Comments on: Jesus’ resurrection and mass hallucinations http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/ Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:04:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth[ Carneades] http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/comment-page-1/#comment-5226 Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth[ Carneades] Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:59:53 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427#comment-5226 Sorry for the typos. I really do proof-read but still need to do more here. Elsewhere, I am using the edit function. I  don't have dyslexia, but on-line it seems to be the case,alas! Thanks, everybody. Also, there is the thread @ physorg  Christinsanity about Yeshua's meanness. I  do get around, hughes.net willing! Good will and blessings  to all! Sorry for the typos. I really do proof-read but still need to do more here. Elsewhere, I am using the edit function. I  don’t have dyslexia, but on-line it seems to be the case,alas!
Thanks, everybody.
Also, there is the thread @ physorg  Christinsanity about Yeshua’s meanness. I  do get around, hughes.net willing!
Good will and blessings  to all!

]]> By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth[ Carneades] http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/comment-page-1/#comment-5225 Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth[ Carneades] Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:53:00 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427#comment-5225 Andy, Yeshua  was a shamam, so probably a schizotypal whilst his credulous followers were schioids Qne should also  enlarge on his mean-piritedness- his using a whip  in clearing the temple of those money-lenders, calling the mother and her three children dogs, his hell-fire and brimstone prattle and selective healings. I think that as far as his even existing, it would be from his earliest followers,but again it is the matter of no way to examine them.Taking the  accounts then as true in his existence then, we merely find that he existed, but with all the contradictions, we find the legendary Yesshua. I tead a preacher's account of what the 'good" thief on the  cross might have thought, showing how the legends did happen:- another instance of a theological it must be or it may be.My taking this approach might itself be a it must be according to others.How else then to account for the contradictions? Then one account might be true. Then the matter is that of being second-hand without any substantiation. Ryan, what do you, sir, maintain on this approach? I just now developed it! Hune's corollary  o the presumption of naturalism is that unless one  has evidence  for any miracle,   it cannot be one otherwise as natural causes and explanations are the sufficient reason.  The regularity of Nature ensues. To postulate   divine teleology as behind natural events or in making supernatural ones,contradicts teleonomic causes -no predetermined outcomes. That is science does   most emphatically contradict the existence of God! This  leads the Lamberth atelic or teleonomic argument: the weight of  scientific evidence is that  only teleonomic causes act in Existence so that any teleological argument cannot  work in that they all propose divine intent, and Nature shows none whatsoever. We find  no   predetermied outcomes!  Contradiction, then ensues by positing any teleology -intent -whether by alien beings or God. No telos. So, is this putative God a liar by self-hiding as Schellenberg's hiddenness problem rushes forth,   letting us think that science had the last word in the form on finding no  predetermined outcomes. Does then John Hick's epistemic distance overcome that problem? That would be the new Omphalos argument. The old one still that fundamentalists use is that Yahweh made mountains, fossils and other matters appear old whilst He made the world just 6,000 years old; the new one proposes then that He made is just an  appearance that Nature herself acts alone, and so teleological arguments do indeed prevail. No, they all - fine-tuning, probability, design and from reason beg the question of Hi s intent; as Jerry Coyne expatiate in "Seeing and Believing' and others note, had matters been different neither   we nor a comparable species have evolved. In this case the latest finding is that it took the flowering plants and the  cooling-off period to have occurred. He answers Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson that no convergent evolution   would have made for a comparable species and we find no God  operating in sub-atomic events. Amel Rossow  in his essay the Yin and Yang of Miller that he takes intelligent design out the front door,       ony to introduce it again by the back door.Creation evolution contradicts itself as noted  in the remrarks on the new Omphalos. For further confirmation, study Victor Stengel's books. He musters forth  sufficient examples of how science falsifies divine intent,  so, science itself disconfirms His existence! Accommodationists cannot stomach that. My FaceBook friend , Eugenis S. Scott admonishes scientist not ever to use , in effect the atelic argument, postulating that that is a     philosphical approach and not a  scientific one. Now, in an email to me, my internet friend, Paul Draper, notes that she is  on the wrong side of demarcation. See the book " Is This Science" to study the problem of demarcation. And what leads to teleological argument Lamberth's argument from pardidolia exhumes: where there are natural causes and explanatins, theists find intent and design as one finds  the pareidolia of Yeshua on a tortilla. This accompanies Feurbach's and Xenonaphes's arguments. Ryan yes, we new atheists rock! Please, if  possible, take on Urban Philosophy on its take against the new atheism. That site, like this one, is required reading! Besides, skeptic griggy, I appear as naturalist griggsy, skeptic griggsy,  exceptico griggssy, sceptique griggsy, and now Carneades. I find that the original Carneades demolished theism eons ago! I 'm relying on the article about him in " The Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Also, one might    Google the problem of Heaven, the ignostic-Ockham and arguments about Him- that square circle to study how God is a non-concept for non-questions. That He cannot be the First Cause , the Supreme Designer and so forth, confirms ignosticism! There is no there there! Yet, I insist that others can find all this defeasible -wrong- as I'm a fallbilist like Carneades and Socrates. " Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism." And as to the arguments from angst, and happiness-both arguments from purpose, ' Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Andy, Yeshua  was a shamam, so probably a schizotypal whilst his credulous followers were schioids
Qne should also  enlarge on his mean-piritedness- his using a whip  in clearing the temple of those money-lenders, calling the mother and her three children dogs, his hell-fire and brimstone prattle and selective healings.
I think that as far as his even existing, it would be from his earliest followers,but again it is the matter of no way to examine them.Taking the  accounts then as true in his existence then, we merely find that he existed, but with all the contradictions, we find the legendary Yesshua.
I tead a preacher’s account of what the ‘good” thief on the  cross might have thought, showing how the legends did happen:- another instance of a theological it must be or it may be.My taking this approach might itself be a it must be according to others.How else then to account for the contradictions? Then one account might be true. Then the matter is that of being second-hand without any substantiation. Ryan, what do you, sir, maintain on this approach? I just now developed it!
Hune’s corollary  o the presumption of naturalism is that unless one  has evidence  for any miracle,   it cannot be one otherwise as natural causes and explanations are the sufficient reason.  The regularity of Nature ensues. To postulate   divine teleology as behind natural events or in making supernatural ones,contradicts teleonomic causes -no predetermined outcomes. That is science does   most emphatically contradict the existence of God!
This  leads the Lamberth atelic or teleonomic argument: the weight of  scientific evidence is that  only teleonomic causes act in Existence so that any teleological argument cannot  work in that they all propose divine intent, and Nature shows none whatsoever. We find  no   predetermied outcomes!  Contradiction, then ensues by positing any teleology -intent -whether by alien beings or God. No telos.
So, is this putative God a liar by self-hiding as Schellenberg’s hiddenness problem rushes forth,   letting us think that science had the last word in the form on finding no  predetermined outcomes. Does then John Hick’s epistemic distance overcome that problem? That would be the new Omphalos argument. The old one still that fundamentalists use is that Yahweh made mountains, fossils and other matters appear old whilst He made the world just 6,000 years old; the new one proposes then that He made is just an  appearance that Nature herself acts alone, and so teleological arguments do indeed prevail.
No, they all – fine-tuning, probability, design and from reason beg the question of Hi s intent; as Jerry Coyne expatiate in “Seeing and Believing’ and others note, had matters been different neither   we nor a comparable species have evolved. In this case the latest finding is that it took the flowering plants and the  cooling-off period to have occurred. He answers Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson that no convergent evolution   would have made for a comparable species and we find no God  operating in sub-atomic events. Amel Rossow  in his essay the Yin and Yang of Miller that he takes intelligent design out the front door,       ony to introduce it again by the back door.Creation evolution contradicts itself as noted  in the remrarks on the new Omphalos.
For further confirmation, study Victor Stengel’s books. He musters forth  sufficient examples of how science falsifies divine intent,  so, science itself disconfirms His existence!
Accommodationists cannot stomach that. My FaceBook friend , Eugenis S. Scott admonishes scientist not ever to use , in effect the atelic argument, postulating that that is a     philosphical approach and not a  scientific one. Now, in an email to me, my internet friend, Paul Draper, notes that she is  on the wrong side of demarcation. See the book ” Is This Science” to study the problem of demarcation.
And what leads to teleological argument Lamberth’s argument from pardidolia exhumes: where there are natural causes and explanatins, theists find intent and design as one finds  the pareidolia of Yeshua on a tortilla. This accompanies Feurbach’s and Xenonaphes’s arguments.
Ryan yes, we new atheists rock! Please, if  possible, take on Urban Philosophy on its take against the new atheism. That site, like this one, is required reading!
Besides, skeptic griggy, I appear as naturalist griggsy, skeptic griggsy,  exceptico griggssy, sceptique griggsy, and now Carneades. I find that the original Carneades demolished theism eons ago! I ‘m relying on the article about him in ” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.”
Also, one might    Google the problem of Heaven, the ignostic-Ockham and arguments about Him- that square circle to study how God is a non-concept for non-questions. That He cannot be the First Cause , the Supreme Designer and so forth, confirms ignosticism! There is no there there!
Yet, I insist that others can find all this defeasible -wrong- as I’m a fallbilist like Carneades and Socrates. ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.”
And as to the arguments from angst, and happiness-both arguments from purpose,
‘ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning.”

]]> By: Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/comment-page-1/#comment-5135 Andy Kaiser Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:44:38 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427#comment-5135 <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; color: #333333; ">Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth,</span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;">...Come again? I have no idea what you're trying to communicate. Can you restate?</span></span></p> Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth,

…Come again? I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate. Can you restate?

]]> By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/comment-page-1/#comment-5134 Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:09:21 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427#comment-5134 So, the first Xians were schizoids!  Except for me, schizotypals, become alien abductees. How about schizophreniacs? We  ought to reveal that Yeshua was a hypocritical ,  mean-spirited hypocrite as I do in J.Christ,   jerk, @ Skeptic Society and the Buy-bull and only a man, Yeshua @ Amazon Religion Discussions. Click them directly  or indirectly - skeptic griggsy. So, the first Xians were schizoids!  Except for me, schizotypals, become alien abductees. How about schizophreniacs?
We  ought to reveal that Yeshua was a hypocritical ,  mean-spirited hypocrite as I do in J.Christ,   jerk, @ Skeptic Society and the Buy-bull and only a man, Yeshua @ Amazon Religion Discussions. Click them directly  or indirectly – skeptic griggsy.

]]> By: rc_moore http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/comment-page-1/#comment-5126 rc_moore Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:38:48 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427#comment-5126 Daniel -- Is there some specific article on the Reasonable Faith site that a skeptic such as myself would find helpful?  A quick perusal revealed only the usual easily refuted Christian apologetics.  But it is a large site and I could have missed something. If you have something new or compelling in its logic, I would love to see it. Daniel –
Is there some specific article on the Reasonable Faith site that a skeptic such as myself would find helpful?  A quick perusal revealed only the usual easily refuted Christian apologetics.  But it is a large site and I could have missed something.
If you have something new or compelling in its logic, I would love to see it.

]]> By: Ryan http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/comment-page-1/#comment-5125 Ryan Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:04:34 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427#comment-5125 Hi Daniel, "William Lane Craig adaquetly  demolishes (for lack of a better word, it gets the point across) the 'mass hallucenation' theory." And his "demolition" has itself been adequately demolished.  "To even suggest such a thing and present it without evidence has always seemed absurd to me." I'm confused. My first response to Habermas in my article gave evidence of a mass hallucination. "You seem to like Richard Carrier, you should look up William Lane Craigs debate with him.   Richard refuses to touch on subjects that Dr. Craig brings up for lack of a better answer." I've listened to the debate, more than once in fact. And although Richard didn't address everything Craig brought up at the debate (which is extremely difficult to in a live debate, in any case), he has pretty well addressed everything elsewhere (see "Not the Impossible Faith" and "The Empty Tomb"). Even if Carrier didn't address everything, it wouldn't matter much because other people have addressed all of Craig's points elsewhere. "<a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org" rel="nofollow">www.reasonablefaith.org</a> is a good place to start." I'm curious as to why you posted this link as if you thouhgt I had never heard of it. If you read my references I did in fact cite the very website you're talking about. I get the feeling you haven't read my article, or if you have you haven't read it carefully. I'd like to ask you to do so next time before commenting. Sincerely, Ryan Hi Daniel,

“William Lane Craig adaquetly  demolishes (for lack of a better word, it gets the point across) the ‘mass hallucenation’ theory.”

And his ”demolition” has itself been adequately demolished.

 ”To even suggest such a thing and present it without evidence has always seemed absurd to me.”

I’m confused. My first response to Habermas in my article gave evidence of a mass hallucination.

“You seem to like Richard Carrier, you should look up William Lane Craigs debate with him.   Richard refuses to touch on subjects that Dr. Craig brings up for lack of a better answer.”

I’ve listened to the debate, more than once in fact. And although Richard didn’t address everything Craig brought up at the debate (which is extremely difficult to in a live debate, in any case), he has pretty well addressed everything elsewhere (see “Not the Impossible Faith” and ”The Empty Tomb”). Even if Carrier didn’t address everything, it wouldn’t matter much because other people have addressed all of Craig’s points elsewhere.

“http://www.reasonablefaith.org is a good place to start.”

I’m curious as to why you posted this link as if you thouhgt I had never heard of it. If you read my references I did in fact cite the very website you’re talking about. I get the feeling you haven’t read my article, or if you have you haven’t read it carefully. I’d like to ask you to do so next time before commenting.

Sincerely,
Ryan

]]> By: Daniel http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/comment-page-1/#comment-5124 Daniel Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:37:19 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427#comment-5124 I really would love to discuss this subject with you, however, I would feel like I was being redundant in doing so.  William Lane Craig adaquetly  demolishes (for lack of a better word, it gets the point across) the "mass hallucenation" theory.  To even suggest such a thing and present it without evidence has always seemed absurd to me.  You seem to like Richard Carrier, you should look up William Lane Craigs debate with him.   Richard refuses to touch on subjects that Dr. Craig brings up for lack of a better answer.  www.reasonablefaith.org is a good place to start. I really would love to discuss this subject with you, however, I would feel like I was being redundant in doing so.  William Lane Craig adaquetly  demolishes (for lack of a better word, it gets the point across) the “mass hallucenation” theory.  To even suggest such a thing and present it without evidence has always seemed absurd to me.  You seem to like Richard Carrier, you should look up William Lane Craigs debate with him.   Richard refuses to touch on subjects that Dr. Craig brings up for lack of a better answer.  www.reasonablefaith.org is a good place to start.

]]> By: Ryan http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/comment-page-1/#comment-4651 Ryan Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:40:04 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427#comment-4651 Hi Andy, It appears that "liver quiver" means some type of statement based only on emotion and not on fact. Just a guess. Hi Andy,

It appears that “liver quiver” means some type of statement based only on emotion and not on fact. Just a guess.

]]> By: Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/comment-page-1/#comment-4650 Andy Kaiser Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:18:34 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427#comment-4650 <p>Can zdenny or anyone explain this slang to me: "liver quivers"</p> <p>I'd never heard that until now, and have no idea what it means.</p> <p>Andy</p> Can zdenny or anyone explain this slang to me: “liver quivers”

I’d never heard that until now, and have no idea what it means.

Andy

]]> By: rc_moore http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/comment-page-1/#comment-4648 rc_moore Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:14:20 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427#comment-4648 It is not just zdenny.  I have never received a response to what I consider the simple questions raised by the broken promise of Jesus to return in Matthew 24 or Mark 9. It is quite clear to me that if Jesus could have resurrected himself from the dead,  he could have returned as promised.   I suppose other explanations are that Jesus lied,  or the story of the second coming is a fiction. I cannot accept as an  explanation that Jesus changed his mind, or has been tied up with other duties. The Gospel of John deals with this by just pretending the Resurrection was the second coming -- until corrected in the last chapters by cooler heads who realized such a theory would fundamentally change Christianity. Any of these explanations are a severe embarrassment for the Christian Apologist (even C.S Lewis, as I noted before).  I suspect they are also an embarrassment for zdenny, thus the lack of a response.     It is not just zdenny.  I have never received a response to what I consider the simple questions raised by the broken promise of Jesus to return in Matthew 24 or Mark 9.
It is quite clear to me that if Jesus could have resurrected himself from the dead,  he could have returned as promised.   I suppose other explanations are that Jesus lied,  or the story of the second coming is a fiction.
I cannot accept as an  explanation that Jesus changed his mind, or has been tied up with other duties.
The Gospel of John deals with this by just pretending the Resurrection was the second coming — until corrected in the last chapters by cooler heads who realized such a theory would fundamentally change Christianity.
Any of these explanations are a severe embarrassment for the Christian Apologist (even C.S Lewis, as I noted before).  I suspect they are also an embarrassment for zdenny, thus the lack of a response.
 
 

]]>