news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1252349,00.html

Apothecary: post #53:

“They are, but I wasn’t relying on any (solely) biblical claim. The claim of the resurrection was made consistently by people at the time, before as well as after the gospels were written, and there is external evidence for that (ie that the claim was made). Persecution of Christians started pretty much soon after the resurrection, largely because they were making claims which ran counter to religious orthodoxy and/or threatened state security.

I then tried to apply reason to the problem (these people all said it happened – can we really believe it) and worked it out from there. ”

Apologies if I missed this, but where is the evidence that lots of people saw Jesus post-resurrection (other than the Bible)? People still claim this today, but they got their evidence from the Bible and church from what I can see – this is not what I would call a quality source of evidence.

The fact that Christians were persecuted by the Romans isn’t really evidence either way. The Romans persecuted a lot of different peoples!

So according to this version, he wasn’t vegetarian from birth or from adulthood and it wan’t from conviction but on specific and personal grounds of health, but if that’s as rebutted as it gets… I mean you don’t think he was sorry for the animals? (Then again… I can see that too. He was a vicious man but his viciousness may have run in some particular channels and not in others. Please don’t think I’m a fan.)

I only gave a few examples, but I have have looked at a great deal of data and can see no correlation between religion and aids rates. While Catholic countries in Western Europe have higher aids rates than non-Catholic, I very much doubt that Catholicism is a causal factor. In other parts of the world making comparisons is difficult. There are no non-Catholic countries in South & Central America, for example. Similarly, there are few Catholic countries in Africa.

I’d be very interested in seeing your data and analysis and if you can produce data to support your argument please do so, otherwise it looks like you’re bluffing.

I have done a correlation analysis of the full data which clearly supports my argument. When I get time to write it up properly I shall publish the figures in a blog so that they can be criticised and commented on. I hope that In that way the debate about this subject can be better informed.

>>have any of you dealt with the issues of the revalation of the Qur’an to the Prophet by the Angel Gabriel in a serious way?

That claim is based on one person’s (ie Mohammed’s) testimony that it happened, it can’t be tested in the same way.

>>One might have assumed, speaking as a layman, that Jesus would have thought to mention something that important.

Islam was founded several centuries after the gospels were written, so presumably that specific issue didn’t come up at the time.

That really is the end of posts from me on this topic. If others want to carry it on, go ahead without me. Thank you for reading if you’ve got this far, and thank you especially to my interlocutors – I have found your contributions very interesting and thought provoking (that may sound a bit patronising – it really isn’t intended to be).

They are, but I wasn’t relying on any (solely) biblical claim. The claim of the resurrection was made consistently by people at the time, before as well as after the gospels were written, and there is external evidence for that (ie that the claim was made). Persecution of Christians started pretty much soon after the resurrection, largely because they were making claims which ran counter to religious orthodoxy and/or threatened state security.

I then tried to apply reason to the problem (these people all said it happened – can we really believe it) and worked it out from there.

WRT OT stories – we haven’t got space here for discussion of Myth (technical use) vs history, the nature of different types of biblical writing, etc.

>>And with all due respect, you only need to look at recent incidents like the Jonestown Massacre to realise that people will blindly follow charismatic leaders with very little trouble.

this is undoubtedly true, but I’m not sure I see why you raise that – sorry. It wasn’t one or two people who claimed they had met the risen Jesus, and then persuaded others, it was lots. OK I know this is internal evidence, but Paul (writing a letter) not many years after the resurrection said “look, Jesus appeared to lots of people, some of them are dead, but many are still around – don’t trust just my word, ask them” That doesn’t suggest to me someone who was trying to deceive others – it would have to have been a pretty huge conspiracy and as they saying goes “two people can only keep a secret if one of them’s dead”

>>This is why I find literalist believers much easier to understand. At least I know they view their holy texts as literal and 100% fact.

So – if we swallow everything literally without engaging brain, we’re naive fools, and if we try to apply some intellectual process we’re sophists? Can’t win then ! (That is not intended to be offensive)

“But the difference from the others was that starting three days later (counting inclusively, like all ancient peoples did) his followers turned from a frightened, scattered, disillusioned group to one that was boldly telling people Jesus was alive again. And claiming that large numbers (up to several hundred) people had seen him again, spoken, eaten and drunk with him – including people who had spent the last three years or so wandering the country with him, so presumably knew him very well. And were prepared to stick to their stories in spite of particularly unpleasant torture and death. But surely, as JJ Hankinson said “dead people don’t rise from the grave”. So what other possible explanations are there?”

And your evidence for all of this is…? All these claims are in the Bible, which is a book written and edited by lots of different people over a period of several hundred years. Any belief based purely on what the bible says is somewhat flawed. You wouldn’t even get away with using it as evidence in a GCSE History class… its second or third hand, written by a biased source and most of it can’t be confirmed by referencing other texts from that time.

And with all due respect, you only need to look at recent incidents like the Jonestown Massacre to realise that people will blindly follow charismatic leaders with very little trouble.

Do you equally believe in the flood that Noah survived? Or is that one just a nice story? Or doesn’t that count because its in the Old Testament and no-one really believes that anyway?

This is why I find literalist believers much easier to understand. At least I know they view their holy texts as literal and 100% fact.

>>Jesus might have existed (there is some evidence beyond the bible that he did), but as for the resurrection, well its just a bunch of arse isn’t it? Dead people don’t rise from the grave whether its written in a book or not. Apologies if you find that offensive – its not meant to be

None taken!

“Why would he [address the issue]“? Its the crucial question. In falsificationist terms, its the criterion on which Christianity stands or falls and is openly admitted and positively declared as such- see I Corr 15: 12-19 (its at www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31&context=chapter, if you want to see). Summary – if Jesus wasn’t raised, its all a lie. One can’t say “in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I must assume that God does not exist”, and ignore this crucial bit of (alleged) evidence, which if true provides strong positive evidence and if false blows Christianity out of the water

So – no-one seriously doubts that in the 1st Century CE Roman province of Judea, there was an itinerant preacher named Jesus bar Joseph who got a lot of people exited, p*ssed off the authorities (Roman and Jewish) and ended up being executed. There were many people like that. But the difference from the others was that starting three days later (counting inclusively, like all ancient peoples did) his followers turned from a frightened, scattered, disillusioned group to one that was boldly telling people Jesus was alive again. And claiming that large numbers (up to several hundred) people had seen him again, spoken, eaten and drunk with him – including people who had spent the last three years or so wandering the country with him, so presumably knew him very well. And were prepared to stick to their stories in spite of particularly unpleasant torture and death. But surely, as JJ Hankinson said “dead people don’t rise from the grave”. So what other possible explanations are there?

1 – he wan’t really dead. Well he was executed by trained professionals well used to that method of execution. Luke (a physician) wrote that they stuck a spear into his heart to confirm death and “out came blood and water” – sounds like post-mortem separation of cellular components and plasma to me. He was also sealed in a cold tomb and left. I guess with modern ITU facilities a top team might be able to save someone whose been crucified and exposed for several hours (after a severe flogging too) – but that really wasn’t the situation here

2 – the authorities removed the body. Clearly the way to snuff out any rumours would have been to display it, so that doesn’t work either

3 – the followers hid the body, and concocted stories about meeting the risen Jesus later. Surely the truth would have got out eventually. And would so many people be prepared to stand by their stories that they’d seen and interacted with the risen Jesus, in the face of torture, execution, etc, if they knew it was all a hoax?

4- the followers found the wrong tomb, saw it was empty and claimed it was a miracle. Well, the authorities could easily have displyed the body (as in 2) and anyway, people claimed to have seen and interacted with a risen Jesus (see also 3)

5 – it was a mass delusion/hallucination. Many people who have lost someone close to them have had the experience of thinking they see them again, then realising it was someone else. This was different. Witnesses recount talking with, eating and drinking with a risen Jesus, over a long period of time (40 days or more) – large numbers of witnesses, many of whom knew the (pre-mortem) Jesus extremely well and so would not have been taken in by an imposter over that length of time.

I can’t think of any other possible explanations (short of time travel, alien abduction, etc). So having eliminated those, I’m left concluding that the only explanation, however improbable, is that Jesus really did “rise from the grave”.

It’s up to you. That’s my “witness statement” as it were. I’m not trying to convert anyone – that is emphatically not my job. I’m only trying to demonstrate that mine is not “blind faith”, or something that deep down I know is untrue, or something that I want to believe because it makes me feel better or I think will make me a better person. I’m trying (a la Socrates) to follow the argument wherever it takes me. If someone happens to come to the same conclusion as me – fine. I don’t get any benefit from that, no extra “spiritual brownie points”, no financial or other benefit, nothing. If they don’t – well, as I said, they have my sincere respect.

This has been my third long post and I do apologise if this is getting tedious. We are also, I suspect and as jj-hankinson implies, moving very off-topic. I think its best to stop posting on this now, as I don’t want to trespass further on the group’s (or Ben’s) patience. If you’ve read this far – thanks.

There’s nothing special about Christianity that means one must get deeply involved in Bible scholarship and “deal with the issue of Jesus/his resurrection in a serious way” in order to discuss the irrationality of religion in general.

For that matter, Christians, have any of you dealt with the issues of the revalation of the Qur’an to the Prophet by the Angel Gabriel in a serious way? One might have assumed, speaking as a layman, that Jesus would have thought to mention something that important. Or the creation of the universe by Brahma in the Hiranyaagarbha? These all seem like things that a Christian ought to “deal with… in a serious way”.

Andrew.

I can understand your view here.

Have you head The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Although it glosses over a lot of important aspects of the ‘atheist’ position, it does cover off the issue of atheism as a belief.

He uses the idea of a ‘defacto atheist’ to describe atheists such as myself. A defacto atheist is an agnostic, usually because they recognise that NOTHING can ever be 100% proven as false or true. However, most of us need to make choices based on our own assessment of probability as to whether things are true or not. When it comes to the existence of God, a defacto atheist says “I can’t know for sure, however in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I must assume that God does not exist”.

On your 2nd point, this discussion is necessarily focussing on the bad aspects of blind faith. For me the underlying message in the article (and many of the comments that have followed) is that prejudice or blind belief is fine until it starts hurting others. We could talk about the fluffy lovely side of religious belief if you like, but I find its not any different from the fluffy lovely side of human society irrespective of religion.

And finally: “Has Dawkins or any other leading contemporary Atheist apologist (in the technical sense of the word) dealt with the issue of Jesus/his resurrection in a serious way?”

Erm… why would they? Jesus might have existed (there is some evidence beyond the bible that he did), but as for the resurrection, well its just a bunch of arse isn’t it? Dead people don’t rise from the grave whether its written in a book or not. Apologies if you find that offensive – its not meant to be.

To put it another way, you might as well ask “Has [insert leading skeptic] or any other leading skeptic (in the technical sense of the word) dealt with the issue of Peter Pan’s ability to fly in a serious way?”

The whole ABC thing you mention is preaching a dogmatic view. It amounts to instructing people that:

* Sex outside marriage is wrong
* Extra-marital sex is wrong
* If you’re a bad person because you can’t keep to points 1 and 2, where a condom.

But the problem is that sex outside marriage isn’t wrong. In fact I’m quite sure people have been doing it for years! Just because a religious belief tells you it is against God’s will, doesn’t mean that same thinking applies to others.

Unfortunately, in the real world, the first two bullets happen A LOT! And that is true whether you’re in Africa or in the West. So you might as well ditch those points and focus on providing decent sexual health education (and the required items – i.e. condoms).

Abstinence is not a solution, it a moral position most often preached by religion organisations. People will screw each other whether the church likes it or not.

And re: “The fact that Catholic countries in Asia and Africa have generally far lower rates of HIV/AIDS than other similar countries has not been challenged.”

You jammed out a bunch of quoted evidence on condom use, but I didn’t see any stats to back up this position. I have no idea whether its true or not, but Aspiring Pendant appears to have dug some material up that contradicts this view.

P.S. I do try not to be too zealous about my anti-religious views. The problem is that I find I can understand the real nutty fundamentalist believers better than the woolly liberal ones. At least the fundamentalists don’t pick and choose beliefs from their faith…

Now, if Christianity is true, then any honest person (having considered the question) would be bound to accept it – whether than made him/her happy, sad, comforted, disturbed,etc. Equally, if it is not true, then no honest person can believe it – however comforting it might be. What saddens me is that many of the arguements against faith put here and elsewhere seem focussed on the stupid, hurtful and just plain wrong things that have been done in its name. By which arguement we should also reject democracy and science (Nazi experimentation, scientific fraud, etc). As I said previously, I would ask only that people look seriously at the evidence for the central claims of Christianity: the nature of Jesus and the resurrection. If, having done so, you decide it’s all at best untrue and at worst a malevolent hoax – well, you have my sincere respect and and admiration for your integrity. What disappoints me is this general dismissive, almost supercillious dismissal of Christianity without seriously considering it. Like the Daily Wail reader who says “all asylum seekers are spongers and should be sent home”, without actually considering the specific case of individual people who have fled their her home country to escape torture, persecution etc. Surely in such a learned group as this we can have a better level of debate

Has Dawkins or any other leading contemporary Atheist apologist (in the technical sense of the word) dealt with the issue of Jesus/his resurrection in a serious way? If they have, I should be most grateful if someone could direct me to it

In post 15 you said

“If Catholic policy is having such a bad effect in Africa one would imagine that it would be the Catholic countries which had the highest rate of HIV/AIDS. May I suggest that anyone interested should look at the prevalance of HIV/AIDS in countries with large Catholic populations and compare it to the rate in countries with similar climate, geography, education and development which have fewer Catholics.”

I have done so and found that, while there very few Catholic Countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 70% of Lesotho’s population is Catholic and the HIV/Aids prevalence rate is 28.9%. This is similar to Swaziland, Botswana, Zimbabwe & South Africa, all countries with small catholic populations.

in post No. 38

“The unanswerable defence of the Catholic position is that contrary to the expectations of the critics the rates of HIV/AIDS in countries in which the Catholic church has influence is far lower than in other similar countries.”

Spain (92% Catholic) has the highest HIV/Aids prevalence rate in western Europe according to the UNAID/WHO 2006 report on the global aids epidemic 2006.

in post 43 you said

“The fact that Catholic countries in Asia and Africa have generally far lower rates of HIV/AIDS than other similar countries has not been challenged.”

The Philippines (81% Catholic) has the third-lowest HIV-infection rate in Southeast Asia behind Laos (0.6% catholic) and Singapore (3.75% catholic). I can see no evidence to support your “fact” and it seems to be of the same standard as Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo’s “fact” that “The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom.”

This nonsense possibly did very little harm, as I understand many Catholic bishops in South Africa support condom use as a means of preventing the spread of HIV. Catholic charities, like the charities of other religions, undoubtedly do a lot of good work but the absurd superstitions of organised religions can only be a hindrance.

It’s not like being a holocaust-denialist, AIDS-denialist or whatever which involves taking a position against a widely-held theory which is strongly supported by evidence. It’s just a matter of not getting involved in any of a morass of absurd and contradictory beliefs about unprovables and unobservables.

And yeah, blackmail’s not a bad word for the Catholic adoption thing — no-one told them they had to close, they’ve chosen to ‘martyr’ themselves rather than adapt. “Discrimination is okay when my imaginary friend says so” is a rubbish argument.

Now, where’s me spaghetti…

Andrew.

The point about condom use not being 100% effective is not spurious. Even when used properly in ideal conditions condoms have a 1% failure rate. In practice people do not always use them properly – and this is particularly true in poor countries – a much higher failure rate occurs.

As I stated above the only really effective programmes against the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa are based on ABC: Abstinence outside marriage, Be faithful in marriage, Condoms if you cannot either abstain or be faithful. There is a lot of research about this which shows that policies based just on promoting condoms do not work when the epidemic is established.

The fact that Catholic countries in Asia and Africa have generally far lower rates of HIV/AIDS than other similar countries has not been challenged.

killary45 – apologies, misread your original post. You were actually referring to the relevance of the gay adoption issue in the UK. My bad.

That said, I do think its relevant because its all about how personal religious prejudice (some call it faith) can negatively impact others. In Africa its prejudice towards contraception and sex out of marriage, in the UK its the desire to stop gay couple adopting, which impacts both gay couples and the children.

Well that’s one way of looking at it.

By choosing to state that Catholic adoption agencies would have to close specifically because of not getting an exception to this law, it is blackmail. Their black and white morality means that rather than suck it up and deal with the fact society’s views evolve, they’d rather stop offering the service completely. He’s basically saying “but think of the children!” which looks like emotional blackmail to me. Biting off your nose to spite your own face etc.

If you can’t see the relevance of the Catholic church’s stance on contraception to this article then I’m pretty sure you’re too blinkered by your support of the church to see very much at all.

Your stats on HIV infection rates in spite of sales of condoms does not lead to the conclusion that an anti-condoms stance is valid. To argue this is spurious on your part. If the people were using condoms correctly they wouldn’t be getting HIV – but they are getting HIV so they’re not using condoms…

And as for abstinence only policies… good luck with that… I think human nature might be counting against you there.

apothecary: “Atheisists believe in the non-existence of any kind of deity.”

Yes and some of an atheist’s hobbies are not-playing-chess and not-playing-tiddlywinks.

The absence of a belief is not the same as a belief. People have got to get over the whole agnostic / atheist split – although its literally correct, virtually all atheists are agnostics – its just that they’re not willing to simply say “well anything’s possible” when asked about their beliefs.

I find it baffling that anyone can really claim to have this philosophy. If someone knocked on your door dressed in prison overalls with a SWAG bag and told you they were here to read your gas meter, would you say “well anything’s possible!” and let them in? Nope. You’d decide not to believe them and ask for some proof (or phone the police)…

“It’s all very well, but, see… To me it just sounds like someone talking about their invisible friend. Which is fair enough but some of them are world leaders.”

Or words to that effect…

Andrew.