In the countless conversations I’ve had with Christians about the plausibility of the miracles of the Bible, the theist will often mention the 500 people who supposedly witnessed the risen Jesus.
I’d like to ask:
Where in the Bible is it mentioned that there were 500 (or about) witnesses of the risen Jesus?
What Bible authors wrote about the 500 witnesses?
When the part of the Bible mentioning the 500 witnesses was written, how many of the 500 were still living?
How many of the 500 witnesses had their names (and any other important information) recorded and/or written in the Bible or anywhere else?
What do you know about the credibility of the Bible author who said there were 500 witnesses?
If I were to tell you I saw a jug of milk levitate through the local grocery store, would you believe me?
If I were to tell you I joined Amway and made $10,000 in my first month, would you believe me?
Now if I were to tell you that 500 people witnessed each of these things which I claimed, would you be any more inclined to believe the claims?
Now what if you asked for information about the 500 people and I said I had no information about them; would that make my claims more specious, more reliable or have no impact?
let me put it to you this way:
case A) let’s say I told you I’m 300 feet tall. what probability would you give to my statement being true?
case B) let’s say I told you I’m 300 feet tall, AND that 500 people know that I’m that tall because they’ve seen me, but they’re all dead. what probability would you give to my statement being true?
if you can’t get the testimonies of the 500 people, then the statement that there were 500 people that witnessed it cannot be evidence.
now that I’m done making this post, I’m finally getting to reading the last paragraph of yours. I see your point was the same as mine.
In the countless conversations I’ve had with atheists about the plausibility of the miracles of the Bible, the atheist will often claim that they are somehow in a position to know what did or didn’t happen in Palestine 2,000 years ago.
well, it’s much more likely that a claim that some unlikely thing didn’t happen is true than a claim that some unlikely thing did happen…so they got ya beat there. if you tell me “King Richard the Lionheart rode a magical unicorn in the year 1180,” you sure as hell won’t hear me stutter when I say “no he didn’t”
It’s much more likely that someone claiming they don’t know what happened one or two thousand years ago is correct, than someone who is claiming they do know.
Rectum why are you having countless conversations with people like that? And where the hell do you find them? I live in Birmingham Alabama and I can’t find the kind of religious freaks you guys always talk about. For real isn’t this supposed to be where they are concentrated the most?
Smears, certainly religious people are concentrated in Alabama, but that doesn’t make you more likely to find religious people who actually are interested in learning about arguments for religion (or against it). In fact, the fact that they’re so concentrated there alone probably makes it less likely that you’ll find one that argues about it – why would they need to have arguments in a community full of people that think like them?
I just see religophiles everywhere, and I know what they’re doing, but I don’t end up in silly debates with them that frustrate me to the point of having to rant about it on a web forum. Don’t you guys think religious debating is boring? I don’t understand the whole fixation.
One possible explanation. Throughout history, in every part of the world, it’s been part of human psychology to create groups which can be declared inferior, so that the declarors can feel superior.
The traditional groups to hate such as jews, blacks, other minorities, gays etc have been taken off the table by political correctness. So many folks are thrashing about looking for some group which can be hated without incurring social sanction. Sometimes these groups pair up and hate each other, which solves a problem for both of them.
Nobody is forcing theists and atheists to yell at each other. And nothing bad would happen if they simply stopped. They do it because they enjoy it. Simple.
Based on when Paul lived, the best answer is ‘probably most’.
Less than 10?
Was a persecutor of Christians, changed his mind, became their strongest advocate, and was martyred for refusing to deny the truth of his claims.
[/quote]
If you were imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately executed for saying the above things and refusing to deny them, I would at least believe that YOU thought you were telling the truth.
The fruit was so low I didn’t bother with it. I figured if Mutcer couldn’t find where the 500 witnesses were in the Bible he just didn’t want to. Some times, out of kindness, ya just have to leave others in their ignorance.
sounds like everyone agrees that the 500 witnesses aren’t really evidence if you can’t even get a semblance of a testimony from any of them. so, mutcer, that’s that. the point has been made, you’re correct, everyone agrees, even the Christians. hopefully you’re one step closer to not making any more threads about Christianity.
It suits his system. If nobody responded, then he chalks it up as a victory. If somebody responds, he shrugs it off and creates three more threads the next day.
well not responding to his question certainly isn’t a victory for you. why is it so hard for you to answer?
i know why it’s so hard, of course. it’s a common human psychological problem – not a diagnosable one, because every single human (even me) has it. it’s the human tendency to “treat arguments as soldiers” – because you support Christianity (presumably), it would be like stabbing your own team in the back to admit that “yes, it doesn’t matter how many witnesses I say were there if the witnesses can’t actually verify anything because they’re dead.” even though you recognize that it is strictly true, you can’t say out loud that it’s true because that would be tantamount to treason.
and the fact that you weaseled your way into avoiding saying whether it’s true or false is, if you take into account human psychology and bayesian reasoning, at least slight evidence that you think it’s true. So, Mutcer can chock that up to a victory, and hopefully not make another silly thread about christianity.
Which one of his questions didn’t I answer, let me go back and look… Oh, the shit about the jugs of milk and so on? I answered all that in another thread where he asks the exact same thing (literally) for no apparent reason. But no, you’re probably right, it’s because of some forthcoming psychobabble bullshit.
Here’s the short version- If Mutcer told me he saw some miraculous shit, I may or may not believe him, but obviously his being captured and tortured to death for his beliefs, along with dozens or hundreds of other people who were so moved by what they are claiming that they happily went to their deaths proclaiming the truth of it, would certainly make a difference.
See, the thing that you’re missing is, Mutcer just wants to bitch. He’s not interested in discussing anything, he will never ever ever ever give a contrary view the benefit of the doubt or say “Gee, I didn’t think of that” or even agree to disagree. His only responses to disagreement are to 1.) Argue that he’s still right, or 2.) Stop responding to the thread altogether.
So before you jump off the deep end assuming you’ve revealed the psychological foundations behind the reasons why a person does what they do, please consider that I’ve been over all this shit before with Mutcer and already know there’s little to no point in talking to him. I respond to his stupid questions so that there’s a response on record, and so that when (in about three months now, if precedent holds) he creates a “Why do Christians avoid all my questions” thread again, it will look that much sillier.
If you were even, mildly curious about finding answers you could have easily looked this stuff up via google in less time then it took you to post this.
These “questions” constitute your argument. We have the names of at least 12 male witnesses [i.e. the apostles] plus at least one female follower [Mary]. Paul was making these claims to the Christian church in Corinth in the first century. Presumably they could have checked out the claim. So, your questions show a poor understanding of the context of the claims. Hopefully the responses to your post will clear this up for you.
[I’m going to PM my post to Mutcer, because this thread is following his typical pattern of posting and then failing to answer responses. ]
you don’t have to go back and look, I said which question it was in my post. you probably didn’t read that far, you were just so excited to respond. you want to talk so bad that you forget to listen. good way to look silly, and turn peoples’ ears off to you in return.
in any case, i concur completely that there’s little point for you to respond to these threads, and equally for him to make them. he’s making them mostly, i think, because he’s still not quite comfortable with his atheism. i used to make these kinds of threads all the time as well, once upon a time. the biggest lesson i learned from the conversations in these kinds of threads: don’t make them. not a single person who took a contrary position to his post actually responded to the point he made. not even you. so yes, quite pointless.
