• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Aaah, the Easter Cognitive Dissonance

Originally posted by Lion IRC:
Jesus could have done whatever He wanted.

That's another belief, it's not something you know
...you are guessing.

You label what I think as a 'belief'.
Yet you have comfortably-held beliefs about that exact same topic.
Isn't that a double-standard on your part? And the Op?

The one difference between your position and mine is that you have no epistemic basis to deny my personal experience claim that God is real - because you can't be me. And it's quite common (uncontroversial) for there to be just one witness to certain unique events.
Whereas I, on the other hand, have quite sufficient warrant to question the epistemic basis for someone's claim that a thing never existed. Can you prove a negative?

And that is the dogmatic faith of atheism. There is no evidence for God. There has never been evidence for God. God doesn't exist. Miracles are impossible. God is an invention. The universe wasn't caused. etc etc etc
 
There is no evidence for God. There has never been evidence for God. God doesn't exist. Miracles are impossible. God is an invention. The universe wasn't caused.
That much is correct based on all human observation, acknowledging of course that whatever is a god is simply whatever a person presently wants it to be. So it isn't so much god but what a god supposedly is that's the argument. The claimed existence of impossible, spooky, ghosty, wooish qualities, wholly unobserved by rational minds is the actual problem. Claims of gods are just outgrowths of this human behavior.
 
Originally posted by Lion IRC:
Jesus could have done whatever He wanted.

That's another belief, it's not something you know
...you are guessing.

You label what I think as a 'belief'.
Yet you have comfortably-held beliefs about that exact same topic.
Isn't that a double-standard on your part? And the Op?

The one difference between your position and mine is that you have no epistemic basis to deny my personal experience claim that God is real - because you can't be me. And it's quite common (uncontroversial) for there to be just one witness to certain unique events.
Whereas I, on the other hand, have quite sufficient warrant to question the epistemic basis for someone's claim that a thing never existed. Can you prove a negative?

And that is the dogmatic faith of atheism. There is no evidence for God. There has never been evidence for God. God doesn't exist. Miracles are impossible. God is an invention. The universe wasn't caused. etc etc etc

So we're only in the 3rd page of the thread and you're already shifting the burden of proof? As in the case of your god, I expected better, but alas, I was let down.
 
Originally posted by Lion IRC:
Jesus could have done whatever He wanted.

That's another belief, it's not something you know
...you are guessing.

You label what I think as a 'belief'.
Yet you have comfortably-held beliefs about that exact same topic.
Isn't that a double-standard on your part? And the Op?

Can you prove a negative?

Ooooh. Trick-EE.


So what I see you claiming is that anyone who makes a claim of any kind that you can’t disprove MUST BE TRUE!

You are so clever, Lion, demonstrating that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage!

LOL. :hysterical:

But seriously, yes we ccan prove it’s not true because it is self-contradictory and so it disproves itself. I’m not trying to convince you - you can’t reason your way out of a corner that you didn’t reason your way into. But these are the things that cause cognitive dissonance.
 
...my personal experience claim that God is real

So we're only in the 3rd page of the thread and you're already shifting the burden of proof?


I'm not asking to shift the burden of proof in respect to what I already know. In fact it would be disingenuous of me to ask as much because I already know you can't meet that impossible burden - because it's my personal experience.

Instead, I'm asking you on what basis you make the claim that my personal experience is wrong.
The burden of proof rests on your claims to know more about me than me.

You can equally claim to have never seen (persuasive) evidence for God and I cannot gainsay that because I simply don't know. And if I claimed that you secretly HAVE experienced evidence for God you would have the same warrant as me to ask how I can make such a claim.

I would have to admit that mine was merely a belief about your stated lack of awareness of God.
 
Lion IRC,

Are you claiming a personal experience of God or a personal experience of evidence of God?
 
You've both seen or otherwise felt God directly with your senses, and know of persuasive evidence too?


Cool, the one wouldn't count for much without the other, eh?

What'd God look or feel like? And is that direct experience a kind of experience that an atheist might also experience though fail to recognize as God, as you succeeded in doing?
 
What'd God look or feel like? And is that direct experience a kind of experience that an atheist might also experience though fail to recognize as God, as you succeeded in doing?
Excellent question.

We've all experienced overpowering joy and overpowering sadness in our lives, those of us who have lived. Is that the god experience? I've never had visions but have experienced very weird dreams, even had conversations with the deceased in those dreams. Is that a god experience?

As a youth I was taught that gods are real and ghosts are not. So naturally gods eventually became as unreal as ghosts because gods and ghosts are the same thing.

I have known adults who had rough lives as kids and then discovered religion. Maybe that's what's happening with Lion. I'm curious his experience.

Regardless, however, many of the religious people I know are religious not out of choice but out of necessity.
 
Lion, are you claiming that the crucifixion was somehow greater suffering than anyone else experienced?

Are you unaware that it was a common form of execution at the time? I mean even if you think that's the worst way to be tortured to death (which is debatable), this was something that happened many times before, during, and after the supposed crucifixion. In fact it was so common that we know how the Romans did things. If Jesus was a real person and if Jesus was crucified by the Romans, we know that his corpse was not placed in a tomb of any kind. The Romans always left the bodies up to be picked at by crows and to serve as a warning to others.
 
Lion, are you claiming that the crucifixion was somehow greater suffering than anyone else experienced?

Are you unaware that it was a common form of execution at the time? I mean even if you think that's the worst way to be tortured to death (which is debatable), this was something that happened many times before, during, and after the supposed crucifixion. In fact it was so common that we know how the Romans did things. If Jesus was a real person and if Jesus was crucified by the Romans, we know that his corpse was not placed in a tomb of any kind. The Romans always left the bodies up to be picked at by crows and to serve as a warning to others.

And if the story is in any way true—and Jesus was taken down by Joseph on the evening of the first day—it is easily possible that Jesus’ apparent death was merely a coma or something similar (aka, the “fainting theory” I believe), due to blood loss from the crucifixion wounds and alleged whipping, such that being wrapped in medicinal bandages (aka, the traditional form of annointed burial linens) and placed in an above ground, but rock “sealed” tomb (rather than buried) that protected him from the elements simply allowed his wounds/body to heal for a few days.

Here’s what we have from GMark, the creator of the passion narrative. I’ve removed the parts not relevant to this point:

33 Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”[f]
...
And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last.
...
42 Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath

So we have clearly established that Jesus was only on the cross for nine hours. It is well documented that crucifixion was a notoriously slow death, often taking several days for people to die. That’s why it was so terrible a fate and why the Romans used it as a punishment for murderers and seditionists in particular; because it was a slow, painful and very public death, serving as a daily reminder/deterrent to others.

Imagine knowing your loved ones/friends are slowly rotting to death for days up on that hill and you can’t do anything to stop it. Horrifying, which was the point.

Now we get:

Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God

Iow, a fellow “christian.”

coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Pilate marveled that He was already dead

Again underscoring the fact that nine hours was very little time to have caused death.

and summoning the centurion, he asked him if He had been dead for some time. 45 So when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 Then he bought fine linen, took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen. And he laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.

So, easily not yet dead, just the appearance of death (i.e., coma or otherwise unconscious) and pulled from the cross early and wrapped in what would effectively have been bandages. I don’t have the source handy, but such burial linens were typically annointed with oils and herbs that would clean and help still living wounds heal.

Next we have:

Mark 16:1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

And that’s the end of the story (the rest being added later). After being taken down prematurely (thought to be dead, but actually was not) and spending two nights wrapped in medicinal bandages (not intentionally; effectively) in a temperate, protected cave (so no exposure to the elements), Jesus recovers from his wounds and either moves the stone himself or with the help of whoever this young man is (not an angel; very specifically a young man in some sort of ceremonial robe, like a disciple might wear for instance).

Does he say Jesus resurrected from the dead? No. He says he is risen. Now, either that’s accurate or apocryphal but either way, it is NOT “he resurrected from the dead.”

So one can easily take the original story at face value and still not come away from it with a resurrection narrative to anyone who may have known the facts the story is purporting to tell (some forty years after any such events). Iow, the author—presumed to be a Roman, no less and certainly not a Jew—could have been relaying certain accurate sequence of events and merely implying a conclusion that the author stops short of actually specifying.

I have a theory as to why that may have been, but no need to get into that here. The point is that even if we take the creator of the passion narrative’s version of events at face value, we still do not have a story proving/establishing resurrection from the dead. “Risen” does not mean “Resurrection.” It implies it, perhaps, but it is not accurate to say that the two words are equivalent and considering the importance of that one word, implied isn’t acceptable to any critical thinker.
 
Easter?

Um...Why can't you guys hold out for something better? Like Eastest.

Cheeses crepes.
 
Lion, are you claiming that the crucifixion was somehow greater suffering than anyone else experienced?

No.

Are you unaware that it was a common form of execution at the time?

I am aware of that.

I mean even if you think that's the worst way to be tortured to death...

I don't think that.


...this was something that happened many times before

Yes, I know.

In fact it was so common that we know how the Romans did things.

Yes. Lots of historical documents describing crucifixion. (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. etc)

If Jesus was a real person

He was.

if Jesus was crucified by the Romans,

He was.

we know that his corpse was not placed in a tomb of any kind.

We have historical documents stating that He was placed in a tomb.
We have zero documents stating His body was cremated, donated to medical science, thrown to the lions....

The Romans always left the bodies up to be picked at by crows and to serve as a warning to others.

No. The Romans didnt "always" do things the same way identically every time. Folks can't even decide what Jesus' Cross looked like.
 
I am interested in this apparent expert knowledge of how crucifixions worked; as far as I know, this is still something of a mystery to archaeologists.
 
It wasn't needed.
It was done voluntarily.
All forgiveness is voluntary. Jesus' sacrifice was voluntary.
The point was it was *necessary for forgiveness*. Why was a human sacrifice required for forgiveness?

Nope. God doesn't need anything.

So, what was the point of the crucifixion then?

If God didn’t need a sacrifice to forgive original sin or whatever, it makes Jesus’s sacrifice completely pointless and all of his unecessary suffering was just weird.
 
I have a theory as to why that may have been, but no need to get into that here. The point is that even if we take the creator of the passion narrative’s version of events at face value, we still do not have a story proving/establishing resurrection from the dead. “Risen” does not mean “Resurrection.” It implies it, perhaps, but it is not accurate to say that the two words are equivalent and considering the importance of that one word, implied isn’t acceptable to any critical thinker.

This is a well supported summary. New things to think about.
Including New Equally Possible Translation (NEPT): “He got up.”

Which is entirely possible given that we know factually that this happens a lot, and even in modern day, google “woke up in morgue”
 
I am interested in this apparent expert knowledge of how crucifixions worked; as far as I know, this is still something of a mystery to archaeologists.

Really? I thought they documented that pretty well. Except of course for the one for a person later named Jesus, who crucifiction darkened the sky,, trembled the ground and caused the dead to rise from their graves. That one does not seem to have any historical documentation, which is weird, since that wasn’t something that happened every day.
 
Back
Top Bottom