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

I must admit I had never heard that Ceaser had been said to rise from the dead, why if it happened was it not documented or talked about in the same way as with Jesus?
Are you telling me that people thought is was a common thing in those days and didn't bother to make a fuss about it?

I'm not in a totally discussing mood this morning so I might come back on Mon when I've had a chance to think about it and write some thing else, Don't hold your breath though!

Mel

Freethinker, that is not how it works. If I say something is true, you will tell me to prove it. You say Jesus arose from the dead (and so does every other Christian), then I as you TO PROVE IT.

Evidence is readily available that suggest Jesus did not rise from the dead. Simply purchase the book entitled HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL. Be warned: it takes some openmindedness and "free thinking".

Well,hello, may I butt in on this conversation? CS, I am afraid you may well think this 'ad hominem', but I think I detect, especially in yr citing Randi, what I have come to call the "will *not* to believe"! (Paul Edwards, of whom you no doubt know, wrote a book in which he 'analyzed' and 'psychologised' believers, and talked about *their* sad 'need to believe')
Point 2: Mar Serapion - and why people believe Jesus was resurrected and Augustus Caesar wasn't - AC has no followers, for one thing. No one cared about his (alleged) resurrection and no one chose to believe in and follow him. (Rightly so, if Robert Graves is to be believed.. Augustus was a thoroughly unpleasant person.)

At the time of his "ascension," Augustus Caesar had an entire empire of followers, because worship of the emperor as a god was part of the religious life of the Roman world, and the chief reason why the Christians had so much trouble with them ("Why," the Roman governors wondered, "can't the Christians worship their personal god *and* the emperors just like everyone else?"). The Jesus cult was only just beginning.

Does the number of followers determine the validity of an absurd statement?

What was so pleasant about Jesus? The Jesus I know came to sow discord among families, promised war and the end of the world by the end of his generation, and ransacked the Jewish temple.

James Randi does not, as far as I know, have a will to disbelieve. I think he would be delighted to be proven wrong... as would I. That's why he's offered a million dollars (it's worth a whole lot more now, thanks to accrued interest), and that's why I engage in these pursuits... I'm waiting for someone to present incontrovertible evidence to support the position that there is, indeed, a god. There has been none offered. Not only has there been no incontrovertible evidence, but there isn't even any reliable evidence, or circumstantial evidence, or any evidence of any kind. The fact that I require evidence to believe does not mean that I choose to actively *disbelieve*. I'm just using the same sort of empirical logic that anyone would use.

If I told you that an alien lives in my inner ear, would you take me at my word, or would you expect me to provide evidence? An MRI? Knowledge that nobody on this earth could provide, given to me by my alien symbiot? But what if I told you he is invisible to an MRI, and he forbids me to pass on any of his knowledge, or speaks to me in concepts than cannot be described in our language. I offer nothing to substantiate my claims. Should I be believed?

Coincidentally, there was a doco on TV last night, 'Do You Believe in the Paranormal?' It was actually made by the Sceptics Society, and I wished they had actually had the bottle to say so... rather than pretending to be studying the subject in an unbiased manner. (No doubt, sceptics consider themselves unbiased, but they are not, and I wish they'd admit it...
Re ad hominem, it was very unhelpful to have Dennis Dutton, sceptic (captioned simply as a professor at Canterbury Uni., ) refer to other people featured in the doco as "half-wits".
It is impossible to prove God exists, but conversely, it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist!
Sure Romans had to worship the emperor, but I assume that this was mostly for forms sake, because it was socially expected. I think AC's *real* followers would have been few. No, I don't think truth is a popularity contest, and therefore it doesn't actually matter how many followers someone has. I am simply saying that IMHO, AC's followers were not really believers as such.

Jesus

Jesus' name is there because I was going to add something about him, but I think I'll leave that for another occasion.

Jesus' name is there because I was going to add something about him, but I think I'll leave that for another occasion.

You're clearly misinformed about the nature of skepticism. A skeptic simply analyzes everything they're told. They say, "Oh yeah? Prove it."

When you prove it, they shake your hand and thank you for enlightening them. When you don't, they ask you why you believe it if you can't prove it. It's *very* unbiased. The opposite of skepticism is credulity, where one believes simply because one is told. If you're not a skeptic, you're gullible.

I consider myself to be an excellent representation of this viewpoint. I could point you to a very kind comment on this site by one of my frequent adversaries in controversial conversations, if I felt the urge to be self-promotional.

The Skeptic's Society is one of the very few authorities I would respect on a topic like paranormal activity.

For the sake of seeing what the 'opposition' is up to, I often read the skeptics society magazine, books, whatever comes my way (I'm a Christian heretic See that thread for definition..) I see the key attitude of sceptics (my spelling of that word varies, as you see. One is American, the other is.. well, it is). As I was saying, the key attitudes of sceptics is a superiority which (to use my old Mum's expression,) "gets right up my nose!" I observe that, like Dennis Dutton, they like to call their opposition halfwits, superstitious, gullible, uneducated, the list goes on! One person in the doco was a woman Vicky Hyde, who posed as a palmistry psychic. (Important point - I DO NOT believe in palmistry, astrology, channelling, crystals or any such thing...) Nevertheless, Vicky Hyde is a good example of the arrogance I mentioned above - she and the presenter laughing together about the gullibility of the woman whose palm she read - using well-known 'cold reading' techniques. The point, BTW being Hyde's, Dutton's and Edwards' attitude, not the validity or o/wise of palmistry! In my experience, sceptics don't have open minds. My ex-boyfriend (!) edits the rationalist magazine here in NZ (it's a long story). I was amused when reading an ish from about a year back, to see an article from a regular writer, detailing a ghost sighting he had had - and, obviously freaked out, rationalising his experience away with all sorts of unlikely explanations - stories which if true, should have driven him to an ophthalmologist or a therapist a.s.a.p! When (shown) confronted with 'evidence' he *had* to go up a river in Egypt, to deal with it!

As for AC vs JC:

AC's followers were cosmopolitan people who lived in a large world, interacted with people all over the world, and so were well educated about the beliefs of others, and respected them greatly.

JC's followers, on the other hand, lived in a time where marauding hordes (Germanic tribes, local lords, Vikings, etc) kept people very provincial. Their world ended beyond view of the local castle.

AC's followers occupied an opulent empire, and enjoyed the fruits of civilization as well as the security provided by the vast Roman army.

JC's followers lived in squalor caused by the decline of civilization and perpetuated by the feudal system of government, and lived in fear of violence and starvation every day.

JC's followers were much more ignorant, fearful, and uneducated than AC's followers. They believed so intently not so much because they wanted to, but because they had nothing else. Plus, they were comparatively stupid.

Yes. But there have been some interesting revelations about James Randi and his honesty...
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm