford to gamble on
this sect when it may be true that Catholicism or some other sect is the
true religion?  If you can't see the absurdity of this line of reasoning,
then you need more help than I can give you.

WALKER

>Then again if you've hated God for 50 Years, 


TILL
I haven't hated "God" for 50 years.  Heck, I don't even hate Santa Claus or
the tooth fairy.  Do you get the point, Walker?  To accuse someone of hating
that which he has no belief in is a logical absurdity, but what else is new?
The lives of Christians are filled with logical absurdities.

WALKER

>any Biblical analysis, used in an attempt to sway you, is perhap wasted

energy. 

TILL
In the same way that any attempt to sway you by logical argumentation is
wasted energy?

WALKER

> I've seen God's work in my life many times and heard

>unquestionably genuine testimony from others that He's very real.  


TILL
Yeah, yeah, I've heard all of this before.  When you verify to me that these
many personal experiences of yours were real, then we can talk about this.
It just so happened that in this morning's mail, I received a lengthy
document from a woman who used to be one of my students.  She was, in fact,
the most gifted writer that I had in my 32 years of teaching experience.
Her document was designed to prove to me that she routinely receives visits
from alien beings from another galaxy and that one of these beings has
actually entered her body to live in her and guide her in her efforts to
show others the truth about UFOs and alien beings.  Out of respect to her as
a former student, I once agreed to meet with her to give her a chance to
present her case in person.  We sat at McDonald's for over two hours while
she told me all about her experiences.  She said that I could never convince
her that what happened to her never happened.  If she had been trying to
convince me that the Holy Spirit dwells in her and guides her in presenting
her case for the truth of Christianity, then you and Helpu and Eric would
find her rantings to be perfectly sensible.  As it is, I'm sure you will
agree with me when I say that this woman has some kind of mental derangement
that causes her to have an imagination so vivid that she confuses her
imaginations with reality.  During this conversation, I asked her to pick up
the phone and give me a call the next time one of these aliens drops in for
a visit.  Since we live only five blocks apart, I could very quickly get to
her house and see the evidence for myself.  She told me that she would ask
permission of the aliens to do this, but she doubted that they would agree,
because they spend their time only with those who want to believe.

It all sounds very religious, doesn't it.  She's nuts, you're nuts, Eric is
nuts, and Helpu is nuts.  Excuse me if I don't put much credence in the
rantings of religious nuts.

WALKER

>I'm sorry you have such pain inside, Farrell.  I wish I could make it go

away.  

TILL
I hate to disappoint you, but there's no pain at all inside me.  I could
never convince you of the satisfaction that I have with my life.  You, of
course, won't believe this.  You won't believe the simple testimony of a
person who claims the very possible, i.e., that he is satisfied with his
life, but you expect me to believe all sorts of fanciful claims about
experiences with the Holy Spirit and conversations with God.  

Is there any hope for the kind of ignorance that you represent?  

How about it, Holman; that's calling a spade a spade, isn't it?  Or should I
just tell Walker that he has made some excellent points but that he should
consider thus and so?

WALKER

>I will pray for you before I go to bed.  Be well.

>


TILL
Well, I won't pray for you, of course, but I will hope for you.  I hope that
you will regain your senses someday and learn how to think critically.  I
also hope that you will sit down at your keyboard and send us evidence that
supports your claim that the apostles suffered persecution and martyrdom for
what they believed.  You were the one who started this thread by sending
Adnan a posting that made the claim I am now asking you to prove, so let's
see you prove it.

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: Dieing for faith was Re: A Comment
• Next message: A Comment
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]