The Ten Best Apologetic Arguments

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread:

You keep throwing up straw men - choosing the worst examples of apologetic behaviour as if this characterises everybody. If I were less logical and chose as my prime examples of atheistic argument those put forward by extremists or fundamentalists, then I too could erect a whole cornfield of straw men! How about dealing with the best rather than the worst that is on the table?

List the best arguments in favor of Christianity. Show that the arguments are sound (or not sound).

[CalvinsBulldog]

.

I'd like CalvinsBulldog to address.

I also encourage CB to respond -- as well as any other Apologist who feels qualified to do so outside a protected environment.

Zzyzx: do you participate on any forum populated heavily by Christian theologians and apologists? If not, I can provide you with plenty of links of forums you can join. Given how you dislike protected environments, I am anticipating you'll jump at the opportunity provided.

[Deadclown]

Thank you for replying!

Partially correct. But for Christians then (as now), believing in Christ involves more than just the Resurrection. There were a "package" of beliefs held and preached by the apostles which made them targets for hostility from pagan and Jewish communities eventuating in their deaths. For instance, the apostles taught and practised a refusal to declare Caesar "Lord and God" and participate in the state-sponsored Emperor cult; or preaching that the traditions of the Jewish elders were irrelevant to salvation.

Declaring that God had come in the form of a man and died on the cross was scandalous. It is tantamount to someone saying today that God had come in the form of a man and been put to the electric chair. Condemning idols in an idolatrous culture does not usually put people in a safe place either.

Thus, they died for their belief in Christ. The specifics about their Christian belief that offended the people around them was different in each case.

If there were lots of additional factors contributing to people wanting the apostles in question to be killed, doesn't that hurt the argument being made?

The argument appears to rely on them denying supernatural aspects of their beliefs in order to prevent their own suffering/death, leading to the conclusion that they must have truly believed in those supernatural elements. If they were just across the board anti-establishment, then that is not dying for the specific supernatural claims (I assume the argument is primarily meant to defend the supernatural elements, if not the specific Death/Resurrection)? That's dying for a cause, that also happens to have some supernatural claims. Like an American soldier dying for his country, but not really believing that all American folk-lore is completely accurate.

To say it a different way, if they just died for their belief in 'Christ's message' or in the idea that the current establishments needed great revision, that does not necessarily mean that they died for everything they claimed, or would recant all claims for the sake of their cause.

Also, if you could provide supporting documentation for the idea that the apostles refusal to declare Caesar 'Lord and God' and refusal to participate in a 'state sponsored Emperor cult' contributed to their deaths, I would appreciate it. I am no historian, but my impression of the Romans was always generally one of religious acceptance or absorption. It isn't really necessary to make your above point. I am just curious.

Correct. The truth of a proposition is not dependent on whether someone is willing to die for it. The most we can infer from someone dying for a belief is that they sincerely held the belief to be true.

Nope. Your re-statement of the proposition is pretty good. You are one of the few posters who seems to have carefully read the argument.

I'm glad to hear it, and try my best to always do as much.

1) Saying 'they were lying or they were not' is an example of the black/white fallacy. There are a lot of shades of gray and possibilities. They could have just exaggerated or eventually came to 'believe the lie/exaggeration'. The human brain is great at making the gray area grayer due to the nature of our faulty memories, our ability to create false memories, and our ability to be supremely amazingly adept at lying to ourselves.

I still do not think this cuts much ice. There were eleven Apostles (the twelfth, Judas Iscariot, being dead by the time of the Resurrection). Those Apostles preached in contexts in which they were in groups, and at other times, when they were on their own. In all situations they appear to have had a remarkably unified account, which is not to be expected if their stories were merely a case of exaggeration. Remember, some of them were subject to severe questioning as individuals. A mere exaggerated story could branch in all directions, as any parent who has sought the truth from children is well aware.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it does not remove the fact that such an assertion is a black/white fallacy. I merely offered potentially plausible alternatives in order to demonstrate as much.

Furthermore, the apostles accepted Paul into the apostolic circle - an outsider and former Pharisee who had not walked with the incarnate Christ. That is a powerful corrective mechanism for any exaggeration. It would be like belonging to a small vigilante group whose members are being hunted down and arrested by the CIA, and then having one of the CIA's top members want to join. If the vigilante group is based on an exaggerated story, the worst thing would be allow an insider who also once stood on the barricades with the enemy, into the fold.

The problem with the whole Paul account, is that we have to take Paul at his word. Since he was not present for the events, it is not as if he would be any different from any others being told the potentially exaggerated accounts with supernatural elements.

False Memory Syndrome is different from what you suggest. All people have false memories - that is simply a truism; observe, though, not entire false episodes of life however - but False Memory Syndrome is more of a personality disorder. It is defined as:

I never suggested that they had entire false episodes of life, but it is a possibility. I merely raise possibilities to show the fallacy in action.

A condition in which a person's identity and interpersonal relationships are centered around a memory of traumatic experience which is objectively false but in which the person strongly believes. Note that the syndrome is not characterized by false memories as such. We all have memories that are inaccurate. Rather, the syndrome may be diagnosed when the memory is so deeply ingrained that it orients the individual's entire personality and lifestyle, in turn disrupting all sorts of other adaptive behavior...False Memory Syndrome is especially destructive because the person assiduously avoids confrontation with any evidence that might challenge the memory. Thus it takes on a life of its own, encapsulated and resistant to correction. The person may become so focused on memory that he or she may be effectively distracted from coping with the real problems in his or her life.

I believe you are making a strawman of my point. While the disorder 'False Memory Syndrome', is indeed a possibility, I was speaking more of the average human ability to have false memories without being as extreme as a personality disorder. Many factors can contribute to it including peer pressure and personal desire.

Here are a few links detailing what I meant...

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/A ... /sciam.htm
http://cogprints.org/599/1/199802009.html

In the end, the purpose of this is to illustrate an example of an alternative demonstrating that the argument is predicated on the black/white-true/false fallacy. If there are any even remotely plausible possibilities in-between truth and lie, then it is fallacious to assume it has to be one or the other.

Is it even remotely likely that eleven people would simultaneously contract False Memory Syndrome from the execution of Christ? Let us compare and contrast the two.

Considering that they all had a shared traumatic experience (seeing thier leader/savior perish a horrible death)? Sure. I would not say it is the most likely possibility, in and of itself, but I never was talking about anything that extreme.

Under FMS, personalities are changed for the worse. In contradistinction to an FMS sufferer, the Apostles became joyful and full of hope and love. They were the original, first century hippies - "peace, not war, man!"

Under FMS people lose adaptive skills. Yet the Apostles show tremendous resilience. They appear to have a great capacity to endure negative events. For instance, they were flogged repeatedly and imprisoned and yet responded by singing hymns and rejoicing in such abuse! The Apostle Andrew is said to have preached for three days from his own crucifix. I would say that demands just a tad bit of moral stamina.

It is, again, difficult for me to trust the religious literature describing such accounts on its own merits. Can you present corroborating unbiased evidence that he did as much? Otherwise it could just be propaganda to push an agenda.

Under FMS people refuse to confront the false memory. The Apostles preached to the most rigidly orthodox Jews in history about a crucified and resurrected Jewish messiah. They would without a single doubt have been bombarded with scepticism, denial and claims to the contrariwise, yet we are told they debated with the Jews - even singling them out for disputation.

False memory and exaggeration are therefore not plausible alternatives to outright lying. And since the argument is a truism - people do not willingly suffer and die for beliefs they know to be untrue - we must conclude that the apostles at least sincerely believed their message to be true.

You continue to use the black/white fallacy. I introduced only 'examples' of why setting it as lie/truth with no gray area is fallacious. The real truth is, we simply do not know enough variables to make the argument.

2) People are potentially willing to die for things they know to be lies or do not truly believe in. People are willing to die for all sorts of things. Positing that there is no conceivable way that the individuals in question could have been willing to lay their lives on the line for a fabrication, is an Argument from Incredulity.

I think the argument is closer to being potentially the fallacy of too few alternatives. But this would apply only if the alternatives to the one provided in the argument were plausible. However, I do not think there is any logical or rational alternative to the view that the disciples sincerely believed their own message.

You do correctly point out that it is potentially another black/white fallacy. However, you continue to make an Argument from Personal Incredulity (because you cannot think of or do not recognize plausible alternatives does not mean that they don't exist). You are of course, totally welcome to believe or not believe whatever you care to.

You are correct that people are willing to die for things they know to be lies, but you have omitted the other qualification in the argument. Are they also willing to suffer for a lie? People may die for a lie - particularly if it provides material advantage - but protracted suffering for a lie is another story.

Few material advantages can be enjoyed after death. The argument holds fine with the suffering included, and I was taking into account that their deaths were (supposedly) torturous. Humans will suffer horribly for the sake of loved ones, ideals, pride, fear, and other strong motivating factors. Also, again, how do we know that they did or did not truly recant under torture (and that the torture was purposed with recantation). I have only ever seen biased accounts, and would love to be exposed to other evidence. It appears doubtful that it would suit the goals of the early church to include in their stories the fact that their founders were tortured into contrary confessions, even if it had occurred. I'd in fact expect them to do the exact opposite.

Remember, the Apostles were not just martyred. They were persecuted. They were flogged repeatedly with scourges - think a cat-o-nine-tails studded with beads or glass. They were bound in freezing dungeons. Almost torn apart by angry mobs. They were bashed up. Robbed. Living in constant danger. Escaping from murderous crowds by the skin of their teeth. And this went on for about 35 years! Can you think of anyone who has knowingly suffered 35 years of shedding of their own blood, ending in a final penniless martyrdom for a lie?

Talking about the specifics of their suffering is possibly an appeal to emotions. I am well aware that suffering that is allegedly attributed to the Apostles, and the specifics are unimportant except to engender feelings of empathy or horror. You also make another Argument from Incredulity. Just because you find it implausible that someone would be willing to suffer in the manner described, does not make your argument true.

There could have been other factors in play that we are simply ignorant of. For example, pride. There are people who would certainly rather die a martyr in front of followers rather than admit that they've been lying and live in shame. Maybe they believed they'd be killed either way (executed or by the followers they betray) and it was better to die a hero.

As above. 35 years of physical suffering, danger and poverty tends to have a remarkable effect of clarifying realities, humbling pride, and tidying up exaggeration. Are you suggesting that the followers they taught to "live in peace with every man" would turn around and kill them? In fact some of their congregations didbreak away and even repudiate their founding apostle, but none of them demonstrated a murderous intent toward the apostles.

I merely raised it as a possibility that you were not considering in order to illustrate your willingness to make Arguments from Incredulity. Also, it is not as if the Christian Church (in spite of the 1st century hippy message) had a flawless history of living in peace with every man.

3) The evidence of biblical accounts detailing the deaths of the martyred individuals is not sufficient on its own to be taken as fact. More historical evidence corroborating it would be necessary in order to show the assumptions (these individuals were present for the resurrection and were martyred for maintaining its truth) have validity. As it stands we have little to know way of knowing with a high degree of certainty that the accounts are all factual. If there is corroborating evidence, I would enjoy reading it.

All the historical sources documenting the deaths of the apostles are extra-biblical. As for knowing for "certain": we have about as much historical information about the deaths of the apostles as we do the for the death of Caesar. We have far more historical information for the death of the apostles than we do for the deaths of ancient pharaohs. That's about as good as ancient history gets.

Can you please provide or direct to this extra-biblical information from good sources confirming your claims in regards to the Apostles? Those present claims specifically are...

1) That all 11 were direct witness to the proposed beliefs that would be accused of being 'lies' (so primarily the supernatural claims).
2) That they lived torturous existences for the 35 year period specifically because of the supernatural claims made.
3) That they died torturous deaths, where a purpose of the torture/death was to cause them to specifically recant their supernatural claims, and that no such confession was gained.

I apologize if you are not arguing for the Apostles beliefs in their supernatural claims but instead focusing on the truth of the message or non-supernatural elements. The supernatural portions, I believe are the primarily supported claims by the original argument. Obviously, if we start to call into question the basic historical existence of Jesus or the Apostles, it is an unneeded attack on the arguments assumptions instead of a demonstration of the arguments merits or flaws. Likewise, if the Apostles had other reasons entirely for suffering, then the argument does not hold.

[CalvinsBulldog]

Thank you for replying!

You are welcome. You appear to be among the minority of truly polite and thoughtful sceptics on this forum, whose posts involve far more depth than mere slogans. I have enjoyed being challenged by you.

If there were lots of additional factors contributing to people wanting the apostles in question to be killed, doesn't that hurt the argument being made?

I do not think it does. Since all of those beliefs were innately tied to their preaching of Christ, and since the Christian message was the very reason they ventured to evangelise hostile regions, it does not matter which specific belief incited people to murder them: they ended up dead as doorposts just the same. They would not have been dead if they had not followed the Christian sect's teaching.

The argument appears to rely on them denying supernatural aspects of their beliefs in order to prevent their own suffering/death, leading to the conclusion that they must have truly believed in those supernatural elements.

They were first century Jews; therefore they definitely believed in the supernatural. See the excellent book by Dr. Henri Daniel-Rops Daily Life in Palestine At the Time of Christ for insight into the total permeation of the supernatural into every Jew's thought and life. There is simply no doubt that they believed in the supernatural, and expected others to believe in it too.

You suggest that they may not have believed the supernatural dimension of their own belief. But this is precisely the objection the argument is meant to address: that people do not willingly or knowingly suffer and die for a lie.

If they were just across the board anti-establishment, then that is not dying for the specific supernatural claims (I assume the argument is primarily meant to defend the supernatural elements, if not the specific Death/Resurrection)?

The argument is a response to the objection that is sometimes raised that the Apostles were liars who invented a fiction. It is intended only to establish the sincerity of the Apostles.

BTW: They cannot be thought simply as anti-establishment radicals either. The Apostolic writings frequently command the readers to respect and obey authorities, and insists that rulers were put in place by God. Christ himself said to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". They did not embrace political tools of power.

They were popular among the disenfranchised slave class; they embraced poverty; and they firmly dis-vowed violence. It is very difficult - I would say impossible - to get the profile of anti-establishment radical Jews from any of the historical documents that contain information about the Apostles.

That's dying for a cause, that also happens to have some supernatural claims. Like an American soldier dying for his country, but not really believing that all American folk-lore is completely accurate.

Again, you seem to forget that the criteria are two-fold: it is not merely a matter of death, but of intense suffering.

The analogy is false. It would be like soldiers suffering and dying for America whilst at the same time believing their countrycause to be wrong.

To say it a different way, if they just died for their belief in 'Christ's message' or in the idea that the current establishments needed great revision, that does not necessarily mean that they died for everything they claimed, or would recant all claims for the sake of their cause.

That is beyond the purview of the argument. The argument seeks only to establish that they were sincere. However, I note that you seem to introduce a degree of specificity into their deaths which I find somewhat fallacious, as if a person who is martyred dies for belief "number 3" and not belief "number 34".

While the specific friction between their message and the culture may be disparate in different cases, ultimately they died as members of the Christian sect that proclaimed above everything else a Resurrected Leader. They would not have endured decades of persecution and suffering across multiple countries, ending in brutal deaths if they had not been members and preachers of that sect. The most rational conclusion is not that they each died for different beliefs - which is beyond the capacity of any logical argument to affirm or deny - but rather that they must have sincerely believed their message.

If you posit that they taught and believed different things, and only shared a common experience of suffering and dying, your argument then moves from the logical into the textual and historical realm. You will need to show some reason for thinking there is inconsistency in their witness using the available historical sources: the New Testament collection of writings, and those contained in citation form in the pre-Nicean Patristic Corpus.

Also, if you could provide supporting documentation for the idea that the apostles refusal to declare Caesar 'Lord and God' and refusal to participate in a 'state sponsored Emperor cult' contributed to their deaths, I would appreciate it. I am no historian, but my impression of the Romans was always generally one of religious acceptance or absorption. It isn't really necessary to make your above point. I am just curious.

There were many outbreaks of persecution against the Christians, who, at various times needed to obtain a Certificate of Sacrifice that testified they had sacrificed to the Roman gods and emperors. We know that they were refusing to do so. One ancient document that supports this is the Epistle of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia (epistle means "letter"). This was written by the Emperor Antonius, whose attitude toward the Christians fortunately had not taken on the violent dimensions of his successors. He writes:

The Emperor Csar Titus lius Adrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, Supreme Pontiff, in the fifteenth year of his tribuneship, Consul for the third time, Father of the fatherland, to the Common Assembly of Asia, greeting: I should have thought that the gods themselves would see to it that such offenders should not escape. For if they had the power, they themselves would much rather punish those who refuse to worship them; but it is you who bring trouble on these persons, and accuse as the opinion of atheists that which they hold, and lay to their charge certain other things which we are unable to prove.

Christians, ironically, among other things, were accused of atheism since they renounced all other gods except Yahweh. Here Antonius suggests that the assembly should cease troubling Christians, and that the gods (rather than men) had far better right to punish them if they were truly displeased.

You might like to look at these websites for details on the persecutions:
http://www.allabouthistory.org/roman-gods.htm
http://www.mystudylight.com/miscellaneo ... part_2.htm

1) Saying 'they were lying or they were not' is an example of the black/white fallacy. There are a lot of shades of gray and possibilities. They could have just exaggerated or eventually came to 'believe the lie/exaggeration'. The human brain is great at making the gray area grayer due to the nature of our faulty memories, our ability to create false memories, and our ability to be supremely amazingly adept at lying to ourselves.

A False Dichotomy exists only when categories are artificially constrained. That is not the case in my argument, as I explain later. Furthermore, to argue that a False Dichotomy exists, there needs to be plausible alternatives.

For instance, if I argue that the bottom of the ocean is black because there is no penetration of light to such levels, and you reject my argument on the basis of the Fallacy of Too Few Alternatives and say, "No! There are more possibilities than the one you have given for why it is dark at the bottom of the ocean" you then need to demonstrate that there first are plausible alternatives. The argument that extra-terrestrial beings have cloaked submerged vessels whose technology creates darkness is indeed an alternative argument, but not a plausible one.

I do not think the alternatives you have provided so far are plausible.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it does not remove the fact that such an assertion is a black/white fallacy. I merely offered potentially plausible alternatives in order to demonstrate as much.

Is it plausible that eleven people contract False Memory Syndrome at the same time? Is it plausible that they exaggerated their story and yet remained consistent in the details even when the apostles were no longer in a group? Is it plausible that the apostles, concocting details, would admit a former enemy into their inner camp?

The problem with the whole Paul account, is that we have to take Paul at his word. Since he was not present for the events, it is not as if he would be any different from any others being told the potentially exaggerated accounts with supernatural elements.

What is the motive? He had power, authority, respect and maybe even wealth as a Jewish Pharisee. Yet, he had joined himself to a small sect and, by his own words, as a preacher of Christ, had become the "scum of the earth" and "everybody's trash" (the King James Version uses more refined English: "we are made as the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all things").

Paul suffered brutally. You are suggesting he was incredulous enough to surrender a good social position, endure decades of whippings, beatings, homelessness and torture, and finally get himself beheaded at the Emperor's command, for a fictitious story that was a fantastic offence against his own background of Judaic orthodoxy! How does such a gullible man survive childhood, let alone adulthood? And how is this a plausible alternative to the view that these were sincere believers? Most assuredly, it does not strike me as a credible alternative at all.

I believe you are making a strawman of my point. While the disorder 'False Memory Syndrome', is indeed a possibility, I was speaking more of the average human ability to have false memories without being as extreme as a personality disorder. Many factors can contribute to it including peer pressure and personal desire.

The existence of false memories are a truism. Everyone has false memories; or things improperly remembered. But you are talking here about a plurality of witnesses allegedly sharing the same false memory, or inducing each other, as a consequence of a group dynamic to take on a congruent false memory!

It is hard to see how all of these people could share the same false memory, unless there is a deliberative effort. And if that is the case, we are then back to square one in which the apostles are tacitly being accused of being liars. The arguments on the bus go round and round...

Here are a few links detailing what I meant...

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/A ... /sciam.htm
http://cogprints.org/599/1/199802009.html

Two points. In both articles the false memories were deliberately implanted in one-on-one sessions or small groups. The study shows that false memories are created when misinformation is provided soon after an event that cases people to remember details that were not there, such as what kind of traffic sign was by a road or the colour of a car.

Thus:

1. Who was deliberately implanting the false memories among the apostles? This takes us back to the "liar" thesis.
2. Minor details or experiences alleged to have occurred in one's childhood, are one thing; but seeing a man dead and then seeing him alive again three days later is not a minor detail one can implant in a diverse group of people at the same time. Especially since at least one of the apostles was a sceptic.

In the end, the purpose of this is to illustrate an example of an alternative demonstrating that the argument is predicated on the black/white-true/false fallacy. If there are any even remotely plausible possibilities in-between truth and lie, then it is fallacious to assume it has to be one or the other.

You have yet to provide an alternative that explains the apostles' behaviour, the origin of their belief, and their willingness to suffer and die that is actually plausible. Saying they exaggerated things; had false memories; or each died for different beliefs are not plausible alternative explanations. The first two are simply variations on the "liar" thesis and this does not explain their subsequent martyrdom and willingness to endure persecution.

Considering that they all had a shared traumatic experience (seeing thier leader/savior perish a horrible death)? Sure. I would not say it is the most likely possibility, in and of itself, but I never was talking about anything that extreme.

It is highly unlikely for eleven people to each develop the same personality disorder from the same situation, and then to each "recall" precisely the same invented belief. This is particularly true given the inconsistency between the symptoms of FMS and the behaviour of the apostles. I have already mentioned this. You are covering old ground.

It is, again, difficult for me to trust the religious literature describing such accounts on its own merits. Can you present corroborating unbiased evidence that he did as much? Otherwise it could just be propaganda to push an agenda.

Most of the information we have about the apostles IS "religious literature" since the apostles were, by definition, religious figures. So unless you have a prior commitment to naturalism and thus believe anything that mentions the supernatural is to be ruled out of court, or we utilise the Genetic Fallacy that says anything that has a Christian origin is ipso facto false, or you have a good reason to doubt the authenticity of those accounts, simply saying, "The source of information is doubtful" is not adequate. If so, ancient history would become an impossibility. A lot of what we know within ancient history is contained in various religious documents. This is inescapable, since it was the religious professionals in different societies who tended to be literate.

You continue to use the black/white fallacy. I introduced only 'examples' of why setting it as lie/truth with no gray area is fallacious. The real truth is, we simply do not know enough variables to make the argument.

I think your alternatives are poor.

I think too you have been attempting to straw man the argument for a while. Remember, the argument is NOT, "The apostles died for their beliefs, therefore those beliefs are true". The argument IS, "The apostles died, therefore they were sincere" or "therefore they sincerely believed their message to be true". You have yet to show any reason besides assertion or speculation for why we should not conclude that the eleven apostles, and the various other early Christians who claimed to have seen Christ, were not sincere believers.

You do correctly point out that it is potentially another black/white fallacy. However, you continue to make an Argument from Personal Incredulity (because you cannot think of or do not recognize plausible alternatives does not mean that they don't exist). You are of course, totally welcome to believe or not believe whatever you care to.

You beg the question that your alternatives are plausible ones. I do not think the argument that a group of people all contracted a personality disorder at the same time and all obtained the same false memory is a very plausible explanation. It strikes me as a very sophisticated effort to avoid a simpler explanation, which is surely to be preferred over the more complex.

I think you have derailed from the original argument. I think you are responding to the argument, "The apostles died for their beliefs, therefore their beliefs must be true", which is exactly what I have NOT proposed. The argument is that the apostles were sincere believers as evinced by their willingness to suffer and die. So far all you have said on that score is that there could be other alternatives to the apostles being sincere believers. OK. What are the other plausible alternatives?

As far as I can see, you have provided one variation after another on the thesis "they lied" or "were misguided". The first thesis is dealt with by the argument itself. As such, when you posit some kind of potential deception by the apostles, it strikes me as a failure to engage with the argument.

The second thesis: that they were misguided through false memories or group pressure so that they ended up believing a lie, is irrelevant. The argument does not make ANY pretense to assessing the truth content of the apostles' belief. It only asserts that whatever they believed, they must have sincerely believed it to be true.

Now, you keep arguing this is a False Dichotomy. It would be a False Dichotomy only if the argument falsely presented two categories. But, it does not. It does not say, "You must be either a madman or an environmentalist"; it does not say, "That driver is either insane or he is drunk"; it does not say, "that animal must be either a dog or a rat". These would be clear examples of False Dichotomies since within the category of "people", "drivers" and "animals" are many alternatives besides those stated.

The argument I have presented offers a truism. It presents an observation about the nature of the way people are.

It says people do not willingly and knowingly suffer and die for a lie. That is about as much a truism as you can get. Therefore, the only way to overturn this argument is to show that people are willing to suffer and die for something they know is untrue. We are not talking about the origin of those beliefs - as much of your argument has seemingly become - or the truth content of those beliefs. We are talking about the attitude and disposition of the individual toward those beliefs, and how we can assess their relative sincerity.

Talking about the specifics of their suffering is possibly an appeal to emotions. I am well aware that suffering that is allegedly attributed to the Apostles, and the specifics are unimportant except to engender feelings of empathy or horror.

No. I am attempting to show that these are not mild inconveniences, but intense tortures. I have no interest in making emotional appeals to you or anyone else.

You also make another Argument from Incredulity. Just because you find it implausible that someone would be willing to suffer in the manner described, does not make your argument true.

This is a very weak argument. It is not a matter of simply ME finding it implausible. Indeed, that line of reasoning is a fallacious effort to make the argument a subjective one when it is not. It would be like me saying in response to any argument you offer, "Just because YOU find it to be (implausible, unscientific, irrational, illogical et al), does not mean it is." How does that accomplish anything? That could be a rebuttal to any argument we dislike.

The fact is, it IS implausible for people to suffer and die for things they know to be false. In contradistinction to your position, we have a great many people who have suffered and died for things they believed were true and worthwhile: from Joan of Arc to Zwingli; from William Wallace and Nelson Mandela, to Mother Theresa. The list of noble sufferers and martyrs for a cause or belief is long.

On the other hand, you have yet to provide a single person who suffered and died for something they knew was false. This means that your premise is deeply implausible insofar as it does not concord with what we experience as human beings. You can overturn the argument only if you are able to show that people frequently suffer and die for things they know are lies. This is necessary for any of your arguments against the Christian position to work, since without it you will be unable to provide a reasonable foundation or starting point for your own proposition. If your proposition is plausible, it must first be shown to be realistic.

I merely raised it as a possibility that you were not considering in order to illustrate your willingness to make Arguments from Incredulity. Also, it is not as if the Christian Church (in spite of the 1st century hippy message) had a flawless history of living in peace with every man.

Both points are irrelevant. I am not arguing that because I cannot imagine it to be true it therefore must be false. I am arguing that you cannot show your "plausible alternative" to have even occurred in human history; I can show plenty of people who suffered and died for things they thought were true.

Can you please provide or direct to this extra-biblical information from good sources confirming your claims in regards to the Apostles? Those present claims specifically are...

Define "good" source. If by "good" source you mean "a non-religious one", then you are going to be disappointed.

The deaths of the apostles are detailed only in the writings of the Patristic Corpus. For instance, Paul's death is mentioned in 1 Clement, a letter written from Rome around 90 A.D. It does not explicitly mention his martyrdom, although that is a reasonable interpretation of the text. Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote a history of the Christian Church (as well as a book titled Discrepancies between the Gospels), also states that Paul was beheaded during the reign of Nero.

I am not going to go through the deaths of all of the apostles, since the sources that provide those details are all different.

1) That all 11 were direct witness to the proposed beliefs that would be accused of being 'lies' (so primarily the supernatural claims).
2) That they lived torturous existences for the 35 year period specifically because of the supernatural claims made.

These are established from the New Testament. I stated that their DEATHS were detailed in extra-biblical sources.

3) That they died torturous deaths, where a purpose of the torture/death was to cause them to specifically recant their supernatural claims, and that no such confession was gained.

See above for an example.

Likewise, if the Apostles had other reasons entirely for suffering, then the argument does not hold.

People will certainly suffer for things:
- Children
- Country
- Wife Husband
- Money
- Power

But I think trying to find a material explanation for the suffering and deaths of religious figures while arbitrarily eliminating their religiosity as a contender, is something of a fool's errand since it omits a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Nevertheless, the apostle's message brought danger to their children and spouses; obliterated any power or social status they possessed; and left them impoverished. They were not driven by patriotism for Israel. So what were they suffering FOR if not their beliefs?[/i]

[fredonly]

But I think trying to find a material explanation for the suffering and deaths of religious figures while arbitrarily eliminating their religiosity as a contender, is something of a fool's errand since it omits a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

The reasonable conclusions of Christian apologists tend to be interpretations of historical data that support their pre-conceived beliefs. IMO this is a reasonable practice, albeit that it is of use ONLY within the Christian community. It helps Christians feel good about their beliefs by showing that certain events are not impossible. However, the practice would only be of use in debating non-Christians if it were based on an objective analysis and the apologetic view could be shown to be the PROBABLE conclusion. In the case of the martyrdom of the resurrection eyewitnesses, it is clearly not a probable conclusion. There is no good evidence that the 11 disciples died for their beliefs. You also exaggerate the level of Christian persecutions that were done in the 1st 3 centuries of the Christian era. Below is a synopsis from notes I took listening to a lecture by Bart Ehrman (From the lecture series, Jesus to Constantine - A History of Early Christianity)

There was only one brief period of empire-wide discrimination, and this was a 10 year period under Diocletian. It began in 303 when Diocletian issued edicts rescinding various legal rights of Christians and demanding they comply with traditional religious practices of the empire. This was lifted in 313 by Constantines edict of Milan. Even during this height of persecution, there was not a wholesale roundup and execution of known Christians. Persecution during prior reigns was very limited:

Nero "The first state-sponsored persecution was in the year 64, under Nero. The only historical evidence of this persecution is from Tacitus Annals of Rome. Tacitus tells of Neros plans to rebuild Rome with new architecture, and Tacitus says that Nero ordered burnings to make way for it. This created hardship for the newly homeless, so (Tacitus goes on to say) he used Christians as scapegoats. They were an easy target because Christians were deemed social outcasts by many because of their pagan neighbors because of their atheism (denial of the gods). Nero made examples of these Christians " horrible for sure, but brief and localized specifically to Rome. There is no evidence of such persecution outside Rome during this period.

Trajan-The next instance of state-sponsored persecution was 50 years later, under Trajan. This was not ordered by Trajan, and it was localized to one region: Bithynia. Pliny the Younger was governor, and he was addressing a specific law that had been passed in the region that made it illegal to hold public meetings and social gatherings. It was intended to impede social unrest and revolution. It also impeded the control of fires, Pliny pointed out, because it made it illegal to form fire brigades. Pliny knew of Christians holding secret meetings, so he wrote to Trajan for endorsement of his plan for dealing with the Christians. His plan was to bring alleged Christians before a bust of the emperor and demand that the Christian burn incense in his honor, as a god (as was the tradition in the Roman empire " to treat the emperor as a god). If the Christian burned the incense, he was freed. Otherwise he was executed. Trajan endorsed the plan, but insisted that there not be an active roundup of Christians. Christians had to be identified by individuals, and they could not be made anonymously. Most of the Christians who were asked to burn the incense complied, but a few refused " even after Pliny encouraged them to do so in order to spare them. But the stubborn were executed. It is clear that the root issue here was, again, that Christians were unpopular. They were blamed by some for all the misfortunes that befell the people, because of their refusal to pay the gods their due. Educated people like Trajan and Pliny likely didnt feel this way, or they would certainly have chosen to seek out all Christians and eliminate them. Wrong though it was, this was also of short duration and very limited in geographic scope.

Marcus Aurelius: The third wave of discrimination was another 50 years later under Marcus Aurelius. These persecutions were in Lyons in Gaul. We know of these through the testimony of an account written by survivors of the persecution, as reported by Eusebius. The account depicts the context as being due to the Pagan mobs who were out for blood, and the Roman administrators were pandering to the mobs. The depictions of the treatment of these Christians are gory and disgusting, but again " its clear this was limited to one locale.

[Clownboat]

While the specific friction between their message and the culture may be disparate in different cases, ultimately they died as members of the Christian sect that proclaimed above everything else a Resurrected Leader. They would not have endured decades of persecution and suffering across multiple countries, ending in brutal deaths if they had not been members and preachers of that sect. The most rational conclusion is not that they each died for different beliefs - which is beyond the capacity of any logical argument to affirm or deny - but rather that they must have sincerely believed their message.

It is also possible that they did not want to go back to their previous lifestyles. For example, could you imagine being a fisherman in that day, which was considered a very low class job. Next thing you know, you are popular, you have followers, and from time to time they were probably treated very respectfully by said followers (fans).

The desire alone to remain in their current line of work would supply reason to endure persecution.

(Yes, I know not all of them were fisherman, but we do not know the quality of life that the others had before following Jesus either).

[Deadclown]

You are welcome. You appear to be among the minority of truly polite and thoughtful sceptics on this forum, whose posts involve far more depth than mere slogans. I have enjoyed being challenged by you.

I have likewise enjoyed this exchange. Although again, it is not good to assume that just because some (perhaps vocal) individuals have upset you with their behavior, that a majority of individuals who hold similar views behave in a similar fashion.

This got hefty quick, so I'll try and respond to everything.

If there were lots of additional factors contributing to people wanting the apostles in question to be killed, doesn't that hurt the argument being made?

I do not think it does. Since all of those beliefs were innately tied to their preaching of Christ, and since the Christian message was the very reason they ventured to evangelise hostile regions, it does not matter which specific belief incited people to murder them: they ended up dead as doorposts just the same. They would not have been dead if they had not followed the Christian sect's teaching.

That would be a major concession on the point of the argument. Which implies that they were executed for specific reasons. If we generalize it to dying for just a message/cause, with or without supernatural elements, then we come to a situation where they are suffering for that message/cause. A person can suffer for a message/cause and not believe that the message/cause is 100% completely literally accurate.

The argument appears to rely on them denying supernatural aspects of their beliefs in order to prevent their own suffering/death, leading to the conclusion that they must have truly believed in those supernatural elements.

They were first century Jews; therefore they definitely believed in the supernatural. See the excellent book by Dr. Henri Daniel-Rops Daily Life in Palestine At the Time of Christ for insight into the total permeation of the supernatural into every Jew's thought and life. There is simply no doubt that they believed in the supernatural, and expected others to believe in it too.

They were an ancient culture, and the vast majority had pervasive supernatural and superstitious beliefs, as well as myths they took to be literal. That likewise supports my point, since they were perhaps unable to distinguish from the possible, the improbable, and the impossible, as we are. It makes it far easier for them to potentially exaggerate events, for their words to be exaggerated, and for their memories to alter events in a fashion that would seem like a huge jump to our perspective.

You suggest that they may not have believed the supernatural dimension of their own belief. But this is precisely the objection the argument is meant to address: that people do not willingly or knowingly suffer and die for a lie.

I wasn't suggesting that here. What I was suggesting above and immediately below is that they might have died for causes not directly linked to Christ's teachings, by your own admition. They also could have died for the cause but not believed in the cause 100%. They were potentially killed for fighting the established power structure, and sowing discord. Again, I merely raise plausible possibilities which establish that the original argument is logically fallacious to insist on arguments from incredulity and black/white fallacies as being worthy of consideration.

Let me illustrate my point with an example. If I say, "President Bush invaded other countries because he claims God told him it is the right thing to do. Thus, he must have really believed that God communicated to him directly, because no one causes great amounts of death/destruction predicated on a lie." This closely parallels the original argument. However, it is fallacious, because it ignores other potential factors through over-simplification that contributed to the decision (tyrannical dictator, WMD potential, his father, etc.). Maybe Bush really did believe that God spoke to him on the matter, but the logic coming to that conclusion is inherently flawed.

If they were just across the board anti-establishment, then that is not dying for the specific supernatural claims (I assume the argument is primarily meant to defend the supernatural elements, if not the specific Death/Resurrection)?

The argument is a response to the objection that is sometimes raised that the Apostles were liars who invented a fiction. It is intended only to establish the sincerity of the Apostles.

I have no desire to make positive assertions, simply to point out flaws in the argument. The argument it is a response to could even be flawed as well. I do not know, as I am unfamiliar with it. I have no wish to insist that everything attributed to the Apostles is fiction, since I do not have evidence to support such an assertion.

BTW: They cannot be thought simply as anti-establishment radicals either. The Apostolic writings frequently command the readers to respect and obey authorities, and insists that rulers were put in place by God. Christ himself said to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". They did not embrace political tools of power.

I am not trying to say that they were simple in any way. Just pointing out that the situation is far more complex than what the original argument presents. There is a lot of possibility, and we lack enough information to make positive determinations, and yet the argument seeks to anyway.

They were popular among the disenfranchised slave class; they embraced poverty; and they firmly dis-vowed violence. It is very difficult - I would say impossible - to get the profile of anti-establishment radical Jews from any of the historical documents that contain information about the Apostles.

Can you present historical documents supporting your perspective? If they were opposing the established government (you pointed out the example of refusing to recognize Caesar as Lord)and religion (the Jewish power structure surely saw them as an issue), then they were by definition anti-establishment. They were already by definition 'radical' Jews.

That's dying for a cause, that also happens to have some supernatural claims. Like an American soldier dying for his country, but not really believing that all American folk-lore is completely accurate.

Again, you seem to forget that the criteria are two-fold: it is not merely a matter of death, but of intense suffering.

And you again ignore the fact that the analogy works with the two-fold idea. I simply did not type death/suffering every time I mentioned either. Do you think American soldiers have never been tortured?

The analogy is false. It would be like soldiers suffering and dying for America whilst at the same time believing their countrycause to be wrong.

Incorrect, and another demonstration of the black/white fallacy that I was demonstrating with the analogy. They would suffer/die for a grand cause that they believe in. That does not mean that they believe 100% in all elements of the cause. For example, American Folk-Lore and the American Dream. It is fallacious to think that someone must believe in every detailed aspect of a cause in order to suffer for that cause.

To say it a different way, if they just died for their belief in 'Christ's message' or in the idea that the current establishments needed great revision, that does not necessarily mean that they died for everything they claimed, or would recant all claims for the sake of their cause.

That is beyond the purview of the argument. The argument seeks only to establish that they were sincere. However, I note that you seem to introduce a degree of specificity into their deaths which I find somewhat fallacious, as if a person who is martyred dies for belief "number 3" and not belief "number 34".

It is well within the purview of the argument, which is where the issue lies. You strawman my point. Your argument implies that they believed 0% or 100%. That is fallacious due to the black/white fallacy. They could have believed 95% and still been willing to suffer/die for it. They could have, for example (I am not saying this is true), believed strongly in all of the non-supernatural elements of Jesus and the church and been a little unsure of some of the claims. That could have been sufficient.

While the specific friction between their message and the culture may be disparate in different cases, ultimately they died as members of the Christian sect that proclaimed above everything else a Resurrected Leader. They would not have endured decades of persecution and suffering across multiple countries, ending in brutal deaths if they had not been members and preachers of that sect. The most rational conclusion is not that they each died for different beliefs - which is beyond the capacity of any logical argument to affirm or deny - but rather that they must have sincerely believed their message.

Arguments from Personal Incredulity and Ignorance are not rational, by definition. Just because we do not know and you find it implausible, does not make it correct.

If you posit that they taught and believed different things, and only shared a common experience of suffering and dying, your argument then moves from the logical into the textual and historical realm. You will need to show some reason for thinking there is inconsistency in their witness using the available historical sources: the New Testament collection of writings, and those contained in citation form in the pre-Nicean Patristic Corpus.

It is a good thing I did not make such an assertion, then. I have no need to, only to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the argument by introducing alternative scenarios or potential possibilities that it ignores.

Also, if you could provide supporting documentation for the idea that the apostles refusal to declare Caesar 'Lord and God' and refusal to participate in a 'state sponsored Emperor cult' contributed to their deaths, I would appreciate it. I am no historian, but my impression of the Romans was always generally one of religious acceptance or absorption. It isn't really necessary to make your above point. I am just curious.

There were many outbreaks of persecution against the Christians, who, at various times needed to obtain a Certificate of Sacrifice that testified they had sacrificed to the Roman gods and emperors. We know that they were refusing to do so. One ancient document that supports this is the Epistle of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia (epistle means "letter"). This was written by the Emperor Antonius, whose attitude toward the Christians fortunately had not taken on the violent dimensions of his successors. He writes:

The Emperor Csar Titus lius Adrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, Supreme Pontiff, in the fifteenth year of his tribuneship, Consul for the third time, Father of the fatherland, to the Common Assembly of Asia, greeting: I should have thought that the gods themselves would see to it that such offenders should not escape. For if they had the power, they themselves would much rather punish those who refuse to worship them; but it is you who bring trouble on these persons, and accuse as the opinion of atheists that which they hold, and lay to their charge certain other things which we are unable to prove.

Christians, ironically, among other things, were accused of atheism since they renounced all other gods except Yahweh. Here Antonius suggests that the assembly should cease troubling Christians, and that the gods (rather than men) had far better right to punish them if they were truly displeased.

You might like to look at these websites for details on the persecutions:
http://www.allabouthistory.org/roman-gods.htm
http://www.mystudylight.com/miscellaneo ... part_2.htm

Thank you, although I am curious to see how you respond to fredonly's rebuttal and claims. Also, I fail to see how this supports the assertion that, "The apostles refusal to declare Caesar 'Lord and God' and refusal to participate in a 'state sponsored Emperor cult' contributed to their deaths"? Perhaps I missed it and you could quote the relevant sections?

1) Saying 'they were lying or they were not' is an example of the black/white fallacy. There are a lot of shades of gray and possibilities. They could have just exaggerated or eventually came to 'believe the lie/exaggeration'. The human brain is great at making the gray area grayer due to the nature of our faulty memories, our ability to create false memories, and our ability to be supremely amazingly adept at lying to ourselves.

A False Dichotomy exists only when categories are artificially constrained. That is not the case in my argument, as I explain later. Furthermore, to argue that a False Dichotomy exists, there needs to be plausible alternatives.

For instance, if I argue that the bottom of the ocean is black because there is no penetration of light to such levels, and you reject my argument on the basis of the Fallacy of Too Few Alternatives and say, "No! There are more possibilities than the one you have given for why it is dark at the bottom of the ocean" you then need to demonstrate that there first are plausible alternatives. The argument that extra-terrestrial beings have cloaked submerged vessels whose technology creates darkness is indeed an alternative argument, but not a plausible one.

I do not think the alternatives you have provided so far are plausible.

I have introduced possible alternatives. The fact that you refuse to accept them or recognize them does not make them less plausible or your analogy a fair one. Your arguments against them can in general be summarized as arguments from personal incredulity or strawmen. What you personally think matters very little, when I have provided peer reviewed papers demonstrating false memory and misinformation effects.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it does not remove the fact that such an assertion is a black/white fallacy. I merely offered potentially plausible alternatives in order to demonstrate as much.

Is it plausible that eleven people contract False Memory Syndrome at the same time?

Yes. Although relatively unlikely in comparison to what my *actual* statement was, which is why it was a strawman. It was you who raised the idea of FMS so that you could more easily attack my argument. I never claimed it was 'likely', but it does raise a less likely but plausible alternative. Lastly, there is no reason why ALL of the apostles needed to contract it. Which is the severe problem in your reasoning.

Is it plausible that they exaggerated their story and yet remained consistent in the details even when the apostles were no longer in a group?

This is an Argument from Ignorance. It is predicated on the idea that you know for certain that they remained consistent at all times, that there was no after the fact editing, and it ignores the fact that their accounts actually vary considerably on 'details' (New Testament biblical contradictions).

Is it plausible that the apostles, concocting details, would admit a former enemy into their inner camp?

Yes. This is not a wildly outlandish proposition that only appears so on the surface. Traitors, turn-coats, and conversions happen quite often.

The problem with the whole Paul account, is that we have to take Paul at his word. Since he was not present for the events, it is not as if he would be any different from any others being told the potentially exaggerated accounts with supernatural elements.

What is the motive? He had power, authority, respect and maybe even wealth as a Jewish Pharisee. Yet, he had joined himself to a small sect and, by his own words, as a preacher of Christ, had become the "scum of the earth" and "everybody's trash" (the King James Version uses more refined English: "we are made as the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all things").

Please demonstrate through extra-biblical accounts that Paul held such a position. Also, religious revelation and belief can trump rational motivation. Perhaps he 'truly believed', but since he was not present for the actions of Jesus, his account is meaningless for the purpose of the argument.

Paul suffered brutally. You are suggesting he was incredulous enough to surrender a good social position, endure decades of whippings, beatings, homelessness and torture, and finally get himself beheaded at the Emperor's command, for a fictitious story that was a fantastic offence against his own background of Judaic orthodoxy! How does such a gullible man survive childhood, let alone adulthood? And how is this a plausible alternative to the view that these were sincere believers? Most assuredly, it does not strike me as a credible alternative at all.

How did anyone convert to Christianity? How does anyone do so today? You need more than unevidenced assertions, Appeals to Emotion, and Arguments from Personal Incredulity to make a case.

I believe you are making a strawman of my point. While the disorder 'False Memory Syndrome', is indeed a possibility, I was speaking more of the average human ability to have false memories without being as extreme as a personality disorder. Many factors can contribute to it including peer pressure and personal desire.

The existence of false memories are a truism. Everyone has false memories; or things improperly remembered. But you are talking here about a plurality of witnesses allegedly sharing the same false memory, or inducing each other, as a consequence of a group dynamic to take on a congruent false memory!

I am not arguing for a plurality of witnesses allegedly sharing the same memory. It is a rather unlikely possibility (but still plausible). Misinformation caused by peer pressure is a documented common form of false memory. I am again, not arguing the the black/white fallacy of 0% of all 11 believed 0% or 100% of all 11 believed 100%. Only that there is potential for anywhere between any of the 0-100 percentages.

It is hard to see how all of these people could share the same false memory, unless there is a deliberative effort. And if that is the case, we are then back to square one in which the apostles are tacitly being accused of being liars. The arguments on the bus go round and round...

If arguments are becoming repetitious, it is only because you consistently make the same fallacies over and over again. I have presented documented evidence that it is a plausible possibility and your failure to recognize it is an Argument from Personal Incredulity (you 'find it hard to believe that all of these people could have false memories'). Also you strawman my argument here with a repetition of the black/white fallacy. No matter how many times you repeat them, it does not make them any more rational.

Here are a few links detailing what I meant...

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/A ... /sciam.htm
http://cogprints.org/599/1/199802009.html

Two points. In both articles the false memories were deliberately implanted in one-on-one sessions or small groups. The study shows that false memories are created when misinformation is provided soon after an event that cases people to remember details that were not there, such as what kind of traffic sign was by a road or the colour of a car.

Incorrect. The studies show that false memories *can* be caused by those situations. It does not claim that they are the only ways that false memories are formed. It actually becomes easier to modify memory the more time that passes between the modification and the original memory. Additionally, experiments were performed and illustrate the maleability of the human memory. It discusses how all sorts of memory implantation is possible, even including 'impossible' memories of the 1st year of life. This is all meant to demonstrate that eyewitness testimony is not 100% trustworthy and that memories can be modified.

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/A ... /sciam.htm

My own research into memory distortion goes back to the early 1970s, when I began studies of the "misinformation effect." These studies show that when people who witness an event are later exposed to new and misleading information about it, their recollections often become distorted.
...
My students and I have now conducted more than 200 experiments involving over 20,000 individuals that document how exposure to misinformation induces memory distortion. In these studies, people "recalled" a conspicuous barn in a bucolic scene that contained no buildings at all, broken glass and tape recorders that were not in the scenes they viewed, a white instead of a blue vehicle in a crime scene, and Minnie Mouse when they actually saw Mickey Mouse. Taken together, these studies show that misinformation can change an individual's recollection in predictable and sometimes very powerful ways.

Misinformation has the potential for invading our memories when we talk to other people, when we are suggestively interrogated or when we read or view media coverage about some event that we may have experienced ourselves. After more than two decades of exploring the power of misinformation, researchers have learned a great deal about the conditions that make people susceptible to memory modification. Memories are more easily modified, for instance, when the passage of time allows the original memory to fade.
...
In the lost-in-the-mall study, implantation of false memory occurred when another person, usually a family member, claimed that the incident happened. Corroboration of an event by another person can be a powerful technique for instilling a false memory. In fact, merely claiming to have seen a person do something can lead that person to make a false confession of wrongdoing.
...
False memories are constructed by combining actual memories with the content of suggestions received from others. During the process, individuals may forget the source of the information.

Thus:

1. Who was deliberately implanting the false memories among the apostles? This takes us back to the "liar" thesis.

It does not matter. It doesn't even *have* to be one of the Apostles. I do not have to make a positive claim to cast doubt which points out the irrationality of your argument. Again, black/white fallacy. Misinformation or false memories do not a liar make. All the Apostles were not necessarily lying about everything, but neither did all necessarily believe 100% of everything they claimed.

2. Minor details or experiences alleged to have occurred in one's childhood, are one thing; but seeing a man dead and then seeing him alive again three days later is not a minor detail one can implant in a diverse group of people at the same time. Especially since at least one of the apostles was a sceptic.

Again, a strawman. The studies show a wide variety of ways in which memories are faulty and prone to error, alteration, and misinformation. The Apostles (by your own admission) did not have our rational barrier between the natural and the supernatural. So such claims were less extreme then than they are now. Likewise, it allows for the possibility of them being misinformed and constructing false memories that are exaggerated over the course of 35 years of repetition. Have you ever heard the adage about how in fish stories the fish gets bigger each time it is spoken of?

I would kindly request that you please argue against my actual points and position. Especially since you were willing to disparage skeptics and athiests for misrepresenting yours.

Also, we only have the biblical accounts demonstrating the skepticism. I assume you won't provide any other evidence for it. It is convenient to introduce a skeptic into a story to lend it the illusion of credibility when they are proved wrong. I think in the movies they call it a 'Hollywood Atheist'.

In the end, the purpose of this is to illustrate an example of an alternative demonstrating that the argument is predicated on the black/white-true/false fallacy. If there are any even remotely plausible possibilities in-between truth and lie, then it is fallacious to assume it has to be one or the other.

You have yet to provide an alternative that explains the apostles' behavior, the origin of their belief, and their willingness to suffer and die that is actually plausible. Saying they exaggerated things; had false memories; or each died for different beliefs are not plausible alternative explanations. The first two are simply variations on the "liar" thesis and this does not explain their subsequent martyrdom and willingness to endure persecution.

I assume you do know what an Argument from Personal Incredulity is? I keep pointing them out, but you just keep making them. My potential possibilities (or a combination thereof) are plausible and they are not the only possibilities (merely the ones I have presented). Even your strawmen of my explanations are somewhat plausible. There are an infinite number of potential possible sequences of events that could exist between the black (they are all 100% liars) and the white (they all believed what they said 100%).

Here are just a few plausible possibilities. Note, I am not asserting that any happened. Only that there is gray area between 1 and 8.

1) They could all 11 of them believe in 100% of everything they ever said about events.
2) One or more could be out and out lying (all the way from 1-11) and later come to believe their own deception (fake it until you make it) or later had other unknown reasons for suffering (peer pressure, other threats, desire for matyrdom, protecting friends/family).
3) They could have been lied to by outside agents who claimed eyewitness testimony and created false memories over a period of 35 years of story repetition.
4) One or more of them (all the way from 1-11) or outside agents could have had wholesale false memories from the trauma (FMS) and convinced others of their veracity.
5) The biblical accounts could have been edited after the fact, or their words altered.
6) The accounts of their death and/or suffering could be exaggerated or false.
7) Any combination of above factors regarding any and all supernatural events. This allows for them to 'truly believe' in say, the Resurrection, but not necessarily believe that Jesus turned water into wine. This can apply to all supernatural claims ending in some combination of truth and falsehood between 0% and 100%.
8) They could all 11 of them be lying about 100% of everything they ever said about events and thus have non-apparent but possible motivations for suffering/death such as pride, fear of worse, or peer pressure from their followers who they had deceived.

I need do nothing more than call out that options 1 and options 8 are not the only possibilities. The possibilities I do raise are plausible based upon evidence I have presented. Continuing to assert that you 'think' they are not is just repetition of Arguments from Personal Incredulity. If you cannot demonstrate how it *has* to be 1 or 8, then the original argument is faulty due to the black/white fallacy.

Considering that they all had a shared traumatic experience (seeing thier leader/savior perish a horrible death)? Sure. I would not say it is the most likely possibility, in and of itself, but I never was talking about anything that extreme.

It is highly unlikely for eleven people to each develop the same personality disorder from the same situation, and then to each "recall" precisely the same invented belief. This is particularly true given the inconsistency between the symptoms of FMS and the behaviour of the apostles. I have already mentioned this. You are covering old ground.

Note, you brought up FMS in the first place as a strawman of my argument. You did in fact do an excellent job of attacking the strawman. Also note the error in your thinking that all 11 had to have FMS, when even that isn't necessary, and is yet another strawman.

It is, again, difficult for me to trust the religious literature describing such accounts on its own merits. Can you present corroborating unbiased evidence that he did as much? Otherwise it could just be propaganda to push an agenda.

Most of the information we have about the apostles IS "religious literature" since the apostles were, by definition, religious figures. So unless you have a prior commitment to naturalism and thus believe anything that mentions the supernatural is to be ruled out of court, or we utilise the Genetic Fallacy that says anything that has a Christian origin is ipso facto false, or you have a good reason to doubt the authenticity of those accounts, simply saying, "The source of information is doubtful" is not adequate. If so, ancient history would become an impossibility. A lot of what we know within ancient history is contained in various religious documents. This is inescapable, since it was the religious professionals in different societies who tended to be literate.

There should be accounts from the Jewish and any of the many diverse Roman peoples that could support or refute the biblical testimony, assuming it occured, and the information survived. If you do not provide unbiased evidence (because it doesn't exist, you cannot find it, or it doesn't support the argument), then do not insist you can make Arguments from Ignorance. The bible is not an acceptable historical document on its own. It is not an unbiased source because it is religious promotional literature. I have no reason to accept anything in it at face value, and plenty of reason to question its validity.

You continue to use the black/white fallacy. I introduced only 'examples' of why setting it as lie/truth with no gray area is fallacious. The real truth is, we simply do not know enough variables to make the argument.

I think your alternatives are poor.

Then it is a very good thing that what you 'think' matters very little in logical debates.

I think too you have been attempting to straw man the argument for a while. Remember, the argument is NOT, "The apostles died for their beliefs, therefore those beliefs are true". The argument IS, "The apostles died, therefore they were sincere" or "therefore they sincerely believed their message to be true". You have yet to show any reason besides assertion or speculation for why we should not conclude that the eleven apostles, and the various other early Christians who claimed to have seen Christ, were not sincere believers.

I fear it is you who strawman, the irony of which is not lost on me.

I was careful to restate the argument and you cleared it as being a 'pretty good' representation of your argument. I have never been arguing against, 'The apostles died for their beliefs, therefore those beliefs are true'. My argument has been and is, 'There could be some possibility of truth/falsehood (1-11 of them, or outside agents), false memories, misinformation, revision, or any combination of the above (or any other plausible possibility), and thus it is incorrect to say that they either believed 100% or were liars'.

You do correctly point out that it is potentially another black/white fallacy. However, you continue to make an Argument from Personal Incredulity (because you cannot think of or do not recognize plausible alternatives does not mean that they don't exist). You are of course, totally welcome to believe or not believe whatever you care to.

You beg the question that your alternatives are plausible ones. I do not think the argument that a group of people all contracted a personality disorder at the same time and all obtained the same false memory is a very plausible explanation. It strikes me as a very sophisticated effort to avoid a simpler explanation, which is surely to be preferred over the more complex.

Strawman of my point. An especially telling and glaring one since I was sure to explain why it was incorrect in the last post. Tell me, what is your 'simple' explanation for how they could have truly believed in 100% of all claims (primarily the supernatural ones) and how is it 'simpler' than my potential explanations?

I think you have derailed from the original argument. I think you are responding to the argument, "The apostles died for their beliefs, therefore their beliefs must be true", which is exactly what I have NOT proposed. The argument is that the apostles were sincere believers as evinced by their willingness to suffer and die. So far all you have said on that score is that there could be other alternatives to the apostles being sincere believers. OK. What are the other plausible alternatives?

I have not. All arguments are against the restatement with corrections, and all arguments have been focused on showing the inherent irrationality of the original argument. See the last paragraphs for a summarized restatement of my position for your use so you can cease misrepresenting my position.

As far as I can see, you have provided one variation after another on the thesis "they lied" or "were misguided". The first thesis is dealt with by the argument itself. As such, when you posit some kind of potential deception by the apostles, it strikes me as a failure to engage with the argument.

You appear to see what you want to see, or remember what you wish to remember? Can you perhaps quote my actual words supporting your accusations? What I have done is shown and explained in detail (as you requested) how the argument is predicated on logical fallacies. If I have strawmanned you, show me where, and I'll apologize.

The second thesis: that they were misguided through false memories or group pressure so that they ended up believing a lie, is irrelevant. The argument does not make ANY pretense to assessing the truth content of the apostles' belief. It only asserts that whatever they believed, they must have sincerely believed it to be true.

Now, you keep arguing this is a False Dichotomy. It would be a False Dichotomy only if the argument falsely presented two categories. But, it does not. It does not say, "You must be either a madman or an environmentalist"; it does not say, "That driver is either insane or he is drunk"; it does not say, "that animal must be either a dog or a rat". These would be clear examples of False Dichotomies since within the category of "people", "drivers" and "animals" are many alternatives besides those stated.

The argument I have presented offers a truism. It presents an observation about the nature of the way people are.

It says people do not willingly and knowingly suffer and die for a lie. That is about as much a truism as you can get. Therefore, the only way to overturn this argument is to show that people are willing to suffer and die for something they know is untrue. We are not talking about the origin of those beliefs - as much of your argument has seemingly become - or the truth content of those beliefs. We are talking about the attitude and disposition of the individual toward those beliefs, and how we can assess their relative sincerity.

This is all repetition that I have repeatedly addressed. Please stop attacking strawmen. Please stop accusing me of misrepresenting the argument when I have gone to great pains to make sure I would not.

Talking about the specifics of their suffering is possibly an appeal to emotions. I am well aware that suffering that is allegedly attributed to the Apostles, and the specifics are unimportant except to engender feelings of empathy or horror.

No. I am attempting to show that these are not mild inconveniences, but intense tortures. I have no interest in making emotional appeals to you or anyone else.

Everyone is well aware of the implications of words like 'suffering' and 'torture'. There is no need to go into detail on specifics unless you are actually citing proper historical documentation supporting such (as it is, it's just hearsay). I do not imagine you were purposefully making emotional appeals in order to manipulate readers.

You also make another Argument from Incredulity. Just because you find it implausible that someone would be willing to suffer in the manner described, does not make your argument true.

This is a very weak argument. It is not a matter of simply ME finding it implausible. Indeed, that line of reasoning is a fallacious effort to make the argument a subjective one when it is not. It would be like me saying in response to any argument you offer, "Just because YOU find it to be (implausible, unscientific, irrational, illogical et al), does not mean it is." How does that accomplish anything? That could be a rebuttal to any argument we dislike.

When taken in context with previous statements in the previous post the consistent argument has been that people are willing to suffer/die for many factors extraneous from the ones you have proposed. Saying that 'you think' none of those factors are plausible in order to concentrate on only the ones that support your argument is the fallacy, and it is far from a weak demonstration of it.

The fact is, it IS implausible for people to suffer and die for things they know to be false. In contradistinction to your position, we have a great many people who have suffered and died for things they believed were true and worthwhile: from Joan of Arc to Zwingli; from William Wallace and Nelson Mandela, to Mother Theresa. The list of noble sufferers and martyrs for a cause or belief is long.

Yes. This is why the argument is on the surface convincing (as some combination of multiple logical fallacies can be), but that is just predicated on the other logical fallacy (black/white). There could be some combination of truth/lies or belief/uncertainty between 0 and 100%.

On the other hand, you have yet to provide a single person who suffered and died for something they knew was false. This means that your premise is deeply implausible insofar as it does not concord with what we experience as human beings. You can overturn the argument only if you are able to show that people frequently suffer and die for things they know are lies. This is necessary for any of your arguments against the Christian position to work, since without it you will be unable to provide a reasonable foundation or starting point for your own proposition. If your proposition is plausible, it must first be shown to be realistic.

Ignoring my arguments in favor of strawmen does not make them go away.

I merely raised it as a possibility that you were not considering in order to illustrate your willingness to make Arguments from Incredulity. Also, it is not as if the Christian Church (in spite of the 1st century hippy message) had a flawless history of living in peace with every man.

Both points are irrelevant. I am not arguing that because I cannot imagine it to be true it therefore must be false. I am arguing that you cannot show your "plausible alternative" to have even occurred in human history; I can show plenty of people who suffered and died for things they thought were true.

Again, your assumption is predicated on 100% truth or 0% truth, ignoring anything in between. Perhaps you should restate 'my argument' and get approval from me as to what it actually is before you continue to run on with the misrepresentations.

Can you please provide or direct to this extra-biblical information from good sources confirming your claims in regards to the Apostles? Those present claims specifically are...

Define "good" source. If by "good" source you mean "a non-religious one", then you are going to be disappointed.

Unbiased (or even more impressive, biased in an opposing direction) from credible contemporary sources that has been reviewed by unbiased historians. This should not be difficult if the evidence actually exists in any reasonable form. If you refuse to or are unable to present such evidence, then it is only your argument which is disappointing. There is no reason why anyone should believe religious propaganda as 100% factual in regards to the specific claims it makes of events and testimony. Particularly if it does not cite *its* sources, or those sources are not credible and unbiased.

The deaths of the apostles are detailed only in the writings of the Patristic Corpus. For instance, Paul's death is mentioned in 1 Clement, a letter written from Rome around 90 A.D. It does not explicitly mention his martyrdom, although that is a reasonable interpretation of the text. Eusebius of Caesarea who wrote a history of the Christian Church (as well as a book titled Discrepancies between the Gospels), also states that Paul was beheaded during the reign of Nero.

Eusebius of Caesarea was born in 263 AD, so not contemporary. What were his sources? You should be able to back track, shouldn't you or provide a link to actual research on it? I am unfamiliar with the Patristic Corpus. Can you provide a link? Understand that I require actual links and quotations here. I cannot just take you on your word. I do not know what your qualifications are, and you are biased (as am I) by the fact that we are debating.

I am not going to go through the deaths of all of the apostles, since the sources that provide those details are all different.

Providing 'good' (as defined above) sources supporting these events would go a long way to showing that your claims of horrible torture and execution are not solely founded on religious propaganda material that benefits from painting the Apostles as experiencing such conditions and events. Not to mention that your entire argument is predicated on such as an assumption.

1) That all 11 were direct witness to the proposed beliefs that would be accused of being 'lies' (so primarily the supernatural claims).
2) That they lived torturous existences for the 35 year period specifically because of the supernatural claims made.

These are established from the New Testament. I stated that their DEATHS were detailed in extra-biblical sources.

So that is a 'no', then? We are forced to rely on one source (that it should be noted per forum rules is not authoritative or conclusive) in order to support your declarations (which are portrayed as factual)? If you cannot support them, then you should concede such points and refrain from making arguments based solely on biblical evidence in this specific debate forum.

3) That they died torturous deaths, where a purpose of the torture/death was to cause them to specifically recant their supernatural claims, and that no such confession was gained.

See above for an example.

Paul was not even one of the original Apostles who was exposed to the potential for eyewitness testimony. On top of that, you make references to a book written centuries after his death without providing quotations or links. Can you show where Eusebius of Caesarea got his information from? Perhaps from a direct documented unbiased source like the Roman executioners or the bureaucrats who signed off on the beheading (that would make it *credible*) that we could then find other references to?

Let's not forget you have spoken of their suffering/torture like it is a hard fact, while not presenting evidence to support such an assumption.

Likewise, if the Apostles had other reasons entirely for suffering, then the argument does not hold.

People will certainly suffer for things:
- Children
- Country
- Wife Husband
- Money
- Power

I'd like to add friends and other family members, religious convictions, fear of greater suffering, and ultimately righteous (to them) causes to your list. Even that is far from all encompassing. We are an altruistic bunch. Even non-human primates will drown themselves attempting to save other primates, or starve themselves to prevent other primates from being electrocuted.

But I think trying to find a material explanation for the suffering and deaths of religious figures while arbitrarily eliminating their religiosity as a contender, is something of a fool's errand since it omits a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Nevertheless, the apostle's message brought danger to their children and spouses; obliterated any power or social status they possessed; and left them impoverished. They were not driven by patriotism for Israel. So what were they suffering FOR if not their beliefs?

I never omitted religiosity as a contender. Merely argued that convictions do not need to be 100% in order to be sufficient for an individual to be willing to experience suffering/death.

We are at the end, so I will repeat my position for your use, so that hopefully the strawmen cease being so abused.

My arguments have been...
1) The argument paints a black/white fallacy as there could be some unknown plausible combination of truth/lies/misinformation/'lies that become beliefs' for some number of apostles (1 to 11) resulting in some amount of truth of claims between 0% and 100%. There is a great deal of plausible potential between 0% and 100% belief.

2) It presupposes that individuals are unwilling to die for any cause that is not 100% completely true to them. A cause does not require perfect 100% accuracy to be worthwhile for an individual to suffer for. For example, they may have died because they earnestly believed in Jesus' messages and in the potential of their church, or knew that recanting the exaggerated aspects but not the message would not only not save them from torture/death, but also greatly harm the cause that they believed in.

Additionally, individuals are willing to suffer for a variety of factors, and there is no reason to assume that the only reason they had to suffer was the 100% validity of their claims.

3) You have presented no contemporary unbiased sources confirming that all of the 11 apostles were a) present for the supernatural events described in the bible, b) experienced 35 years of suffering, or c) experienced gruesome torturous deaths purposed with forcing them to recant their beliefs, which failed to force a recantation.

This is akin to having a jury witness who says, "I heard from a friend that I really trust years after the fact that the defendant committed the murder of my relative. All of my friends and family confirm that this is what my friend told me. Although my friend is also dead, it all happened a long time ago, and I have no way of proving that he was present for the events in question... you should believe all the details I have related on the matter despite my obvious bias."

I'll say it a different way to demonstrate the analogy. "I read in the bible that I really trust, written years after the fact, that the Apostles were present for a large number of supernatural events, suffered for the preaching of the truth of these events, and were ultimately killed for it. All of the people who accepted the bible as historical fact agree with me that the bible is historical fact. So while I can present no evidence that any of my bible based claims are accurate, you should believe any and all details on the matter despite the books obvious self promotional bias."

None of the above primary arguments made in any way comments on the truth or falsehood of factual historical events, for which I lack information on beyond biblical testimony (which in and of itself is not authoritative). The most I have done is point out where your biased sources are not acceptable, on their own. If you can actually present 'good' evidence in support of your detailed claims, then I'll concede that point.

Please cease telling me what my argument is, misrepresenting my arguments, and attacking strawmen of my words.

[Zzyzx]

.

Zzyzx: do you participate on any forum populated heavily by Christian theologians and apologists? If not, I can provide you with plenty of links of forums you can join.

Are any of the forums to which you refer level playing fields, where no viewpoint is favored and where the bible cannot be cited as authoritative?

If so, I am quite interested. A lack of powerful opposition is unappealing.

BETTER YET. You invite the "Christian theologians and apologists" to debate on OUR level playing field. I'll be surprised if you get ANY takers.

Given how you dislike protected environments, I am anticipating you'll jump at the opportunity provided.

Kindly send or post the URLs.

I have no interest in debating in any forum that favors one viewpoint over others or any that require that I accept religious dogma or literature as authoritative.

I would like nothing better than to debate a CAPABLE, informed, reasoning, Biblicist / Fundamentalist / Literalist on "level ground" with no favoritism shown to any viewpoint. Thinking, capable people I have encountered are Liberal / Modern / Post Modern -- and we have little to disagree about since they do not claim KNOWLEDGE about "gods" or "afterlife" -- and generally do not regard bible tales as literally true.

[Ragna]

It could not be.

Let us assume that you are correct, and that an impersonal, mechanistic first cause set off the Big Bang. Being impersonal, it changes only as the result of another force. It cannot "decide" at any one point in time to explode, for instance.

A rough example. Imagine a Second World War bomb is jettisoned into space, beyond the galaxies and stars. It is in the blackest and most distant reaches of space where even encountering a stray atom is so wildly improbable it never occurs. If that bomb is in a state of total equilibrium so that its atomic structure is stable and its components suspended from any and all forces, and if that bomb does not explode for hundreds of billions of years, we must conclude that it never will.

On the other hand, if it does explode after hundreds of billions of years, we must conclude - since it follows with inevitable logic - that something has changed the total equilibrium of the unit, and thus interfered with its stability. In other words, once something begins, it must have a cause. A cause beyond itself.

In the case of the universe, the cause cannot be a mechanistic or impersonal force,
since the Big Bang created time, space and matter including all the forces that work on matter. Whatever triggered the Big Bang must therefore be beyond space, time and matter (the universe is the equivalent of my bomb analogy) and must have the capacity to begin a process. An impersonal force has no capacity to begin or to cease acting. It acts constantly and consistently.

Since scientists concede that the cosmic singularity that expanded in the Big Bang was stable for at least some of "time" prior to the Big Bang, anything that destablised it - something beyond space, time and matter - must have the capacity to begin a process. By definition a personal actor.

But, this is an hypothetical aside anyway since the premise is speculative. We are talking about "forces" acting in an "environment" in which there is no time, no space, and no matter.

Hello, CalvinsBulldog, nice to meet you.

Sorry to take this here from three pages ago, but I got to it from another thread. What I want to point out is simple: in this reasoning, you assume personal forces are somehow not mechanistic. In other words, you're using a physical/personal causation distinction. I don't think such a distinction exists. How is agency, i.e., personal causation, not mechanistic? Is this a silent appeal to free will?

[Paradigm]

It seems to me that a willingness to die for a cause is not proof that someone believes in the cause's propaganda campaign.

Is it unreasonable to propose that the Resurrection might have been a hoax that the disciples felt was worth dying for?

If Jesus and his posse were trying to rally Israel behind their new cultural paradigm, is it impossible that they might have employed deception for what they considered the "Greater Good?" Is it impossible that they would have considered this "Greater Good" worth dying for even though they were aware of their own deceptive tactics in bringing it about?

[Cathar1950]

It seems to me that a willingness to die for a cause is not proof that someone believes in the cause's propaganda campaign.

Is it unreasonable to propose that the Resurrection might have been a hoax that the disciples felt was worth dying for?

If Jesus and his posse were trying to rally Israel behind their new cultural paradigm, is it impossible that they might have employed deception for what they considered the "Greater Good?" Is it impossible that they would have considered this "Greater Good" worth dying for even though they were aware of their own deceptive tactics in bringing it about?

The greater good most likely had getting ride of Romans until after the first war and the destruction of the Temple, after that is was adjusting and Mark got wrote also open the way for the reintroduction of Paul and more Greek influences including Philo and the author of John.