Atheism the same crazy in a new box.

Originally Posted by yoda55

Let's explore another conceptual view of this question, through a simplified example: We live in a 4-D universe. Let's examine a sub-universe existing within the 4-D. This sub-universe is 2-D, and contained within the confines of an area the size of a sheet of letter paper. The living individuals occupying this 2-D move about within it, doing what is required and appear as circles (to anyone viewing the 2-D from outside it). If I were to place a fingertip on the 2-D "paper", what would the 2-D inhabitants see?... They'd see a circle appear (apparently out of thin air), resembling them. As I moved this fingertip imprint around their universe, it would permit me to interact with them... Now, I remove my fingertip from the 2-D "paper". What do the 2-D inhabitants experience? I suggest it'd be inexplicable to them - seeing a 'person' appear, interact, and then disappear... Their senses only work within their 2-D universe. They're unable to cross the universal boundary and "follow me" into the remainder of my 4-D universe. In the vernacular - a 'miracle'. Unable to explain it through science, they can only speculate and theorize about something beyond their 2-D (resembling our mathematical models of infinite spaces)...

What does this steaming pile of sciency-sounding, multi-dimensional nonsense have to do with anything? This looks an awful lot like diversionary hand-waving...

Originally Posted by yoda55

I think that the Biblical 'witnesses' saw events which were increasingly so dramatically difficult to explain away that they had to admit something was happening which was far beyond human understanding. In the case of Lazerus' restoration, I think Jesus purposefully waited those four days so that conclusions which arose in the incident of young girl (who'd been ill and had died shortly before his arrival) would be dashed. Lazerus' family responded to Jesus' request to "roll away the stone" in horror, because they could smell the decay within. Lazerus was dead as a doornail. He was decomposing - and Jesus wanted there to be no doubt about that when he called him from the tomb... In an age where none of our modern science was available, Jesus did something our doctors/scientists cannot do - take a dead animal (in decay) and restore life to it.

So the new testament says. Pity nobody thought to record those events until almost 20 years later. As choSenfroZen points out, it's also too bad there are no corroborating records among the Roman records of the times.

Originally Posted by yoda55

The prophets of the Hebrew tradition (with one exception) died for their faith in the truth they expressed to their people... The disciples of the New Testement (with one exception) died for their faith in what they witnessed. None recanted.

Do you think that if these 'fried rat' rumor-mongers were apprehended, and threatened with death, they would recant? Or, would they premit themselves to be executed for lies?

The old "people died rather than recant" gambit, eh?

If you perused some of the older threads on this forum (and I don't blame you for not bothering) you would find that this argument has been tried before. It baffles me why anybody would even consider this convincing. The best that could be said is that it provides circumstantial evidence that a number of people sincerely clung to some politically dangerous ideas. Were early Christians the only people who were ever persecuted? Do we know for a fact that they were really persecuted because they were Christians? Do we really know that none of them recanted? Are there no other examples in history of people being persecuted, tortured or killed for political or religious beliefs? I wonder how many of the witches who were killed by pious Christians recanted... or if it would have helped them if they had.

The suggestion that all anybody had to do was recant and their captors would say, "Oh, okay. Well, off you go then. Sorry about the mix-up." is Pythonesque.

My point about urban legends is not that anybody in their right mind would permit themselves to be executed for what they knew to be lies (hell, I'd probably recant what I knew to be true if my life was really on the line). The point is that many people who hear these stories are under the impression they are hearing the truth from someone who is connected to the event. Even in this day and age, when it is so easy to check on the veracity of claims, people are still falling for bullshit stories about unlikely events or get-rich-quick schemes. People have a tendency to look for, and find, evidence to support that which we want to believe and ignore or discount evidence to the contrary.

Also, human memory is fallible. There is such a thing as false memories. There are many examples of events that people have very specific and lucid memories of that further investigations show could not have happened the way they were remembered or, in some cases, have happened at all. Have you ever heard about The Guy Who Died On a TV Talk Show? A tragic and ironic story but the interesting thing is 'Although “the show where the guy died” was never aired, Dick Cavett said he met several hundreds of fans over the years who have claimed -with great certainly- that they had seen it on TV. He says he meets 20 or so every year who still say this, and devoutly believe it, to this day.'

Trying to argue that a god must exist because a lot of people sincerely believe a god exists is called circular logic...

God's Logic

The orbits of the planets
In their paths around the Earth
Are circular--it must be true
If logic has its worth.
The circle, you must understand
Is God's Most Perfect Shape;
If orbits are elliptical,
Why, Man is but an ape.
If circles are God's favorites,
Why not in logic, too?
Assuming your conclusions
Is the Holy thing to do!
When I assume that God exists
And Logic is his tool,
An atheist who tries to use
God's methods is a fool.
When I assume that Logic is
The tool of the devout,
My argument is clear:
IF garbage in, THEN garbage out.

-- Digital Cuttlefish