Atheist Bait and Switch: The Illusion of the Empirical

 
 Leon Festinger

 This was a couple of years ago just before I got sick. It was a post on CARM;I don't post there anymore and my posting there never meant that I supported CARM

 

Still with Noctabulantjoycean's argument on carm. (see last post) He has argued that he has a  lot of empirical evidence to disprove the resurrection. He further argues that the attempts to defend the doctrine are "had hoc" and that's damning for it becuase it opens it up to the charge of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive Dissonance is a major psychological theory, one advanced by Leon Festinger in the 1950s. The theory has stood the test of time and has become a major theory in psychology.

Noctambulant doesn't really have any specific evidence against the resurrection. The articles he linked to actually said that Festinger's theory has become accepted and there is a great deal of empirical evidence to support it. The empirical evidence supports the theory, and Noctambulant wants to apply the theory to the resurrection. In all fairness it has been done, in fact Festinger himself raised the possibility if memory serves correctly.I don't have a link for that but I was reading Festinger for a sociology class around the time I got saved and I considered it as a major factor in my deliberations about belief.

I had argued before that the nature of belief system includes certain doctinal elements that can't be considered ad hoc because of their position in relation to the whole bleief system, the come with the package. He argues that this has nothing to do with it.

Noctambulant

post 11

An ad hoc explanation is one that is constructed with no supporting evidence or argument simply to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Thus, pointing out that a doctrine "ancient" does nothing to show its not ad hoc. For example, take the article "When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists: A Theoretical overview" or any of the plethora of studies on what ad hoc mechanisms religious believers use to rationalize the failure of a prophecy. I think (and others have argued) those same mechanisms were used by the early disciples of Jesus to rationalize his death (after all, the Jewish Messiah was not prophecied to die before completing his work). You could not then respond to my argument by saying "well, the claims of the disciples represent an ancient tradition and thus cannot be ad hoc." That would be a silly response. A claim can be ad hoc, no matter how old it is or who said it before a given speaker resorted to employing it. ."

the paper he refers to is by Lorne L. Dawson. you can see the abstract and first page here:


 The ad hoc argument came up in the previous post. The issue as he raised it was essentially about epistemic presumption. In his view religious doctrines dont' have any. Of course for the typical atheist being religious doctrine is automatic disproof anyway.I argued that doctrines of a belief system come with the package and enjoy the same presumption for the believer that the  system as a whole does becuase they rest on the same support that convinced the bleieve in the first place. This argument soared over his head.


 Noctambulant's particular "evidence" is an article by Dawson. Dawson is not necessary concerned with even arguing agaisnt Christianity per se. He's actually talking about proving the psychological Principe of connotative dissonance which is what Festinger discovered. The Festinger case is very amusing, everyone should read it. The original book is called When Prophecy fails" it was about infiltrating a flying saucer cult in the 50s, one that watched an old sci fi tv show called "captain video" to get secret codes about when the saucers were coming to save the group from an impending flood. (see an episode of Captain Video).

NoctambulantJoycean's argument is a bait and switch becuase he's actually not talking about the same things is celebrated empirical proof is talking about. The mountain of evidence that Dawson refers to is not evidence against Christianity but evidence for cognitive dissonance. That is a major principle in psychology an used in advertizing, and it is rock solid. It's just as much an argument against atheism as it is agaisnt religion.

The thing is atheist can't really be said to dispassionately and logically analyze and dismiss God arguments evidence when they have a huge psychological motive to unfairly reject it out of hand (if they didn't reject it they would have to accept that they are damned). so the more vociferously they have argued fro atheism the stronger their motive not to consider the arguemnts fairly. There are other ways in which connotative dissonance effects atheism because it effects all arguments.

That leads to the second bait and switch. The idea that there's this great fortress of facts backing atheism is based upon just this kind of deception. I'm not saying it's purposeful, this pheromone itself is probalby caused by cognitive dissonance. It's a bait and switch becuase there is no fortress of facts, there's a lose connection of self selected ideas that may or not may not really pertain to religion.Luke the cognitive dissonance evidence it's not really evidence against the resurrection.

They cannot prove that the early disciplines needed an exploitation that kept them going when the prophesy failed they have no proof that it failed. They are assuming he did not raise form the dead. They assume that based upon ideological considerations they have no proof to that effect. They make a circular argument to the effect that well since we assume he didn't they must the using CD and that means that's the way prophesy works so that disproves prophecy and prove he didn't raise form the dead: perfect circle. unfortunately it's logical circle not a hermeneutic one.

they can't prove he didn't raise from the dead and thus it's not really evidence against prophesy of the resurrection. It only becomes that when you pull the switch and replace real argument with ideological assumption.

Then we see this thinking in the way naturalism deals with all of God's activities. Noctambulant says:

Its like saying "since God as an explanation of natural disasters is an ancient claim, it is not ad hoc when theists say God caused a tsunami, even when we have clear scientific, empirically supported explanations for what caused the tsunami Knowing naturalistic causes of tsunamis is not proof God didn't cause one of them. there we have the bait and switch no 3. They use the same circular reasoning to dismiss any idea that God does anything. Becuase some naturalistic process are known and we have a self imposed ideological taboo agisnt the activity of God in the world we assume (a) all references to God's activity must be assumptions of no naturalistic process (b) knowing the naturalistic process is enough to assume God didn't do anything. That's' all the need to justify the claims that they have proved that God doesn't do anything.

the ideology of naturism and anti-supernatural work by circular reasoning.


he paper he refers to is by Lorne L. Dawson. you can see the abstract and first page here:


Meta: Dawson is not necessary concerned with even arguing agaisnt Christianity per se. He's actually talking abuot proving the psychological Principe of connotative dissonance which is what Festinger discovered.


Noct

Dealing with you is like dealing with a dishonest child. But much more frustrating.
Nowhere did I say Dawson was interested in arguing against Christianity per se. I specifically stated that I (and others) claim that the rationalizations and other ad hoc mechanisms Dawson presented evidence for in certain religious sects (including some Christian sects), applied to the behavior of Jesus' disciples after his death. 

 Meta:

yes but you contradict this very statement by the end of the post where you assert that I didn't read the paper because it disproves the res.

yes you sure as hell implied it. that's the closest thing to any kind of empiricle that I have seen you offer and you made big deal out of how you have all this empirical evidence.


NoctambulantJoycean's argument is a bait and switch becuase he's actually not talking about the same things is celebrated empirical proof is talking about. The mountain of evidence that Dawson refers to is not evidence against Christianity but evidence for cognitive dissonance. That is a major principle in psychology an used in advertizing, and it is rock solid. It's just as much an argument against atheism as it is agaisnt religion.

The thing is atheist can't really be said to dispassionately and logically analyze and dismiss God argument evidence when they have a huge psychological motive to unfairly reject it out of hand (if they didn't reject it they would have to accept that they are damned). so the more vociferously they have argued fro atheism the stronger their motive not to consider the arguemnts fairly. There are other ways in which connotative dissonance effects atheism because it effects all arguments.


Noct

Now here's how you might have responded to my argument if you had modicum of intellectually honesty or reading comprehension:

"NJ argued that these dissonance management mechanisms (especially ad hoc rationalization mechansims) were displayed by Jesus' disciple after his death. Here's some evidence from historical records written about the disciples at the time showing that this was not the case." Of course, you didn't take that route. Instead, you misconstrued my argument (as you always do to virtually every atheist I've seen you respond to). *sigh* 

 Meta:

(1) No reason to take it becuase you don't have any evidence that JC and the boys were under cognitive dissonance. you can't prove the prophesy failed. you are only assuming so because the ideology says it must have.

(2) if you did have any such evidence it was piss off the Jesus myth guys becuase it prove he existed that would be the end of that.

(3) what you are really doing is making a straw man argument. It's always a dangerous prostration to right your opponents arguments foremost. even if it's a good straw man it's still a straw man.

(4) there are two things you do with a straw man argument: you can say "this is weak I can beat it." that's what most do. you can also say "you could have argued this and thus divert attention from what was argued.

Nothing wrong with the argument I made and suggesting a straw man is not disproof of my argument.


That leads to the second bait and switch.

I will take this opportunity to point out that there's nothing personal in saying "this is a bait and switch." the best thinkers of the day use bait and switch, even though it's not a valid tactic. it is nevertheless used by the best of them. I's not an insult to say you did it. I'm sure you don't mean to say "I'm a dishonest child" in a personal way right? (sure you don't.you don't hate Christians do you? those re-education camps are meant to be fun).

The idea that there's this great fortress of facts backing atheism is based upon just this kind of deception. I'm not saying it's purposeful, this pheromone itself is probalby caused by cognitive dissonance. It's a bait and switch becuase there is no fortress of facts, there's a lose connection of self selected ideas that may or not may not really pertain to religion.Luke the cognitive dissonance evidence it's not really evidence against the resurrection.

They cannot prove that the early disciplines needed an explaination that kept them going when the prophesy failed they have no proof that it failed. They are assuming he did not raise form the dead. They assume that based upon ideological considerations they have no proof to that effect. They make a circular argument to the effect that well since we assume he didn't they must the using CD and that means that's the way prophesy works so that disproves prophecy and prove he didn't raise form the dead: perfect circle. unfortunately it's logical ciricule not a hermeneutic one.

they can't prove he didn't raise from the dead and thus it's not really evidence against prophesy of the resurrection. It only becomes that when you pull the switch and replace real argument with ideological assumption.
Then we see this thinking in the way naturalism deals with all of God's activities. Noctambulant says:

Knowing naturalistic causes of tsunamis is not proof God didn't cause one of them. there we have the bait and switch no 3. They use the same circular reasoning to dismiss any idea that God does anything. Becuase some naturalistic process are known and we have a self imposed ideological taboo agisnt the activity of God in the world we assume (a) all references to God's activity must be assumptions of no naturalistic process (b) knowing the naturalistic process is enough to assume God didn't do anything. That's' all the need to justify the claims that they have proved that God doesn't do anything.the ideology of naturism and anti-supernatural work by circular reasoning.

Noct

If you're really arguing that we can't use Occam's razor to rule God out as an explanation for phenomena N once we have empirical evidence of a purely natural causal explanation for N, then I would again suggest you enroll in your local community college's epistemology course and their philosophy of science course.

Meta:
Any  knowledge you possess is always already gong to be contingent. that is a priori the case. it must be so, because it's about nature.. You can never possess knowledge that God is not necessary becuase by definition God is necessary. you can say we don't need to appeal to God to show how the universe came to be but even that is not using the term "necessary" in the same sense as Occam's razor.

Moreover scinece does not have that kind of evidence Nowhere in modern science is any kind of proof that we don't need God. Half the theories of phsyics today are conjecture with no empirical basis.


Noct

None of what you said above addresses the content of Dawson's paper nor argues that the disciples of Jesus did not display the dissonance management mechanisms in question.

 Meta:

yes it did. I read the paper nothing in it says "this is a proof that Jesus dint' raise form the dead." It's about the nature of and modern state of the theory fo Cog Dis not a disproof of religion. you are doing the B and S again. you giving us the promise "I have empirical proof" but you don't because it's not proof about the right things. You have no proof of any kind to show that JC and the boys exhibited any kind of CD. If you had that you wold have proof already that the res didn't' happen you dont' have that. if you did you wouldn't need Festinger.


Noct

I'm beginning to doubt you even read the paper. 

Meta:

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST the RES!

(1) you are argue from sign

(2) you are asserting that because the article is about empirical evidence and it could be used to infer that the res failed then it must be empirical evidence against the res. that is argument from the consequent and argument from sign.

Noct

Maybe you're intimidated by long pages of text and prefer pretty colors and images. If so, then check out ProfMTH's Youtube series "Did the Disciple dies for a lie?" Maybe you can actually follow along with his argument since you can't seem to fairly present my own argument without straw-manning my claims. 

 Meta:

Isolate the quote and quote it where he proves the prophesy failed in the first place?

and show me a quote where hey say "I am specifically arguing against the resurrection."

btw you also forgot to answer the bit bout CD being applicable to atheists. that means you don't have a special proof against the res all you are doing is making a general application of a principle that we can all use.

in short you have proved nothing.

 

Why I don't buy Richard Carrier's article 'why I don't buy the resurrection,'

 


 I'm going against advice and deal with arguments by carm atheists because I think it's important to remember that certain things have been answered. Dealing with an old article by Richard Carrier that was sighted recently on CARM. Even though it's old these guys are rallying around it like its new and the same bunck is being noised about by atheists all the time.


Carrier's article is here:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/r...n/lecture.html

this is prompted by Fleetmouse's statement that:

"You have no answers to Carrier's essay. "

He seems the most worked up over the idea that since carrier proves the superstitious nature of the folks of Jesus day, like he never considered that. That's something I knew about as a kid. I used it in highschool to justify my own atheism (1973).  I can't imagine anyone being impressed by it. Be that as it may that's not an argument so examine it.

 
Carrier


My first reaction to reading  the beginning is it's an argument from analogy based upon ideological assumptions. the argument itself assumes what all atheists assume "anything that tells us a SN event can happen must be wrong a priori" they always jump the track form that (the SN itself must be wrong) to "the historicity must be wrong as well.That's really nothing but good old fashioned doubt. This is something in which I refuse to believe, therefore, it can't be true.

To reinforce it he uses argument from analogy. He shows the story about some saint in the 500s which is ridiculous. Then asserts that because that story is false then the NT stories are false. That is argument from analogy that is not proof. There's a huge difference in the level of evidential understanding, claim and documentation in first century and sixth. Sixth century story is European and not Mid eastern. They had an even more tenuous grasp of proof and testimony than did the Mediterranean folk who had the Greeks to teach them. From point on the answers to his essay are just the regular arguments one finds in any argument about the res. I'll have more on it latter.



Te then asserts Hume's foolishness that "why doesn't this happen today. it does. In fact he's begging the question. We have tons of miracle claims from the current era and some good science that shows they are unexplained. The only factor that is different is the prayer, so prayer is the logical candidate to explain it. In addition to the Lourdes stuff (above link) there is also the Casdroph evidence. While not as systematic or rigorous it does have the evaluation of a medical staff of a hospital in the 70s.

Carrier is using an example from the time of legends in the dark ages which is not backed by anything like the kind of testimonial support of the Gospels.In making that argument he's just begging the question and asserting the ideology of naturalism. He evoking doubt as a fact rather than proving facts. again, he is privileging doubt. Doubt privileged means doubt becomes proof. The dark age European stuff has nothing like the eight levels of verification that I've demonstrated back the Gospels.

Let's examine his specific arguments. Carrier states:

But we should try to be more specific in our reasons, and not rely solely on common sense impressions. And there are specific reasons to disbelieve the story of Genevieve, and they are the same reasons we have to doubt the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus. For the parallel is clear: the Gospels were written no sooner to the death of their main character--and more likely many decades later--than was the case for the account of Genevieve; and like that account, the Gospels were also originally anonymous--the names now attached to them were added by speculation and oral tradition half a century after they were actually written. Both contain fabulous miracles supposedly witnessed by numerous people. Both belong to the same genre of literature: what we call a "hagiography," a sacred account of a holy person regarded as representing a moral and divine ideal. Such a genre had as its principal aim the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus. Such literature was also a tool of propaganda, used to promote certain moral or religious views, and to oppose different points of view. The life of Genevieve, for example, was written to combat Arianism. The canonical Gospels, on the other hand, appear to combat various forms of proto-Gnosticism. So being skeptical of what they say is sensible from the start.[1]

That's exactly why we can't compare that story to the resurrection. Not only is it from a different time and different culture but it was written for different reasons. The Gospels were primarily written to answer concerns of given communities of the early chruch. Their concerns revolved around securing the testimony of their cloud of witnesses as they began dying off. They were making the transition from oral culture to written culture. They were deal with the original testimony of eye witnesses. The European guys were dealing with a palimpsest [2] of  legend that never had that kind of eye witness support. Thus they are not analogous and the argument from analogy fails.

Carrier asserts the typical atheist pechant for 19th century dating of the Gospels.

It is certainly reasonable to doubt the resurrection of Jesus in the flesh, an event placed some time between 26 and 36 A.D. For this we have only a few written sources near the event, all of it sacred writing, and entirely pro-Christian. Pliny the Younger was the first non-Christian to even mention the religion, in 110 A.D., but he doesn't mention the resurrection. No non-Christian mentions the resurrection until many decades later--Lucian, a critic of superstition, was the first, writing in the mid-2nd century, and likely getting his information from Christian sources. So the evidence is not what any historian would consider good.

Note he stresses that it's all "sacred" that means in atheist speak we can't trust it because anything religious people write must be a lie and propaganda. Of course any testimony in favor of the resurrection would be sacred so there can't be any such thing as pro res evidence that is not a lie and can be trusted. He implies that the resurrection was not part of the faith until early second century or there about. That's an old fashioned view that was disproved a long time ago. Now the consensus in the field is Koester's notion of the pre Mark Passion narrative with empty tomb emerging in  mid first century. "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" [3]

 Now we find one of the more ridiculous tactics to which Carrier resorts. He pulls a bait and switch between historian's standard of evidence and the atheists own standard.

Nevertheless, Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, "the highest standards of historical inquiry" and "if one takes the historian's own criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the ancient world," as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.[5] Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon for a minute:

He's going to through a list of things where the documentation for Caesar is supposedly so much better than the Gospels. First of all, this is a total the reality of the issues. In setting up the idea that Caesar is better documented the notion of an atheist victory is looming. The problem is we should really expect that because Cesar was the ruler of the known world at that time. Jesus was an itinerant prophet form the sticks who did not even interest the historians or men of letters. That we have any testimony of Jesus is a miracle. The idea that Caesar is better documented is not proof that Jesus is badly documented. Moreover, it may be overstated that Jesus' evidence is better (he did quote a perhaps rash comment to that effect) yet let's examine the aspects of the statement and see they are using two different sets of criteria.

First he argues that we have Caesar's writings, we have no writings of Jesus. He asserts that this equates to not knowing what Jesus said or believed. We actually more about Jesus beliefs than Caesar's becuase while Caesar express some ideas Jesus is quoted by his followers in a full body of teaching that covers many aspects. Since the Jews had an oral culture in which they memoirs the words of their teachers and spit them back ver batiam we probalby do have a good accurate understanding of Jesus' teachings, at least as they were applied by his first follows a few years after the communities were established. Oral tradition was not just wild random rummer but actuate reflection of the teacher through the student's memorization. It worked and there is a great deal of evidence to that effect.

Secondly he records the fact that at least one of Caesar's enemies documented his crossing the Rubicon, that is Cicero. While he argues that there are no such records of Jesus enemies or neural particles that is not the case. There's good documentation that Jesus was written about in the Talmudist writings, some of those date to first century.MICHAEL L. RODKINSON in his translation of the Babylonian Talmud says:

Thus the study of the Talmud flourished after the destruction of the Temple, although beset with great difficulties and desperate struggles. All his days, R. Johanan b. Zakkai was obliged to dispute with Sadducees and Bathueians and, no doubt, with the Messiahists also; for although these last were Pharisees, they differed in many points from the teaching of the Talmud after their master, Jesus, had broken with the Pharisees...[4]

 Moreover the fact that Talmudic sources talked about Jesus is born out by Celsus. The points that he says the Jews gave him are things the Talmud says about the alleged "Jesus figure." See my pages on Jesus in the Talmud for good documentation.

 He also includes inscriptions on coins. That's not a good source and it doesn't prove much. We had a dime with Mercury on it. That doesn't mean Mercury was a real guy. Coins documented legends and mythology.

He tires to use mulitiple sources to establish Caesar's crossing the Rubicon:
    

    Fourth, we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian,Cassius Dio,  Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions.

 
 Just having good sources, or even better vetting than the Gospels, is not proof that the Gosples have no historical basis. It may or may not be true that the statement by Douglas Geivett  might be a bit of an exaggeration in being as well attested as the crossing of the Rubicon. Nevertheless that is not proof that the Gospels don't hold up. I also say we can give Carrier a good run for his money. He only names three sources that back the crossing, they are not eye witnesses. We have four sources that are eye witnesses. Although in reality it's all coming form the pre Mark Passion narrative. Yet the veracity of it is attested to by it's use in other sources. So in using in four Gospels the communities produces those Gospels are saying "this source is correct." That's not counting non canonical gospels that agree with it. one I now of is GPete (Gospel of Peter). That's at least five attestations. Moreover, the sources Carrier sites for backing the crossing were not eye witnesses and were not contemporary, probably got their information from Caesar's writings.[5] That is not even verification.

At this point Carrier makes several absurd statements: "Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single established historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians." That's not true first of all. We have the attestation of Papias, his writings dated bewteen 95 and 120 AD. That he sure was before the third century. Clement of Rome is said to have been writing around 94 AD. Polycarp's death is attributed to 155 AD..The point is all of these guys attest to the resurrection and all of them claim to have had ties with actual disciples and Apostles who Knew Jesus. One might argue that they are not established historians but the historians of that era were not academically trained social scientists they were just any educated person who wrote about what hapepned in the past these guys have a link to the eye witness testimony that has to outweigh the onus of being "chruch historians." The historians writing about Caesar probalby got their information form Caesar. Carrier goes on, "And of those few others who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination..."That's just not true. All of the afore mentioned chruch father attribute their knowledge to eye witnesses, within whom they had personal contact. None of the historians Carrier sites can do that for the crossing. He says they dont' show wide reading or skill as historians. That is nonsense. Clement of Rome (who seems to have known both Peter and Paul) seems to be widely read. His letter is elpqunt and shows a vast learning as a complex concept of the Gospel is presented. Carrier might refuse to accept because the content is Christians but no oen can deny the complexity. Moreover that's just not necessary to the honesty and knowledge level of the witnesses. So what if they are not great writers compared to Plutarch, that doesn't negate the first hand nature of their evidence.

Here he makes an argument that is quite fallacious. It's so telling that all the CARM atheist acted like it's a big proof:
    

    Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief--a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.

That's just shifting arguments. In effect he's saying if this event had no happened historian would be different so therefore we know it happen. That is a silly way for any historian to think.The fact is yes some group of solider moves across teh river to fight Pompey and that changed Roman history. That means they got men across the river. that in no way proves that Caesar led them or that any  other things Caesar says really happened the way he says it. That's like saying we know that JFK was shot by a lone gunman becuase had he not been shot he would have ran for re-election. History would be different, so therefore it was a lone gunman. The same fallacy works with the claim that it proves is that the assassination was a conspiracy. All it proves is that the President was assassinated.

Moreover, he asserts: "There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection." That's really a red herring because there would be no belief without an empty tomb, and they could not have gotten the body past the guards had he not risen from the dead. To answer that this could be held by mere bleief and didn't require a real resurrection is nothing but begging the question. We can't assert that we know there was true resurrection just because bleief in resurrection might have flourished without an actual event. We don't really know that it did, and there is a possibility that the belief would not be possible with an actual event. That is rather a moot point and it is no way to do history!

The big historian's brilliant knowledge fails to impress. There is one other major issue that the CARM folks were so taken with. he argues that superstition was  so rampant in that day they would bleieve anything. That's supposed that prove it didn't happen.  Some of the CARM atheists seemed to think this is some big innovative to show the superstition level of the day. I knew about that as a child. I sued that argument in my pro atheism arguments when I was a junior in high school.

But reasons to be skeptical do not stop there. We must consider the setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted. I'll give one example that illustrates this: we have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the result of witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells. So when an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and blowing brass horns furiously, to confuse the witches' spells. So tremendous was this din that many better-educated authors complain of how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a superstitious people.

the sources he footnotes are an article by himself and his Masters thesis. In those articles he quotes other source but does not document with standard method of FN. He never shows that the superstitions about eclipse were prevalent in Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, nor does he show that people were so set on them that they could be convinced to see things that weren't there.

He talks at length about how people in that day were certain that an eclipse was a witch stealing the moon or a Dragon easting the sun. the idea that they would believe an eclipse was special dragon eating the sun or witch stealing the moon or something. That doesn't prove that they would believe in a resurrection just because they are told about it. Carrier would assert this but it's the opposite: the eclipse is a real event that is very dramatic. It's rarity and its' encompassing nature, it seem terrifying and mysterious. It's really happening, the sun really goes away for a bit. That doesn't prove they would believe something just becuase they are told about it. That proves the opposite really that there has to be a real event that's terrifying and out of the ordinary to trigger such belief. A real resurrection would fill the fill the bill,I don't know what else would.

Another problem is that he doesn't even bother to document the time or place of Jesus day. He's not quoting evdience about how Jews of Jesus time thought. He's asserting that all ancinet world people thought the same. that's an old atheist assumption that all ancient people are stupid.

Only a small class of elite well-educated men adopted more skeptical points of view, and because they belonged to the upper class, both them and their arrogant skepticism were scorned by the common people, rather than respected. Plutarch laments how doctors were willing to attend to the sick among the poor for little or no fee, but they were usually sent away, in preference for the local wizard.[10] By modern standards, almost no one had any sort of education at all, and there were no mass media disseminating scientific facts in any form. By the estimates of William Harris, author of Ancient Literacy [1989], only 20% of the population could read anything at all, fewer than 10% could read well, and far fewer still had any access to books. He found that in comparative terms, even a single page of blank papyrus cost the equivalent of thirty dollars--ink, and the labor to hand copy every word, cost many times more. We find that books could run to the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Consequently, only the rich had books, and only elite scholars had access to libraries, of which there were few. The result was that the masses had no understanding of science or critical thought. They were neither equipped nor skilled, nor even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class society--even more a story that, if believed, secured eternal life. Who wouldn't have bought a ticket to that lottery? Opposition arose mainly from prior commitments to other dogmas, not reason or evidence.

He's talking about Europe in the middle ages.He has some application to first century meridian. That's a long way from proving that a whole popular would up and believe in resurrection just become people started saying someone rose form the dead. Some of the advocates of resurrection were those educated men who were not carried by superstition. Paul and Luke fall into that category. Some of the Romans Paul was talking to in his letter to the Romans would fall into it. Priscilla,Paul's friend the wife of Aquila probalby, since her name is a Patrician name.





End notes


[1] Carrier FN at this point:

Besides my summary of Metzger on The New Testament Canon, cf. R. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (1992); H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (1990); W. Lane's New London Commentary on the New Testament (1974); and also Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (1993).

[2] palimpsest:

noun

noun: palimpsest; plural noun: palimpsests

1. a manuscript or piece of writing material on which the original writing has been effaced to make room for later writing but of which traces remain.

   • something reused or altered but still bearing visible traces of its earlier form.

     "Sutton Place is a palimpsest of the taste of successive owners"

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+of+palimpsest

[3] Helmutt Koester. Ancient Christian Gospels:Their History and Development.

.

Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International. 1990, 218.

[4] Babylonian Talmud, Book 10: History of the Talmud, tr. Vol 1 Chapter 2

 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TALMUD DURING THE LAST CENTURY OF THE SECOND TEMPLE'S EXISTENCE (i.e. THE FIRST A.C.) SHEMAIA--ABTALIAN--HILLEL--SHAMMAI--THE PRINCES (NASIS) OF ISRAEL--R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI--SANHEDRIN OF JAMNIA--THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS.accessed 9/6/14 

by Michael L. Rodkinson, [1918], at sacred-texts.com accessed 9/6/14

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht105.htm

 The Talmud was written in second century on, but the works it used were passed on orally and date much earlier. Rodkinson states:

 "The Talmud is a combination of Mishna and Gemara, the latter is a collection of Mishnayoth, Tosephtas, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphre and Boraithas, all of these, interpreted and discussed by the Amoraim, Saboraim, and also Gaonim at a later period. "The Mishna is the authorized codification of the oral or unwritten law, which on the basis of the written law contained in Pentateuch, developed during the second Temple, and down to the end of the second century of the common era." The author of which was R. Jehuda, the prince named "Rabbi" (flourishing toward the end of the second century), taking the unfinished work of R. Akiba and R. Meir as basis."

[5] Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 AD. Suetonius wasn't born until 70 AD! Appian was bron in 95 AD  Cassius Dio born in 155,
Plutarch born in 45 AD. so he could have been there if he had been taken along as a two year old historian.


On CARM HRG says: " It is mentioned in De bello civile, Cicero's Philipplicae and Velleius Paterculus. " http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?200585-why-I-don-t-buy-Carrier-s-article-about-not-buying-the-Res

Interesting that Carrier didn't use those guys becuase he has a Ph.D. in world history, so he surely would have known they were contemporary with the event. He must know of them. But one might well wonder were they there or did they know if  from reading Caesar? Sure they knew the crossing was alleged to have existed, that doesn't mean they were there.

Atheist Argument from Incredulity

One thing I've done a lot of is documented miracles. I think I probalby have paid better attention to real miracle evidence than just about any apologist on the net. I know sounds very arrogant but consider the fact that only a hand full of sights even bother to deal any sort of actual process of demonstration. Very sights by apologists actually deal with the miracle making process of the RCC. That of cousre assumes I want to be called "apologist." I guess it's too late now. There is some very good evidence.

First, the Catholic rules, weather for saint making or Lourdes, the same people, same rules, two different committees, are the best rules. They are strict scientifically aware rules.

BY DAVID VAN BIEMA

The paradox of human miracle assessment is that the only way to discern whether a phenomenon is supernatural is by having trained rationalists testify that it outstrips their training. Since most wonders admitted by the modern church are medical cures, it consults with doctors. Di Ruberto has access to a pool of 60 - "We've got all the medical branches covered," says his colleague, Dr. Ennio Ensoli - and assigns each purported miracle to two specialists on the vanquished ailment.

They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: "Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?" Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. "Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that's not enough." says Ensoli. "Exceptional doesn't mean inexplicable."

"Inexplicable," or inspiegabile, is the happy label that Di Ruberto, the doctors and several other clerics in the Vatican's "medical conference" give to a case if it survives their scrutiny. It then passes to a panel of theologians, who must determine whether the inexplicable resulted from prayer. If so, the miracle is usually approved by a caucus of Cardinals and the Pope.

Some find the process all too rigorous. Says Father Paolino Rossi, whose job, in effect, is lobbying for would-be saints from his own Capuchin order: "It's pretty disappointing when you work for years and years and then see the miracle get rejected." But others suggest it could be stricter still.

There is another major miracle-validating body in the Catholic world: the International Medical Committee for the shrine at Lourdes. Since miracles at Lourdes are all ascribed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary, it is not caught up in the saint-making process, which some believe the Pope has running overtime. Roger Pilon, the head of Lourdes' committee, notes that he and his colleagues have not approved a miracle since 1989, while the Vatican recommended 12 in 1994 alone. "Are we too severe?" he wonders out loud. "Are they really using the same criteria?"

One can find further discussion of the rules in an article interviewing one of the committee members,
Franco Balzaretti. One of the most impressive miracles is not from Lourdes but a saint making miracle. The second miracle that put over St. Theresse of Lisieux as a saint.

Society for the Little Flower (Website) FAQ (visited 6/3/01)
St. Theresse of Lisieux

http://www.littleflower.org/therese/faq.html#4

"Regarding St. Therese, in 1923 the Church approved of two spontaneous cures unexplained by medical treatment. Sister Louise of St. Germain was cured of the stomach ulcers she had between 1913 and 1916. The second cure involved Charles Anne, a 23 year old seminarian who was dying from advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. The night he thought he was dying, Charles prayed to Therese. Afterward, the examining doctor testified, "The destroyed and ravaged lungs had been replaced by new lungs, carrying out their normal functions and about to revive the entire organism. A slight emaciation persists, which will disappear within a few days under a regularly assimilated diet." These two miracles resulted in Therese becoming beatified."

Of course many times when I've used this atheists have tired to shame it by arguing that it's obviously a lie and propaganda because it's on a site dedicated to that saint. There's an attitude among atheists that unless something is presented skeptically it has to be a lie. I amid it's not scholarly evidence. It's available documentation it's not best evidence. Best evidence on this particular case is hard to come by. I exchanged emails with the committee and they assumred me the X-Rays still exist and they do in fact show the lungs as new. While this is not the best evdience it's showing the existence of the case in the files and the files the OfficeMax docs that demonstrate and document the case. I don't present it as proof I present it only a reason to seek further. The atheist response to it is still very telling. I don't remember who this is but here's one response from CARM:

As for lungs growing back, that's cool. I love the power of belief, and believe in it myself. Seems strange though that God picks and chooses those "He" heals. I guess Meta's God is a Calvinist. Matter of fact, many Christians are Calvinists and just don't admit it. Christianity is the ME religion filled with egotists who think they can influence the mind of a diety by begging and currying favor. When something "miraculous" happens, they can crow that God loves a prayor better than an atheist. He would let an atheist die while allowing someone who does a Groucho Marks and says some choice magic words live..

This belief is beyond preposterous and makes mental midgets out of humans and stifles research into why and how beliefs can and DO heal people. The placebo effect is well known and ignored by those who say "God did it"

My response:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

you are not dealing with the evidence for miracles.

their response
tea bag says

That's because there isn't any.

Instead of dealing with the evidence presented they first try to shame it, mocking and ridiculing the idea and attacking what they see as Christian attitudes rather than looking at what the evidence shows. Then they just deny the evidence exists at all. I find they do this for almost all claims and all evidence. It's really pretty alarming how weak atheists are on evidence.

I presented my outline of argumetns on eight leves of verification for the new testament and I list over 25 scholars who I quote I showed each point that I quote them for.

Eight levels of Verification for Gospels underrigd belief in Res.

This post first saw life as an answer to other arguments I was making on the "other" board. It refers to things I have already documented and the names of the scholars I use to document them.

The argument it backs is this:

(1) There's real strong evidence to suggest that the stories that became the synoptic and John were told in the original community under controlled conditions, where eye witnesses were plentiful and could help keep it all straight.

(2) These stores were first written must 18 years , not 40, not 60 after he events. Still a major source of eye witnesses lived in order to correct the statements should they be wrong.

(3) While this hypothesis can't be proved absolutely the evidence for it is strong enough to foster confidence in the hypothesis: the resurrection is historical validated.

(4) logicians accept placing confidence in a partially proved hypothesis. so when I say that the evidence is strong enough to place confidence that means it's logical to accept the belief, especially if one has modern confirmations.*

*religious experience lending credence to belief.

Evdience:
the eight levels of verification

8 levels of Verification for Gospels

None of the atheist has answered these levels. A few have tried. Most have not even mentioned them. Most are just asserting they "can't be true" without even considering the facts.

those who have given it a good shot include GS and Elf, maybe a couple of others I can't recall my apologies if I can't.

those who have not even attempted yet asserting I haven't offered any evidence, even though they haven not attempted an answer include "Big thinker"Of course and Maybrick.

following is a summary of the sources I used. most of you were not willing even look at the links.

I list only 6 numberically the other 2 are a and b and c under Pauline.


1) The original pre Mark redaction

Sources of proof include Koester's book Ancient Christian Gospels, Jurgen denker,
John D. Crosson,
Ray Brown,
Hennecke-
Schneemelcher-
Wilson,
Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646
Peter kirby says its consensus in the field.



(2)the Pauline corups
....(a) what he got form people who were there
Quoting Paul himself: quotes James, the Jerusalem church's creedal formula and hymns.

....(b) his saying source.
Koester documents
synoptic saying source

........(c) the chruch tradition he learned in Jerusalem

(3) extra canonical Gospels such as Peter and Thomas
Koester documents
Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha 1.96

Charles Hendrick and Paul Mirecki

Ron Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1982), pp. 23-37.)

Peter KIrby's site "Gosepel of Thoams"
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

Stephen J. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus

Stevan L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (Skylight Paths Pub 2002)


(4) Oral tradition
Papias (from Eusebius)
Robert C. Cully,Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies

(5)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community as a whole, a whole community full of people who were there.

(6) writers who write about their relationships with those who were there.
1 Clement (the source)
Richardson and Fairweather, et al. Early Christian Fathers, New York: MacMillian, 1970 p.45-46).
F.F. Bruce, NT documents
Irenaeus, Agaisnt heresies and missing fragment supplied by Calvin ....college

Eusebius Ecclesiastic histories
Papias, fragments (Peter Kirby, Early Christian Writings, site:http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
Schoedel 1967: 91-92;
Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettonson, Oxford University press 1963, 27).

Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 1
Calvin College

Iranaeus describes works of Papis

Seteven Carlson's site:http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm


these face statements like "the Gospels have no backing" and telling me I haven't done anything to prove anything, this is not good enough see? It's' an untruth.

Here are all the statements atheists like Big thinker have quoted to back up there view:

O gee, I forget there aren't any not 0.

not good enough see! until you answer this stuff with your own research of an equal level then you are just flapping your gums.

Their answer in summary, collectively, was something like "this can't be verification of the New Testament becuase it can't have any." A huge portion of them argued this is circular becuase it's circular to claim verification for a book from evidence in the book. The problem with that is they are thinking of the argument about the fundamentalist who says "the Bible is the word of God and my proof I shall quote the Bible where it says it's the word of God." That is circular reason. Verification is not proof the Bible is the word of God, it's historical evidence outside the bible that stacks up to show the truth of the narrative in the Bible. The evidence of this extra biblical proof is referenced in the Gospels since they are constructed out of prior writings that match up with certain kinds of historical evidence. This is a very different thing than saying "the Bible is true becuase it says it is." The atheists don't bother to think about any of that, they jsut short hand, the sec web says "no" so it's "no." BTW the details for the quotation above can bee seen demonstrate to what each scholar refers on "histoircal Validity of the Gospels," on Religious A prori.

It all goes back to the same tendency of atheists to say "there's no evidence for your God" when they are staring 42 arguments in the fact (my God argument list). Antoher area in which I have pointed out that atheist can't deal with evidence is the historical evidence for the resurrection. They basically aruge agaisnt the possibility of the concept of resurrection and just pretend the historical evidence doesn't exist. It seems clear from these cases that essentially atheists can't deal with evidence, and in the main, not all but many have only one argument, that of argument form incredulity. Argument from incredulity is a refusal to consider the other side, it says "I refuse to believe ,therefore, it cant' be true." This one of the most flagrantly fallacious ways to argue.

Atheist compare this situation to empirical evidence. they like to imagine that their side as this mountain of factual back up that proves their world view in scinece. While all they really do is sing the praises of scinece as though it's a protection form an angry god, then selectively choose that which agrees with them while mocking and ridiculing prefecture good scinece that disproves their view point, such as my 200 studies on religious experience. (for a biboliography of many of the sources see here).

Posted by Metacrock at 7:46 AM

Atheist Bait and Switch: The Illusion of the Empirical

 

 

NoctambulantJoycean's bait and switch.

Still with Noctabulantjoycean's argument on carm. (see last post) He has argued that he has a  lot of empirical evidence to disprove the resurrection. He further argues that the attempts to defend the doctrine are "had hoc" and that's damning for it becuase it opens it up to the charge of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive Dissonance is a major psychological theory, one advanced by Leon Festinger in the 1950s. The theory has stood the test of time and has become a major theory in psychology.

Noctambulant doesn't really have any specific evidence against the resurrection. The articles he linked to actually said that Festinger's theory has become accepted and there is a great deal of empirical evidence to support it. The empirical evidence supports the theory, and Noctambulant wants to apply the theory to the resurrection. In all fairness it has been done, in fact Festinger himself raised the possibility if memory serves correctly.I don't have a link for that but I was reading Festinger for a sociology class around the time I got saved and I considered it as a major factor in my deliberations about belief.

I had argued before that the nature of belief system includes certain doctinal elements that can't be considered ad hoc because of their position in relation to the whole bleief system, the come with the package. He argues that this has nothing to do with it.

Noctambulant

post 11

An ad hoc explanation is one that is constructed with no supporting evidence or argument simply to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Thus, pointing out that a doctrine "ancient" does nothing to show its not ad hoc. For example, take the article "When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists: A Theoretical overview" or any of the plethora of studies on what ad hoc mechanisms religious believers use to rationalize the failure of a prophecy. I think (and others have argued) those same mechanisms were used by the early disciples of Jesus to rationalize his death (after all, the Jewish Messiah was not prophecied to die before completing his work). You could not then respond to my argument by saying "well, the claims of the disciples represent an ancient tradition and thus cannot be ad hoc." That would be a silly response. A claim can be ad hoc, no matter how old it is or who said it before a given speaker resorted to employing it. ."

the paper he refers to is by Lorne L. Dawson. you can see the abstract and first page here:

 
 Leon Festinger


The ad hoc argument came up in the previous post. The issue as he raised it was essentially about epistemic presumption. In his view religious doctrines dont' have any. Of course for the typical atheist being religious doctrine is automatic disproof anyway.I argued that doctrines of a belief system come with the package and enjoy the same presumption for the believer that the  system as a whole does becuase they rest on the same support that convinced the bleieve in the first place. This argument soared over his head.


 Noctambulant's particular "evidence" is an article by Dawson. Dawson is not necessary concerned with even arguing agaisnt Christianity per se. He's actually talking about proving the psychological Principe of connotative dissonance which is what Festinger discovered. The Festinger case is very amusing, everyone should read it. The original book is called When Prophecy fails" it was about infiltrating a flying saucer cult in the 50s, one that watched an old sci fi tv show called "captain video" to get secret codes about when the saucers were coming to save the group from an impending flood. (see an episode of Captain Video).

NoctambulantJoycean's argument is a bait and switch becuase he's actually not talking about the same things is celebrated empirical proof is talking about. The mountain of evidence that Dawson refers to is not evidence against Christianity but evidence for cognitive dissonance. That is a major principle in psychology an used in advertizing, and it is rock solid. It's just as much an argument against atheism as it is agaisnt religion.

The thing is atheist can't really be said to dispassionately and logically analyze and dismiss God arguments evidence when they have a huge psychological motive to unfairly reject it out of hand (if they didn't reject it they would have to accept that they are damned). so the more vociferously they have argued fro atheism the stronger their motive not to consider the arguemnts fairly. There are other ways in which connotative dissonance effects atheism because it effects all arguments.

That leads to the second bait and switch. The idea that there's this great fortress of facts backing atheism is based upon just this kind of deception. I'm not saying it's purposeful, this pheromone itself is probalby caused by cognitive dissonance. It's a bait and switch becuase there is no fortress of facts, there's a lose connection of self selected ideas that may or not may not really pertain to religion.Luke the cognitive dissonance evidence it's not really evidence against the resurrection.

They cannot prove that the early disciplines needed an exploitation that kept them going when the prophesy failed they have no proof that it failed. They are assuming he did not raise form the dead. They assume that based upon ideological considerations they have no proof to that effect. They make a circular argument to the effect that well since we assume he didn't they must the using CD and that means that's the way prophesy works so that disproves prophecy and prove he didn't raise form the dead: perfect circle. unfortunately it's logical circle not a hermeneutic one.

they can't prove he didn't raise from the dead and thus it's not really evidence against prophesy of the resurrection. It only becomes that when you pull the switch and replace real argument with ideological assumption.

Then we see this thinking in the way naturalism deals with all of God's activities. Noctambulant says:

Its like saying "since God as an explanation of natural disasters is an ancient claim, it is not ad hoc when theists say God caused a tsunami, even when we have clear scientific, empirically supported explanations for what caused the tsunami Knowing naturalistic causes of tsunamis is not proof God didn't cause one of them. there we have the bait and switch no 3. They use the same circular reasoning to dismiss any idea that God does anything. Becuase some naturalistic process are known and we have a self imposed ideological taboo agisnt the activity of God in the world we assume (a) all references to God's activity must be assumptions of no naturalistic process (b) knowing the naturalistic process is enough to assume God didn't do anything. That's' all the need to justify the claims that they have proved that God doesn't do anything.

the ideology of naturism and anti-supernatural work by circular reasoning.


he paper he refers to is by Lorne L. Dawson. you can see the abstract and first page here:


Meta: Dawson is not necessary concerned with even arguing agaisnt Christianity per se. He's actually talking abuot proving the psychological Principe of connotative dissonance which is what Festinger discovered.



Noct

Dealing with you is like dealing with a dishonest child. But much more frustrating.
Nowhere did I say Dawson was interested in arguing against Christianity per se. I specifically stated that I (and others) claim that the rationalizations and other ad hoc mechanisms Dawson presented evidence for in certain religious sects (including some Christian sects), applied to the behavior of Jesus' disciples after his death. 

 Meta:

yes but you contradict this very statement by the end of the post where you assert that I didn't read the paper because it disproves the res.

yes you sure as hell implied it. that's the closest thing to any kind of empiricle that I have seen you offer and you made big deal out of how you have all this empirical evidence.


NoctambulantJoycean's argument is a bait and switch becuase he's actually not talking about the same things is celebrated empirical proof is talking about. The mountain of evidence that Dawson refers to is not evidence against Christianity but evidence for cognitive dissonance. That is a major principle in psychology an used in advertizing, and it is rock solid. It's just as much an argument against atheism as it is agaisnt religion.

The thing is atheist can't really be said to dispassionately and logically analyze and dismiss God argument evidence when they have a huge psychological motive to unfairly reject it out of hand (if they didn't reject it they would have to accept that they are damned). so the more vociferously they have argued fro atheism the stronger their motive not to consider the arguemnts fairly. There are other ways in which connotative dissonance effects atheism because it effects all arguments.


Noct

Now here's how you might have responded to my argument if you had modicum of intellectually honesty or reading comprehension:

"NJ argued that these dissonance management mechanisms (especially ad hoc rationalization mechansims) were displayed by Jesus' disciple after his death. Here's some evidence from historical records written about the disciples at the time showing that this was not the case." Of course, you didn't take that route. Instead, you misconstrued my argument (as you always do to virtually every atheist I've seen you respond to). *sigh* 

 Meta:

(1) No reason to take it becuase you don't have any evidence that JC and the boys were under cognitive dissonance. you can't prove the prophesy failed. you are only assuming so because the ideology says it must have.

(2) if you did have any such evidence it was piss off the Jesus myth guys becuase it prove he existed that would be the end of that.

(3) what you are really doing is making a straw man argument. It's always a dangerous prostration to right your opponents arguments foremost. even if it's a good straw man it's still a straw man.

(4) there are two things you do with a straw man argument: you can say "this is weak I can beat it." that's what most do. you can also say "you could have argued this and thus divert attention from what was argued.

Nothing wrong with the argument I made and suggesting a straw man is not disproof of my argument.


That leads to the second bait and switch.

I will take this opportunity to point out that there's nothing personal in saying "this is a bait and switch." the best thinkers of the day use bait and switch, even though it's not a valid tactic. it is nevertheless used by the best of them. I's not an insult to say you did it. I'm sure you don't mean to say "I'm a dishonest child" in a personal way right? (sure you don't.you don't hate Christians do you? those re-education camps are meant to be fun).

The idea that there's this great fortress of facts backing atheism is based upon just this kind of deception. I'm not saying it's purposeful, this pheromone itself is probalby caused by cognitive dissonance. It's a bait and switch becuase there is no fortress of facts, there's a lose connection of self selected ideas that may or not may not really pertain to religion.Luke the cognitive dissonance evidence it's not really evidence against the resurrection.

They cannot prove that the early disciplines needed an explaination that kept them going when the prophesy failed they have no proof that it failed. They are assuming he did not raise form the dead. They assume that based upon ideological considerations they have no proof to that effect. They make a circular argument to the effect that well since we assume he didn't they must the using CD and that means that's the way prophesy works so that disproves prophecy and prove he didn't raise form the dead: perfect circle. unfortunately it's logical ciricule not a hermeneutic one.

they can't prove he didn't raise from the dead and thus it's not really evidence against prophesy of the resurrection. It only becomes that when you pull the switch and replace real argument with ideological assumption.
Then we see this thinking in the way naturalism deals with all of God's activities. Noctambulant says:

Knowing naturalistic causes of tsunamis is not proof God didn't cause one of them. there we have the bait and switch no 3. They use the same circular reasoning to dismiss any idea that God does anything. Becuase some naturalistic process are known and we have a self imposed ideological taboo agisnt the activity of God in the world we assume (a) all references to God's activity must be assumptions of no naturalistic process (b) knowing the naturalistic process is enough to assume God didn't do anything. That's' all the need to justify the claims that they have proved that God doesn't do anything.the ideology of naturism and anti-supernatural work by circular reasoning.

Noct

If you're really arguing that we can't use Occam's razor to rule God out as an explanation for phenomena N once we have empirical evidence of a purely natural causal explanation for N, then I would again suggest you enroll in your local community college's epistemology course and their philosophy of science course.

Meta:
Any  knowledge you possess is always already gong to be contingent. that is a priori the case. it must be so, because it's about nature.. You can never possess knowledge that God is not necessary becuase by definition God is necessary. you can say we don't need to appeal to God to show how the universe came to be but even that is not using the term "necessary" in the same sense as Occam's razor.

Moreover scinece does not have that kind of evidence Nowhere in modern science is any kind of proof that we don't need God. Half the theories of phsyics today are conjecture with no empirical basis.


Noct

None of what you said above addresses the content of Dawson's paper nor argues that the disciples of Jesus did not display the dissonance management mechanisms in question.

 Meta:

yes it did. I read the paper nothing in it says "this is a proof that Jesus dint' raise form the dead." It's about the nature of and modern state of the theory fo Cog Dis not a disproof of religion. you are doing the B and S again. you giving us the promise "I have empirical proof" but you don't because it's not proof about the right things. You have no proof of any kind to show that JC and the boys exhibited any kind of CD. If you had that you wold have proof already that the res didn't' happen you dont' have that. if you did you wouldn't need Festinger.


Noct

I'm beginning to doubt you even read the paper. 

Meta:

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST the RES!

(1) you are argue from sign

(2) you are asserting that because the article is about empirical evidence and it could be used to infer that the res failed then it must be empirical evidence against the res. that is argument from the consequent and argument from sign.

Noct

Maybe you're intimidated by long pages of text and prefer pretty colors and images. If so, then check out ProfMTH's Youtube series "Did the Disciple dies for a lie?" Maybe you can actually follow along with his argument since you can't seem to fairly present my own argument without straw-manning my claims. 

 Meta:

Isolate the quote and quote it where he proves the prophesy failed in the first place?

and show me a quote where hey say "I am specifically arguing against the resurrection."

btw you also forgot to answer the bit bout CD being applicable to atheists. that means you don't have a special proof against the res all you are doing is making a general application of a principle that we can all use.

in short you have proved nothing.