h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

">> "Again, there is little or no evidence against [the ressurection]"
> There is little evidence for it either.

Well, apart from it being the entire basis of Christianity...erm, fine."

Explain how that consitutes evidence. It is patently obvious that most people are gullible and stupid - witness sales of lottery tickets, readers of horoscopes and sales of "get rich quick" schemes.

Uri Geller regularly uses simple, cheap conjuring tricks to convince hordes of morons that he has psychic powers. The belief of these idiots is NOT proof that he's got those powers.

This is exactly the same situation. It doesn't matter how many people BELIEVE in the resurrection - convincing gullible people something is true doesn't make it true.

>false dichotomy. Muslims believe in a third choice, Jews a fourth, >Atheists yet another.

...Would you explain what you mean by these 3rd, 4th, etc. choices? It seems to me that the choice is that Jesus rose from the dead or didn't."

Rather ignorant, then, aren't you? Don't you know ANYTHING about what Jews and Muslims believe?

Option 1: the Christian view - Jesus was the son of god, or god, or something, and he performed true miracles, died and then was resurrected.
Option 2: the paranoid delusional Christian straw man argument - Jesus didn't exist in the first place and the whole Bible is a massive conspiracy to make priests rich and Catholics look stupid.
Option 3: the Jewish perspective - Jesus existed, claimed to be the Son of God, but wasn't. He died, and stayed dead.
Option 4: the Muslim perspective - Jesus existed, and is revered as one of the true prophets of Allah.
Option 5: the rationalist perspective - Jesus existed, was generally a good bloke who did his best to try to get people to be nice to one another, did a few conjouring tricks to try to make his point to the ignorant peasants he was preaching to, got on the wrong side of the Romans and others and got crucified like a lot of other common criminals. He lived and died like any other man.

These are just a few of the options. If you can only see two, may I suggest you remove that Bible from in front of your eyes and look around you at the world?

">So find out more. Read ...atheists, buddhists, jews, muslims - and >the rest.

I have done. None of what I have read has persuaded me otherwise. "

Either you're lying about having read about the Muslim position, for instance, or you have read it and are so lacking in intelligence that you completely failed to understand anything about it, hence your question "what is the 3rd and 4th option" above.

So - have you read about the Muslim view of Christ? In which case, why did you need to ask the question above?

Or are you lying? In which case, why? It only makes you look more stupid when your errors are pointed out...

"I will of course read more and keep an open mind"

Bravo. Try not to keep your mind so open your brain falls out...

"but I am sticking by my decision to follow Christ in the meantime."

On what basis? On what *evidence*? Do you even understand what constitutes evidence?

H.

>Any particular part of Tacitus? I understand he wrote rather a lot...

Book 15 paragraph 44 talks about the persecuation of Christians and also of "Christus, from whom the name had its origin":

[15.44] Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom
the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with
the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

>Regarding historians - I thought you said something along the lines >that most or all historians agree that the bible is reliable evidence

Maybe I did say that; I doubt that it's true though. I would venture that it's a pretty contentious issue!

Persecuation?? I've just invented a word there, should say "persecution".

Regarding the early disciples - it would seem that many of them were killed for preaching that Jesus was the Son of God - where does that leave the "resurrection was added later" idea?

Ooh, pleasant.

Erm... okay. Options 2, 3, 4 and 5 in your list ALL say that Jesus did not rise from the dead. In fact, any other option you care to dream up would also say that. That was the only issue I was attempting to answer. I personally see more reason to believe option 1.

> It is patently obvious that most people are gullible and stupid

Whereas clearly it is patently obvious that you are not. So sorry.

Uri Geller - hordes of people believe him? I wouldn't credit it, but I'll take your word for it.

I have read the Muslim view of Christ, it does not say anything about him rising from the dead. So I investigated the resurrection more closely - the resurrection being the most contentious issue between Judaism, Islam and Christianity. I see no reason not to believe in the resurrection at present.

Oh yeah, the Tacitus quotes shows that there was an early christian church/cult/religion at the relevant time (100-150 AD), and that the name 'Christian' comes from a guy named 'Christ'. That's something that any atheist today might say, regardless of whether sie believes that Christ ever existed.

It doesn't conclusively show that there was such a person, and that he was crucified: Tacitus might well have been repeating the Xian story - perhaps assuming that there was such a crucifixion (and the wickedness being the lie, as he saw it, of the ressurection) - perhaps just passing on the story without meaning to pass any comment on its accuracy (because his entire audience would believe that xtians spoke lies).

But sure, it is evidence that suggests that such a crucifixion took place. Note that it doesn't rule out the possibility that somebody else was substituted for Jesus on the cross (as is a common Islamic belief - see http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/ab/cschirrmacher/crucifixion.html for instance).

You could also mention the Koran, but that's even less contemporary than Tacitus, plus it says that 'they killed him not' - interpret *that* how you will. But I'll accept that the existance of Jesus and his crucifixion is a reasonable (but not the only) conclusion to draw from the evidence available.

-Martin

If I can quote you from post 24

> "this leaves us with two choices - either"

> "(1) Jesus' followers made the entire story up, and thus are the perpetrators of the biggest practical joke in the history of the world (and the joke is on them too, since most of them were martyred - killed for their "faith")"

> "or (2) it was true and Jesus died and came back to life again...."

That was the false dichotomy I spoke of: there are more options than the two you gave in that post. Clearer?

-Martin

Oh good grief...

"Uri Geller - hordes of people believe him? I wouldn't credit it, but I'll take your word for it."

That's exactly the kind of attitude I'd expect. Whereas what I'd rather you did was NOT take my word for it, but instead do two things you seem to be reluctant to bother doing:

1. Check the facts.
2. Think.

Apply your critical faculties, why don't you? I've asserted that Uri Geller convinces lots of people. You find that surprising. Why not check? Look at the sales of his books. Look at the sheer quantity of cash he's made over the last thirty years or so. Think critically, if you can. Consider whether, if people believed he was a charlatan, they would keep showering him with their money.

You might also like to apply the same principle to other areas of your life, instead of taking things on trust. I doubt you will though - such thinking is anathema to your faith.

H.

Was he perhaps being sarcastic? I can't tell.

Andy? Were you being sarcastic?

I can concieve of people buying Uri's stuff even though they don't believe him, just to see what he says/thinks/wants us to think he says/thinks/whatever.

Actually, I had a quick look and I couldn't find much to show, precisely, how successful he is...

- Jordan

I was being sarcastic about Uri, yes, sorry. I can't believe that so many people would take him so seriously that he would make that much money. He went on "I'm a Celebrity, get me out of here!" as a career move to get back in the public eye, he was that desperate!

Lucinda, I'm sorry if I've given the wrong impression - what I've tried to say is that either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't, and if you believe this then you can't truly be a Muslim, Jew or atheist. Or Buddhist, or Sikh... etc. etc.

It's clear that Hoovooloo is going to take everything I say the wrong way, though, so I think I'll shut up now.

I won't take anything you say the wrong way, if you say it clearly. I may disagree with what you say... but that's a different thing, isn't it?

Sorry if I sound nitpicking, but you have to be careful when communicating in snippets of text to say exactly what you mean....

Don't, please, shut up on my account. I'm still interested in what you believe, and more to the point, *why* you believe it. I'm always interested in the reasons for people's beliefs - more so than I am in the detail of the content of them, most of the time.

H.

Maybe you should put it in sarcasm tags.

Hoo listens very carefully to what people say. More carefully, in fact, than most people listen to themselves. In this case I think he simply missed the sarcasm, which is surprising but thankfully rare. So he took stuff out of context by reading the rest very carefully, as always, but getting this wrong.

Some people just don't respond well to his rather aggressive style. I personally don't mind it, and despite this he's a rationalist first and last, so he'll conceed if he notices that he's in error. Keep up the good talking!

- Jordan

"he simply missed the sarcasm"

We don't have it on Betelgeuse...

Seriously, Jordan's right, and I'm sorry.

H.

This thread, on the other hand, can probably not be ressurected...

AndyG - actually, some Muslims believe that Jesus was ressurected - but by the grace of god rather 'under his own steam', as it were. the relevant section of the Koran, as I say, is unclear.

Hoo - just a (hopefully) polite request, but you do tend to have a certain... 'style' in these kinds of threads. While I've no objection to you going to hell in your own way (), I'd be glad if you could tone it down just a touch if you're posting to threads if I'm already there?

Cheers
-Martin

"you do tend to have a certain... 'style' in these kinds of threads"

You know, you're right. And the people who don't like that style are by far in the majority... so...



And that applies to all "these kinds of threads".

H.

*sigh*
I don't have a problem with the style as such - only that in this one instance it seemed to disrupt the thread - or rather, my attempt to ressurect the thread by responding to a long-past post. The rest of the time - go for it!

Still, you've made your decision, and I'm sure it was based on the comments of more people than just myself. Can I recommend talk.atheism as being a wonderful place for the baiting of bigots - at least for limited periods of time...

-Martin

What, you're telling me that Uri Geller is a fraud ????!

Hoo - if you're still there - apology accepted, sorry for the bad use of sarcasm!

Lucinda - I wasn't aware that some Muslims thought that Jesus actually did resurrect at all (although I see the distinction you make, though I think that Christians would probably say that Jesus rose again 'under his own steam' AND by the grace of God). I'd like to see if I can find out more about it somewhere... any suggestions?

You weren't scared off by the Hoover!



Erm, none of then are real smileys, are they?

- Jordan

Erm... I was trying to be friendly and show that I wasn't upset by what Hoovooloo said.. that's all.

Sorry Andy - I think I misread a passage re Muslims and ressurection...