[quote] Don't you think that the details in biblical texts (and we'll discount miracles and anything "supernatural" again) also include extraordinary claims? By your, sorry, Carl Sagan's hypothesis, the history presented by the bible also requires extraordinary evidence.
It's an odd thing about history and archaeology - a lack of evidence is as useful a tool as an abundance of it. I haven't wanted to discuss the evidence held within the texts themselves (Our prime source, and one which you've used on more than one occassion to argue your points) because it moves the discussion on to theological issues, and I wanted to try and remain grounded in available facts rather than ideals. I take it from your statement above that you'd rather not argue the more theological issues either? If you like, I'll cite evidence from biblical texts that make me believe it's highly fictitious, but I fear the thread will degenerate. I shall also not make mention of the early Christian church's approach to those who offered alternative views.
<hr></blockquote>
It's not that I am unwilling to discuss those issues, it just makes things a lot more complex. I'm trying to keep the focus fairly narrow at the moment. These posts are long enough as it is.
And I am well aware of the apparent contradictions of the various texts. Some of them can be harmonized, some of them cannot. I am far from a literalist - I try hard to be as objective as I can on the texts. I am also well aware of the Church's early history on doctrinal, ahem, "disagreements." There's not much you could tell me that would shock or even surprize me.
[quote] I've never once suggested that the New Testament was written by one individual at one point in history some time later. I've argued that we have no proof that individual texts were written by those to whom they are attributed, that various accounts held therein are apparently based on the same source material, that all available accounts are historical, and that with a very, very small exception which we'll discuss below all, those accounts are attributed to Christians and have been compiled by Christians. <hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. Let's see:
"Like I said, it's all about a sphere of knowledge. You aren't seriously using the possible existence of the Q document as a defense? There's no proof it ever existed, so it's hardly valid evidence.
Within our current knowledge, there is no evidence to confirm the events in the modern bible that dates prior to almost a century after those events supposedly took place. "
Every single one of the stories, all of which have been written some time after the events apparently occurred, are based on the same limited sources. "
"Um, not to be pedantic or anything, but was your source for Paul's letter the, uh, New Testament? We're looking for some evidence that doesn't come from Christian sources dated some years (centuries, millennia) after the events supposedly took place. "
I think you're suggesting very strongly here that the books of the NT were written (centuries, millennia) after the events supposedly took place.
I am curious as to your take on Biblical scholarship in general. You seem to think everyone in the field is a fool, as you pour nothing but contempt on all their work. They tend to see very strong evidence of the existence of the Q document - but I guess you know more than they do... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote] An interesting hypothesis, but your argument relies on there being a large Christian following very, very early in this history, and that said following had an impact which would draw both followers and doubters. Our supporting evidence comes from those same old biblical texts and the questionable sources below. It seems, given the available evidence, that rather than there being potentially "vociferous opponents" who were unquestioning, those who seem likely to have had an interest and recorded it (contemporary or near-history writers and historians) were completely unaware that Jesus ever existed: Plutarch, Apollonius, Judaeus, Dio, Justus, Seneca, Rufus... would you like me to name some more?<hr></blockquote>
So, let me get this straight - you're denying that there were any sizeable Christian communities anywhere before the second century? Do you have any data to back that up?
Let's examine your "Murderer's Row" of historians:
Plutarch: Was entirely consumed with Greek and Roman history, mostly hundreds of years old. I don't think a Jewish peasant priest would interest him.
Apollonius (of Tyana?): no written works survive. All information comes from Philostratus (early 3rd cen) - not a reliable contemporary witness by your definition.
Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria): A consummate Jew, more interested in Jewish doctrine than anything else. Disappears after 41 AD. Not likely to have known much about Jesus.
Dio: lived from 155 AD to 235 AD. He would be worse than Tacitus, from your perspective.
Justus (of Tiberias): No works survive. Only reference is in a 9th century work by Photius. We have no evidence that references to Jesus hadn't been excised by then. Photius says he doesn't mention Jesus, but doesn't seem too surprized about it. Quoting Photius, "He [Josephus] says also, that the history which this man wrote is, for the main, fabulous, and chiefly as to those parts where he describes the Roman war with the Jews, and the taking of Jerusalem."
Seneca: A playwright from Spain, lived in Rome. I'm stunned he doesn't mention Jesus. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
(Quintius Curtius) Rufus: lots of neat quotes, a good history of Alexander, not much else. Tacitus sure hated him.
So, please send me some more irrelevant names.
[quote] Re: Josephus
Is it not just as valid to say it deconstructs both? We're agreed that there is something distinctly odd about this passage, and yet you use it as evidence to support the validity of the later passage? Now I realize that this isn't a criminal trial, but you're using evidence that has clearly been tampered with to support another piece of evidence. You genuinely assign this account so much value?
And once again I question the value of data that can only be dated to source as late as the 4th century, when Eusebius quotes the 20 passage, some centuries after the events apparently took place, and Josephus' orginal text was written.
Incidentally, this is the same Eusebius who admits to suppressing all that would be a disgrace to Christianity.
<hr></blockquote>
All I can say to this is that you are setting yourself above the scholars again. The experts in the field have looked at these passages and agree that the bulk of it is genuine. If you can't accept that, well, I'm certainly not going to change your mind.
[quote] While I applaud you for pointing out some of the flaws in Tacitus' account of events, you miss out one intriguing point that I mentioned previously - that Tacitus' account is the only account of the burning of Rome that mentions Christians. The only account among many. The first subsequent account that mentions Christians is dated to the 4th century, and once again recorded from Serverus' texts by Eusebius. Even more interesting is the fact that subsequent accounts do not associate Christians with the burning of Rome, and given that it's reasonably likely those later historians would have read Tacitus' Annales, gives at least a very small suspicion that the reference to Christians wasn't in the original text.
<hr></blockquote>
As I added to the second post, Seutonius mentions the Christians, too. He was contemporary and friend of Tacitus, so they certainly would have discussed the matter at some point. Note that Seutonius and Tacitus both lived through the fire, by the way. Are suggesting that they are unreliable with regard to their own experiences? You demand eyewitness testimony about Jesus. Now you've got eyewitnesses to the Fire of Rome and you are doubting them, too. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[quote] Okay, here's one: How about if Bar Serapion's account wasn't about Jesus "the wise king" and the destruction of Jerusalem "their land", but events closer to the times of Socrates and Pythagoras when Nebuchadnezzar (a king) abolished the kingdom of the Jews, took them into slavery, and dispersed them across the lands surrounding Babylon? The fact that you "see no other conclusion" suggests to me that your accusations of my bias are unfair.
And quite how you can garner from this account that he may have "witnessed Him personally" is beyond my understanding.
<hr></blockquote>
So you're dodging my question - who would be a better target for "the Jewish king" as described by Bar Sarapion? Don't give me vague generalities.
And if you read what I actually wrote, I said that he was "seems to be the proper age to have witnessed Him personally" - not that he actually did. Only that he could have.
[quote]Not at all. It's not an accusation of lying, of an untruth, just that they're accepting as fact that which cannot be proven. Of course, by the same this same treatment of documents which you apply, many people assumed the world was flat for a long, long time.<hr></blockquote>
I hope you realize how silly this stance is. If we apply this standard to any other field of knowledge, we would know nothing about anything. I cannot "prove" Russia exists. I merely see evidence that is consistent with that hypothesis. It's possible (albeit exceptionally unlikely) that the rest of the world is pulling a scam on me (what was that Jim Carey movie of a few years back - a TV show about a guy living in a totally fabricated world?). Absolute certainty never exists.
And you are right - people accepted that the Earth was flat for a long time. But eventually they learned better, and don't any more. As it has been and will continue to be with ancient texts, Christian or not. Once we know they are not true (or how they are distorted), we move on to a better description. Again, you are holding Christian literature to a higher standard than is used by the experts in the field. You are assuming they are false until proven true. Anything that is not an original copy signed by the original author you assume has been tampered with. That is not the way an honest historian approaches these texts.
As I stated at the beginning of all this, I have played this game many times before. I have met you in many different places - different people, I assume, but same mind-set, with the same result. There is absolutely nothing that I or anybody else can say that is going to change your mind about anything. It doesn't matter how many references to anything I dig out, you will always demand more before you are "convinced."
<strong>Well, let's go back to what you've written, I'll note what it says to me:
I have a hard time swallowing that "any respectible scholar" would summarily dismiss Tacitus. Have you any evidence that the bulk of it is fabricated and thus of no value? And I am not being defensive - I'm being frustrated. You pretend you are an honest seeker, yet your mind is in fact completely closed.
I don't expect you to respond to any or all of this. It's just my reflections on the stuff you've written. Of course, you can't prove I exist, either, so none of it means anything anyway. My statements are not meant to be insulting - they're the honest expression of what I was thinking when I read what you wrote.
So I reiterate what I said earlier. You have shown repeatedly that you will not accept the validity of any evidence presented by anyone. My suspicion is that the problem is not with the evidence.
I apologize for the length of this. I've been waiting for a solvent to strip off a reaction and it's taking for-freaking-ever. So I've been killing time writing this. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> Is the longest post in the entire history of AppleInsider?
[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong> If he was a psychic medium, he should not need any input from his subjects. He shouldn't even have to ask questions. But every medium does this. The questions are asked because they are fishing for information and only "yes" or "no" are given because they are generic and are enough input to help the medium figure out what happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure that's actually true, but okay THT, I take your point. Clearly it is possible for a quick-witted and ununscrupulous medium to deceive some people through judicious questioning. But think of the effort required to do this over and over again, for years on end. And don't people vary in their gullibiity levels? Is it really credible to suggest that every single one of the thousands of people who must have been to see Anderson over the last 15-odd years have been credulous suckers waiting to be taken advantage of? If it was all BS, wouldn't someone have spoken out, especially given the fact that "We Don't Die" was apparently a national best-seller? Yes, there have been BS bestsellers, but in my experience there're always exposed sooner or later - I'm thinking about Graham Hancock's books on Atlantis and ancient. civilisations here. But that's not proof of anything of course, and certainly some mediums are fraudulent - no argument there. It is worth noting that the Anderson books describe sceptics attending for readings, people going along in disguise, giving false names, etc.
It's clear from your line-by-line analysis of the beginning of the first reading in the first chapter that you are absolutely convinced that it's all trickery and are interpreting every nuance from that point of view. But my assertion would still be that the evidence pressented across whole of the book(s) is strong enough to withstand that kind of scrutiny IF approached from an unbiased point of view (that's unbiased, not credulous, believing, etc). The reading with the Licatas is the first chapter is just an introduction and is not supposed to be the sum total of Anderson's readings, as you are suggesting. The specific details I was thinking of are found later in the book. (Hey, if I'd written the book I would have presented it differently). And by specific details, I dont' mean "person who has died - person related to you - young person - daughter - car crash" following acknowledgements from the subjects, as you are suggesting - I mean personal details, names, characteristic phrases and gestures, family secrets, etc. It's several months since I read the books, I'll have to dig out some specific references for you.
The book describes Anderson doing many readings during a radio show on the paranormal with anonymous radio listeners - thus depriving him of all visual clues and the assumption that all the subjects must have lost friends or relatives.
[quote] Later on in the reading, GA comes up with some interesting statements that I couldn't figure out. Perhaps seeing the reading in person would have made it easier to understand how he did it. <hr></blockquote>
So we're back to the 'no matter what evidence he presents, it must be fraud" stance .......
[quote]The data presented in the book wasn't to my satisfaction, so you understand my skepticism?<hr></blockquote>
Of course. I am in way attempting to suggest that skepticism isn't healthy and laudable, just trying to suggest that you have already made up your mind and you haven't read the book.
Of course, I don't really expect you to change your mind, just as I'm sure you're not expecting me to change my mind. But perhaps we can come to a position of mutual respect for each other's views
[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> Five pages! Grad school theological lectures! Academic debates on biblical history! Reams of earnest sermonising! Blood, sweat and tears! Is The Blue Meanie's most popular ever thread? Possibly
I have this thread set to 'email notification', and you should see my Entourage inbox - or rather, you shouldn't
[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> Is the longest post in the entire history of AppleInsider?
[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh. You ain't seen nothin' yet. I got into one of these one time with a guy who claimed Christianity was completely derived from Mithraism in the 2nd century. [Another who claimed to be an "honest seeker of truth" but in fact had a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Christianity agenda.] By the time we finally called it a draw and walked away, the posts had gotten upwards of 3,000 lines - the last one took me about 14 hours total to put together. Stay tuned...
[Edit: 30,000 lines was the first number that came into my mind as I was writing this. On reflection, that seems absurdly large. I think it was more than 3,000 lines, certainly. We got complaints from the lurkers . Anyway they ended up Humongously large posts by the end.]
Clearly it is possible for a quick-witted and ununscrupulous medium to deceive some people through judicious questioning. But think of the effort required to do this over and over again, for years on end.</strong>
The effort to do so is minimal. Especially in the psychic medium business where the stock and trade is just asking questions, not some psychic phenomena that is more materialistic. It's easy because people want to believe and it helps them get by or maybe it's just more fun for them.
<strong>And don't people vary in their gullibiity levels? Is it really credible to suggest that every single one of the thousands of people who must have been to see Anderson over the last 15-odd years have been credulous suckers waiting to be taken advantage of?</strong>
I wouldn't put it in the way you have stated it, but we, humanity, are gullible creatures. I've said it before, logical thought isn't an innate trait of human beings. Merely, the process of hearing sounds and interpreting meaning from them is. And that in of itself has to be learned over several years. The believability of the abstract concepts behind those sounds is a totally different matter.
The numbers games is also a little bit of specious argument to me. Consider two monotheistic religions, Islam and Christianity. Of the some 3+ billion followers of the two, at least half considers the other is wrong. In my case, it would all of them That a lot of people have gone to GA doesn't prove that he is genuine.
Btw, if people want to see him and pay for his services, that's their business and money. If they find it worth the money, then great for them.
<strong>If it was all BS, wouldn't someone have spoken out, especially given the fact that "We Don't Die" was apparently a national best-seller?</strong>
The "moon landing hoax" theory had a movie about it and recently a TV special on it. I know people who have been on the moon and met the people that got them there, yet there are plenty of people in the world that would rather believe it is a hoax. Maybe believing that it was a hoax is more fun.
In other words, someone can speak out on it, but it doesn't matter if people want, if not need, to believe in it. They will continue to do so in the face of reality.
<strong>It is worth noting that the Anderson books describe sceptics attending for readings, people going along in disguise, giving false names, etc.</strong>
The fact the "skeptics" were convinced doesn't convince me I want to see a controlled experiment. In such a setting, if other mediums are any sign, there will be a direct effect on the medium's hit rate with the amount of input given by the subject.
For instance I'd love to see GA's success with 1st generation American Asians, Indians, Nigerians, et al. 1st generation meaning they speak perfect American English. If he can come up with foreign language names, then it again would be very interesting. There is a relatively common profile amongst 1st generation Americans, so he'll even have a starting point to use.
<strong>But my assertion would still be that the evidence pressented across whole of the book(s) is strong enough to withstand that kind of scrutiny IF approached from an unbiased point of view (that's unbiased, not credulous, believing, etc).</strong>
My simple experiment would be to have the medium do the reading without any input. No replies of "yes" or "no". The subjects have to remove all jewelry, clean up, and change to some bland clothes. It's in the experiment, and no experiments were done from what I've read so far, just readings. I can be convinced if the phenomenon was proven through experimentation. Having a scientist or skeptic do a reading isn't experimentation.
<strong>It's several months since I read the books, I'll have to dig out some specific references for you. The book describes Anderson doing many readings during a radio show on the paranormal with anonymous radio listeners - thus depriving him of all visual clues and the assumption that all the subjects must have lost friends or relatives.</strong>
I await anxiously.
<strong>So we're back to the 'no matter what evidence he presents, it must be fraud" stance .......</strong>
You're a cynical writer, no? You're telling me that writing today - I won't even mention the media overall - is of such character that it presents information clearly and unbiased? In general it would be good for everyone in America to doubt the veracity of the stuff they read.
An experiment should have been done, the data presented, and if they really care, have it peer reviewed. It doesn't matter if I'm biased or if I'm a hardcore skeptic, as long as there is evidence and experimentation to prove ot, it becomes very tough to doubt it.
<strong>Of course. I am in way attempting to suggest that skepticism isn't healthy and laudable, just trying to suggest that you have already made up your mind and you haven't read the book.</strong>
I don't see him as any different from John Edward. The style of questioning is exactly the same. I was looking forward to some experimentation, but I didn't see any. Just seems like the same stuff over and over.
Btw, I have to be in the running for the largest post ever, and for largest average postings. I've had 5 page long debates with the Fluffy man himself and with the infamous PeterB.
You're now taking the approach NoahJ started on, then rejected - suggesting I'm in some way "uncomfortable" and have ulterior motives for being skeptical. Care to share what you feel my issue may be?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did I reject this? I still take that approach. You prove it again and again when you give differeing weight to different evidence for thigs that cannot be proven successfully through first hand knowledge. I take you once more to you assertion that you'd believe there are aliens before you believe there was Jesus. The evidence for Jesus is much stronger and yet you reject it. You do not believe that people make up evidence for aliens? Even sientists don't spin the facts to make their theories more plausible until they can come up with conclusive evidence? You have a reason for you total rejection that Jesus even existed. I cannot tell you what this is and for you to ask me to tell you is ludicrous as I do not know you well enough to give you your motives. But I do know that from what I have read there is something more to your rejection than the facts as they are laid out for you on all sides.
I don't see him as any different from John Edward. The style of questioning is exactly the same. I was looking forward to some experimentation, but I didn't see any. Just seems like the same stuff over and over.
Btw, I have to be in the running for the largest post ever, and for largest average postings. I've had 5 page long debates with the Fluffy man himself and with the infamous PeterB.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Okay, THT, The Blue Meanie is back with a slightly less blustery post and some actual references. No doubt you will retort that these are all trickery - I can't comment on that as I wasn't there at the time and there is naturally no indication of this in the book. All I'm really trying to do here is defend my intelligence and my original assertion that I found the books credible.
[quote] I was looking forward to some experimentation, but I didn't see any. <hr></blockquote>
What, in the first few pages? Is that really surprising?
Here we go with some relatively random examples ? I could have chosen many others:
1/ Ps. 59-64: Anderson gives a brief private reading to author Joel Martin, who as previously described, is an experienced debunker of fraudulent mediums. During this reading, Martin attempts to mislead the medium by responding inaccurately, but Anderson sticks to his guns. He identifies and names Martin?s grandfather, correctly states that he was a traditional Jew, correctly states that the grandfather was disappointed when Martin drifted away from Judaism in his teens, correctly describes the appearance of Martin?s first wife, correctly names her, correctly describes her death and the injuries that caused it, describes a characteristic hand gesture, and quotes a characteristic statement. Martin acknowledges that the medium was ?accurate about everything?.
2/ Ps. 104-106:9: Anderson is giving a group reading. One of the participants is sceptical to the point of hostility and challenges the medium to read him. Anderson responds by immediately naming the subjects aunt, correctly stating that she raised him, and describing a characteristic gesture. The man is flustered, but then regains his composure. He goads Anderson to reveal something deeply personal about him. Reluctantly, Anderson reveals that the man and his wife, who is present, are having severe marital problems. The wife is shocked and accuses the husband of revealing intimate secrets of their marriage. They leave in consternation.
3/ Ps. 142-145: During lunch with a friend of Martin?s, Anderson is overcome by a feeling that a close relative of the friend?s recently died tragically and experiences a vivid feeling of choking. The friend allows him to speak but does not provide corroborative statements. Anderson then correctly states that the friends? mother had recently hung herself a couple of days previously and correctly describes the personal circumstances behind this. Martin was unaware of the suicide.
4/ Ps. 107-110: A sceptical psychiatrist goes to see Anderson in disguise. He is dressed as a derelict but Anderson immediately states that he is a ?professional?, that he is ?not what he appears to be? and sees a vision of Sigmund Freund over the man?s head. The man congratulates Anderson on his accuracy but says he can?t appear on Anderson and Martin?s radio show to talk about the incident because his colleagues ?would never understand?.
5/ We Are Not Forgotten (sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), Ps. 303-309: Anderson undergoes a videotaped electroencephalogram test. His brain waves are monitored during two accurate readings of anonymous subjects, one a doctor dressed in disguise. Dramatic changes in Anderson?s brain wave patterns are observed during the readings. The supervising doctor describes the reading as ?abnormal? and acknowledges that ?something really is going on?.
6/ Our Children Forever (second sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), [b]Ps. 207-220: A professional tennis player and coach goes to Anderson for a reading after the death of his severely disabled daughter who he had raised as a lone parent. Before the reading, while still in his hotel room, the man asks his daughter?s spirit to use a code word during the reading to prove that is really her. The code word is Bozo, the man?s private nickname for her. Anderson gives an accurate reading. At one point, he perceives that a particular word is ?very important? to the man. After seeing visions of clowns, the word ?Bozo? is psychically spelled out to him.
BTW:- [quote] The effort to do so is minimal.<hr></blockquote>
Are you quite sure abou that? I'm sorry but I just don't think most people are that gullible....
[ 03-26-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-26-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-26-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-26-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
1/ Ps. 59-64: Anderson gives a brief private reading to author Joel Martin, who as previously described, is an experienced debunker of fraudulent mediums. ...
2/ Ps. 104-106:9: Anderson is giving a group reading. One of the participants is sceptical to the point of hostility and challenges the medium to read him. ...
3/ Ps. 142-145: During lunch with a friend of Martin?s, Anderson is overcome by a feeling that a close relative of the friend?s recently died tragically and experiences a vivid feeling of choking. ...
4/ Ps. 107-110: A sceptical psychiatrist goes to see Anderson in disguise. ...</strong>
I said: It's in the experiment, and no experiments were done from what I've read so far, just readings. I can be convinced if the phenomenon was proven through experimentation. Having a scientist or skeptic do a reading isn't experimentation. I don't consider any of the above experiments. They are readings. I said I read the first few pages. I also said I scanned the book for experiments. I did not find any.
I will look at your examples and read it for myself though.
<strong>5/ We Are Not Forgotten (sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), Ps. 303-309: Anderson undergoes a videotaped electroencephalogram test. ...
6/ Our Children Forever (second sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), [b]Ps. 207-220: A professional tennis player and coach goes to Anderson for a reading after the death of his severely disabled daughter who he had raised as a lone parent. ...</strong>
Interesting examples, yes, but I don't have the books. Maybe my local library will have them. There were only 4 copies of We Don't Die in circulation in the Houston Public Library system, so maybe they have them as well.
<strong>Are you quite sure abou that? I'm sorry but I just don't think most people are that gullible....</strong>
I'm quite sure that 99% of the people out there are that gullible, and that gullible for the entirety of their lives. If people want or need to believe in something, all it takes is just a tiny bit of positive reinforcement to make them believe and make them ignore all the evidence against it. The rest of the time, they are just too lazy to even bother with making sure the information they get is accurate.
I'm quite sure that 99% of the people out there are that gullible, and that gullible for the entirety of their lives. If people want or need to believe in something, all it takes is just a tiny bit of positive reinforcement to make them believe and make them ignore all the evidence against it. The rest of the time, they are just too lazy to even bother with making sure the information they get is accurate.<hr></blockquote>
One of the most harsh rebukes against any form of religion this side of Greenwich.
With respect to supernatural mind readers:
Any of these try to volunteer predicting my investment trust stocks? We would make a small fortune then? So far NONE of these people are renowned for a comfortable and luxurious lifestyle due to their superior knowledge, they rather tend to appear during their usual sessions in smaller and smaller towns and collecting smaller and smaller entrance fees. This does undermine their creditability a bit, no?
Well, so far none of these gifted people showed any sign of their supernatural powers in any ordinary lab. Magically their power were stripped off due to the "unbecoming", "un-spirited"
surrounding of a lab. I would not recommend to buy a life insurance from one of these people, would you ? Not even a bottle of milk.
I clearly remember the magical spoon bender ( a Swiss if I recollect correctly) who seemingly was able to bend metallic pieces by mental force alone holding it between two fingers( thus covering the pre-applied crack as was found months afterwards) . Only when put into a laboratory his powers failed him and subsequently was forced to admit and show evidence (trial evidence that is) of his former tricks. He performed on several TV shows with "truly approved witnesses" and "tested equipment" and got a real reputation based on those appearances.
In 1000 years people will be arguing over whether the Mormon's founder Smith ever really existed . . . and whether he did or not will not make Mormonism any truer as a religion... it is still wrong.
Christianity is most powerfull when it is expored outside of the facile phrase slinging of the religiously indoctinated. When seen in the phrase slinger's, bible quoter's eyes it becomes merely a belief system for the stubborn to feel secure with: as Keirkegaard would say real faith has nothing to do with systems or with 'security'.
I just can't help but think that if Islam were not so extreme against counter-belief (perhaps in a hundred years or so) it would result in endless threads just like this one, were the 'earnest' Muslims/Christians proudly try to piece together posts that more than anything just make themselves feel piouse and the "athiests' try the same, over and over, ad nauseum.
you will see what you can see: if you haven't the stumach to allow yourself the doubt that would inturn strengthen your understanding of faith then you will see only the truth of your little church group quotes.
mediocrity sees only mediocrity... the prodigal son et al.... anyway . . .
[QB]In 1000 years people will be arguing over whether the Mormon's founder Smith ever really existed . . . and whether he did or not will not make Mormonism any truer as a religion... it is still wrong.<hr></blockquote>
Ok, moving on
[quote]Christianity is most powerfull when it is expored outside of the facile phrase slinging of the religiously indoctinated. When seen in the phrase slinger's, bible quoter's eyes it becomes merely a belief system for the stubborn to feel secure with: as Keirkegaard would say real faith has nothing to do with systems or with 'security'.<hr></blockquote>
Expored? Exposed? What are you saying here? Are you saying that religious people only say what they have been told and do not truly believe or live out what they preach? If that is what you are sating then I would respond, there are those like that, yes. But not all Christians are that way, nor are all religious people ingeneral that way. If you are saying something else you will have to be a bit more clear and a bit less lofty in your wording. I am still trying to digest it properly.
[quote]I just can't help but think that if Islam were not so extreme against counter-belief (perhaps in a hundred years or so) it would result in endless threads just like this one, were the 'earnest' Muslims/Christians proudly try to piece together posts that more than anything just make themselves feel piouse and the "athiests' try the same, over and over, ad nauseum. <hr></blockquote>
Muslims/Christians? You don't see them as the same do you? The basis of their religious tenets are too different to be the same. And As far as just trying to appear "piouse", no thanks. I just call it like I see it, you don't have to agree. It does not make me a better person, and posting here helps me to better understand that which I already know anyhow. When you try to explain something to someone you learn it a lot better than if you just study it and never put it into practice.
[quote]you will see what you can see: if you haven't the stumach to allow yourself the doubt that would inturn strengthen your understanding of faith then you will see only the truth of your little church group quotes.
mediocrity sees only mediocrity... the prodigal son et al.... anyway . . .<hr></blockquote>
Once again not sure where you are going with this. There could be a couple things derived from what you have said but I will take the one I think you mean and you can correct me if I am wrong.
Your post seems to state that those posting here that are sticking to their beliefs are unwilling to expose themselves to other schools of thought for fear that they may change their minds and find out that they may not know the truth, or at least the complete truth as it exists. Right? You also appear to go on and say that if one were to stand firm in their beliefs that if you don't agree with them and feel they are incorrect they are merely mediocre. Did I misread?
And what about the prodigal son? Seemed a bit non-sequitor. I think I am more confused by what you meant than anything... If you meant what I think you do I disagree with most of what you said. If not, please clarify.
Christianity is most powerfull when it is expored outside of the facile phrase slinging of the religiously indoctinated. When seen in the phrase slinger's, bible quoter's eyes it becomes merely a belief system for the stubborn to feel secure with: </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote] Muslims/Christians? You don't see them as the same do you? The basis of their religious tenets are too different to be the same. <hr></blockquote>
Noah, ever read the Koran? You might find it strangely familiar - it's full of references to one God, angels, Adam and Eve, Lucifer, Abraham, Noah and the Great Flood, Jesus....I could go on....
One of the most harsh rebukes against any form of religion this side of Greenwich.
With respect to supernatural mind readers:
Any of these try to volunteer predicting my investment trust stocks? We would make a small fortune then? So far NONE of these people are renowned for a comfortable and luxurious lifestyle due to their superior knowledge, they rather tend to appear during their usual sessions in smaller and smaller towns and collecting smaller and smaller entrance fees. This does undermine their creditability a bit, no?
Well, so far none of these gifted people showed any sign of their supernatural powers in any ordinary lab. Magically their power were stripped off due to the "unbecoming", "un-spirited"
surrounding of a lab. I would not recommend to buy a life insurance from one of these people, would you ? Not even a bottle of milk.
I clearly remember the magical spoon bender ( a Swiss if I recollect correctly) who seemingly was able to bend metallic pieces by mental force alone holding it between two fingers( thus covering the pre-applied crack as was found months afterwards) . Only when put into a laboratory his powers failed him and subsequently was forced to admit and show evidence (trial evidence that is) of his former tricks. He performed on several TV shows with "truly approved witnesses" and "tested equipment" and got a real reputation based on those appearances.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some fair points there, Ms Matsuda. Of course there are fake psychics and fraudulent mediums, but that isn't proof that they're all fake, any more than - to take a random recent example from the UK news - one teacher caught having an affair with two of her pupils means that all teachers shag their students
I don't consider any of the above experiments. They are readings. I said I read the first few pages. I also said I scanned the book for experiments. I did not find any.
I will look at your examples and read it for myself though.
[qb]5/ We Are Not Forgotten (sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), Ps. 303-309: Anderson undergoes a videotaped electroencephalogram test. ...
6/ Our Children Forever (second sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), [b]Ps. 207-220: A professional tennis player and coach goes to Anderson for a reading after the death of his severely disabled daughter who he had raised as a lone parent. ...</strong>
Interesting examples, yes, but I don't have the books. Maybe my local library will have them. There were only 4 copies of We Don't Die in circulation in the Houston Public Library system, so maybe they have them as well.
<strong>Are you quite sure abou that? I'm sorry but I just don't think most people are that gullible....</strong>
I'm quite sure that 99% of the people out there are that gullible, and that gullible for the entirety of their lives. If people want or need to believe in something, all it takes is just a tiny bit of positive reinforcement to make them believe and make them ignore all the evidence against it. The rest of the time, they are just too lazy to even bother with making sure the information they get is accurate.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Number four is an experiment, surely? And number one also involved the author attempting to mislead Anderson. And all suggest that Anderson's powers might be genuine. But I understand your interest in laboratory tests - there are other experiments/ laboratory tests in the books - I just couldn't find th page numbers yesterday. The examples quoted were just ones I particularly remembered and which leapt out at me when I was scanning the books for examples to quote.
As for your second point, hmmm....well. In my more cynical and frustrated moments I might be tempted to agree with you, but really....99 per cent of your fellow human beings are so gullible that they can be conned over and over again by a few silver-tongued charlatans?
I was going to say that such a statement is more than a little arrogant, but then I remembered the advertising industry <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Noah, ever read the Koran? You might find it strangely familiar - it's full of references to one God, angels, Adam and Eve, Lucifer, Abraham, Noah and the Great Flood, Jesus....I could go on....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? They believe that Jesus is the Messiah? The Saviour? The only way to get to Heaven? That he died on the Cross to take away the sins of the world? That he rose again on the third day? That he sits at the right hand of God and intercedes on our behalf? THey believe all that? Because if they do then I am wrong. If they don't then they are NOT Christians as Christians have the whole Jesus was the messiah thing going on. Kinda a cornerstone and all.
Noah, ever read the Koran? You might find it strangely familiar - it's full of references to one God, angels, Adam and Eve, Lucifer, Abraham, Noah and the Great Flood, Jesus....I could go on....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to butt in, but think about it for a moment. Muslims claim Abraham (through Ishmael) as their spiritual father, just like Jews. The two faiths are linked. Muhammed came 2000 years after Abraham, though (7th century AD vs. 15th century BC). All of the current Jewish holy books were available then (except for some expansion to the Talmud), as well as all of our current New Testament. They accept Jesus as a great prophet (grossly underestimating him, IMHO). Since they claim the same spiritual roots, is it really that surprising that they would adopt many of the same motifs as Judaism and Christianity? The New Testament builds on themes from the Old. The Koran builds on both. Why is this a big deal?
<strong>In 1000 years people will be arguing over whether the Mormon's founder Smith ever really existed . . . and whether he did or not will not make Mormonism any truer as a religion... it is still wrong.
Christianity is most powerfull when it is expored outside of the facile phrase slinging of the religiously indoctinated. When seen in the phrase slinger's, bible quoter's eyes it becomes merely a belief system for the stubborn to feel secure with: as Keirkegaard would say real faith has nothing to do with systems or with 'security'.
I just can't help but think that if Islam were not so extreme against counter-belief (perhaps in a hundred years or so) it would result in endless threads just like this one, were the 'earnest' Muslims/Christians proudly try to piece together posts that more than anything just make themselves feel piouse and the "athiests' try the same, over and over, ad nauseum.
you will see what you can see: if you haven't the stumach to allow yourself the doubt that would inturn strengthen your understanding of faith then you will see only the truth of your little church group quotes.
mediocrity sees only mediocrity... the prodigal son et al.... anyway . . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm with NoahJ. This makes very little sense to me. As to the last paragraph, again I'm not sure what you're getting at. Doubt is one of the most powerful tools around for expanding faith. It is through chasing down that doubt, exploring it and finding what is behind it that we learn and grow spiritually.
Doubtless there are some who are terrified of doubting anything - probably because they were taught as children that doubting was bad. If that's the best they can do, then so be it. They certainly aren't representative of the whole - just convenient straw men for people looking for an excuse to ridicule faith. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Not to butt in, but think about it for a moment. Muslims claim Abraham (through Ishmael) as their spiritual father, just like Jews. The two faiths are linked. Muhammed came 2000 years after Abraham, though (7th century AD vs. 15th century BC). All of the current Jewish holy books were available then (except for some expansion to the Talmud), as well as all of our current New Testament. They accept Jesus as a great prophet (grossly underestimating him, IMHO). Since they claim the same spiritual roots, is it really that surprising that they would adopt many of the same motifs as Judaism and Christianity? The New Testament builds on themes from the Old. The Koran builds on both. Why is this a big deal?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He was trying to show me how I was wrong saying that Muslims and Christians are not the same. His argument: "Their books have the same stories in them." Not a valid stand as the underlying religion is largely different in beliefs and creed. (if you understood his stand then sorry, but hey you butted in. )
Comments
It's an odd thing about history and archaeology - a lack of evidence is as useful a tool as an abundance of it. I haven't wanted to discuss the evidence held within the texts themselves (Our prime source, and one which you've used on more than one occassion to argue your points) because it moves the discussion on to theological issues, and I wanted to try and remain grounded in available facts rather than ideals. I take it from your statement above that you'd rather not argue the more theological issues either? If you like, I'll cite evidence from biblical texts that make me believe it's highly fictitious, but I fear the thread will degenerate. I shall also not make mention of the early Christian church's approach to those who offered alternative views.
<hr></blockquote>
It's not that I am unwilling to discuss those issues, it just makes things a lot more complex. I'm trying to keep the focus fairly narrow at the moment. These posts are long enough as it is.
And I am well aware of the apparent contradictions of the various texts. Some of them can be harmonized, some of them cannot. I am far from a literalist - I try hard to be as objective as I can on the texts. I am also well aware of the Church's early history on doctrinal, ahem, "disagreements." There's not much you could tell me that would shock or even surprize me.
[quote] I've never once suggested that the New Testament was written by one individual at one point in history some time later. I've argued that we have no proof that individual texts were written by those to whom they are attributed, that various accounts held therein are apparently based on the same source material, that all available accounts are historical, and that with a very, very small exception which we'll discuss below all, those accounts are attributed to Christians and have been compiled by Christians. <hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. Let's see:
"Like I said, it's all about a sphere of knowledge. You aren't seriously using the possible existence of the Q document as a defense? There's no proof it ever existed, so it's hardly valid evidence.
Within our current knowledge, there is no evidence to confirm the events in the modern bible that dates prior to almost a century after those events supposedly took place. "
Every single one of the stories, all of which have been written some time after the events apparently occurred, are based on the same limited sources. "
"Um, not to be pedantic or anything, but was your source for Paul's letter the, uh, New Testament? We're looking for some evidence that doesn't come from Christian sources dated some years (centuries, millennia) after the events supposedly took place. "
I think you're suggesting very strongly here that the books of the NT were written (centuries, millennia) after the events supposedly took place.
I am curious as to your take on Biblical scholarship in general. You seem to think everyone in the field is a fool, as you pour nothing but contempt on all their work. They tend to see very strong evidence of the existence of the Q document - but I guess you know more than they do... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote] An interesting hypothesis, but your argument relies on there being a large Christian following very, very early in this history, and that said following had an impact which would draw both followers and doubters. Our supporting evidence comes from those same old biblical texts and the questionable sources below. It seems, given the available evidence, that rather than there being potentially "vociferous opponents" who were unquestioning, those who seem likely to have had an interest and recorded it (contemporary or near-history writers and historians) were completely unaware that Jesus ever existed: Plutarch, Apollonius, Judaeus, Dio, Justus, Seneca, Rufus... would you like me to name some more?<hr></blockquote>
So, let me get this straight - you're denying that there were any sizeable Christian communities anywhere before the second century? Do you have any data to back that up?
Let's examine your "Murderer's Row" of historians:
Plutarch: Was entirely consumed with Greek and Roman history, mostly hundreds of years old. I don't think a Jewish peasant priest would interest him.
Apollonius (of Tyana?): no written works survive. All information comes from Philostratus (early 3rd cen) - not a reliable contemporary witness by your definition.
Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria): A consummate Jew, more interested in Jewish doctrine than anything else. Disappears after 41 AD. Not likely to have known much about Jesus.
Dio: lived from 155 AD to 235 AD. He would be worse than Tacitus, from your perspective.
Justus (of Tiberias): No works survive. Only reference is in a 9th century work by Photius. We have no evidence that references to Jesus hadn't been excised by then. Photius says he doesn't mention Jesus, but doesn't seem too surprized about it. Quoting Photius, "He [Josephus] says also, that the history which this man wrote is, for the main, fabulous, and chiefly as to those parts where he describes the Roman war with the Jews, and the taking of Jerusalem."
Seneca: A playwright from Spain, lived in Rome. I'm stunned he doesn't mention Jesus. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
(Quintius Curtius) Rufus: lots of neat quotes, a good history of Alexander, not much else. Tacitus sure hated him.
So, please send me some more irrelevant names.
[quote] Re: Josephus
Is it not just as valid to say it deconstructs both? We're agreed that there is something distinctly odd about this passage, and yet you use it as evidence to support the validity of the later passage? Now I realize that this isn't a criminal trial, but you're using evidence that has clearly been tampered with to support another piece of evidence. You genuinely assign this account so much value?
And once again I question the value of data that can only be dated to source as late as the 4th century, when Eusebius quotes the 20 passage, some centuries after the events apparently took place, and Josephus' orginal text was written.
Incidentally, this is the same Eusebius who admits to suppressing all that would be a disgrace to Christianity.
<hr></blockquote>
All I can say to this is that you are setting yourself above the scholars again. The experts in the field have looked at these passages and agree that the bulk of it is genuine. If you can't accept that, well, I'm certainly not going to change your mind.
[quote] While I applaud you for pointing out some of the flaws in Tacitus' account of events, you miss out one intriguing point that I mentioned previously - that Tacitus' account is the only account of the burning of Rome that mentions Christians. The only account among many. The first subsequent account that mentions Christians is dated to the 4th century, and once again recorded from Serverus' texts by Eusebius. Even more interesting is the fact that subsequent accounts do not associate Christians with the burning of Rome, and given that it's reasonably likely those later historians would have read Tacitus' Annales, gives at least a very small suspicion that the reference to Christians wasn't in the original text.
<hr></blockquote>
As I added to the second post, Seutonius mentions the Christians, too. He was contemporary and friend of Tacitus, so they certainly would have discussed the matter at some point. Note that Seutonius and Tacitus both lived through the fire, by the way. Are suggesting that they are unreliable with regard to their own experiences? You demand eyewitness testimony about Jesus. Now you've got eyewitnesses to the Fire of Rome and you are doubting them, too. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[quote] Okay, here's one: How about if Bar Serapion's account wasn't about Jesus "the wise king" and the destruction of Jerusalem "their land", but events closer to the times of Socrates and Pythagoras when Nebuchadnezzar (a king) abolished the kingdom of the Jews, took them into slavery, and dispersed them across the lands surrounding Babylon? The fact that you "see no other conclusion" suggests to me that your accusations of my bias are unfair.
And quite how you can garner from this account that he may have "witnessed Him personally" is beyond my understanding.
<hr></blockquote>
So you're dodging my question - who would be a better target for "the Jewish king" as described by Bar Sarapion? Don't give me vague generalities.
And if you read what I actually wrote, I said that he was "seems to be the proper age to have witnessed Him personally" - not that he actually did. Only that he could have.
[quote]Not at all. It's not an accusation of lying, of an untruth, just that they're accepting as fact that which cannot be proven. Of course, by the same this same treatment of documents which you apply, many people assumed the world was flat for a long, long time.<hr></blockquote>
I hope you realize how silly this stance is. If we apply this standard to any other field of knowledge, we would know nothing about anything. I cannot "prove" Russia exists. I merely see evidence that is consistent with that hypothesis. It's possible (albeit exceptionally unlikely) that the rest of the world is pulling a scam on me (what was that Jim Carey movie of a few years back - a TV show about a guy living in a totally fabricated world?). Absolute certainty never exists.
And you are right - people accepted that the Earth was flat for a long time. But eventually they learned better, and don't any more. As it has been and will continue to be with ancient texts, Christian or not. Once we know they are not true (or how they are distorted), we move on to a better description. Again, you are holding Christian literature to a higher standard than is used by the experts in the field. You are assuming they are false until proven true. Anything that is not an original copy signed by the original author you assume has been tampered with. That is not the way an honest historian approaches these texts.
As I stated at the beginning of all this, I have played this game many times before. I have met you in many different places - different people, I assume, but same mind-set, with the same result. There is absolutely nothing that I or anybody else can say that is going to change your mind about anything. It doesn't matter how many references to anything I dig out, you will always demand more before you are "convinced."
<strong>Well, let's go back to what you've written, I'll note what it says to me:
I have a hard time swallowing that "any respectible scholar" would summarily dismiss Tacitus. Have you any evidence that the bulk of it is fabricated and thus of no value? And I am not being defensive - I'm being frustrated. You pretend you are an honest seeker, yet your mind is in fact completely closed.
I don't expect you to respond to any or all of this. It's just my reflections on the stuff you've written. Of course, you can't prove I exist, either, so none of it means anything anyway.
So I reiterate what I said earlier. You have shown repeatedly that you will not accept the validity of any evidence presented by anyone. My suspicion is that the problem is not with the evidence.
I apologize for the length of this. I've been waiting for a solvent to strip off a reaction and it's taking for-freaking-ever. So I've been killing time writing this. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> Is the longest post in the entire history of AppleInsider?
[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong> If he was a psychic medium, he should not need any input from his subjects. He shouldn't even have to ask questions. But every medium does this. The questions are asked because they are fishing for information and only "yes" or "no" are given because they are generic and are enough input to help the medium figure out what happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure that's actually true, but okay THT, I take your point. Clearly it is possible for a quick-witted and ununscrupulous medium to deceive some people through judicious questioning. But think of the effort required to do this over and over again, for years on end. And don't people vary in their gullibiity levels? Is it really credible to suggest that every single one of the thousands of people who must have been to see Anderson over the last 15-odd years have been credulous suckers waiting to be taken advantage of? If it was all BS, wouldn't someone have spoken out, especially given the fact that "We Don't Die" was apparently a national best-seller? Yes, there have been BS bestsellers, but in my experience there're always exposed sooner or later - I'm thinking about Graham Hancock's books on Atlantis and ancient. civilisations here. But that's not proof of anything of course, and certainly some mediums are fraudulent - no argument there. It is worth noting that the Anderson books describe sceptics attending for readings, people going along in disguise, giving false names, etc.
It's clear from your line-by-line analysis of the beginning of the first reading in the first chapter that you are absolutely convinced that it's all trickery and are interpreting every nuance from that point of view. But my assertion would still be that the evidence pressented across whole of the book(s) is strong enough to withstand that kind of scrutiny IF approached from an unbiased point of view (that's unbiased, not credulous, believing, etc). The reading with the Licatas is the first chapter is just an introduction and is not supposed to be the sum total of Anderson's readings, as you are suggesting. The specific details I was thinking of are found later in the book. (Hey, if I'd written the book I would have presented it differently). And by specific details, I dont' mean "person who has died - person related to you - young person - daughter - car crash" following acknowledgements from the subjects, as you are suggesting - I mean personal details, names, characteristic phrases and gestures, family secrets, etc. It's several months since I read the books, I'll have to dig out some specific references for you.
The book describes Anderson doing many readings during a radio show on the paranormal with anonymous radio listeners - thus depriving him of all visual clues and the assumption that all the subjects must have lost friends or relatives.
[quote] Later on in the reading, GA comes up with some interesting statements that I couldn't figure out. Perhaps seeing the reading in person would have made it easier to understand how he did it. <hr></blockquote>
So we're back to the 'no matter what evidence he presents, it must be fraud" stance .......
[quote]The data presented in the book wasn't to my satisfaction, so you understand my skepticism?<hr></blockquote>
Of course. I am in way attempting to suggest that skepticism isn't healthy and laudable, just trying to suggest that you have already made up your mind and you haven't read the book.
Of course, I don't really expect you to change your mind, just as I'm sure you're not expecting me to change my mind. But perhaps we can come to a position of mutual respect for each other's views
[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
I have this thread set to 'email notification', and you should see my Entourage inbox - or rather, you shouldn't
[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> Is the longest post in the entire history of AppleInsider?
[ 03-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh. You ain't seen nothin' yet. I got into one of these one time with a guy who claimed Christianity was completely derived from Mithraism in the 2nd century. [Another who claimed to be an "honest seeker of truth" but in fact had a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Christianity agenda.] By the time we finally called it a draw and walked away, the posts had gotten upwards of 3,000 lines - the last one took me about 14 hours total to put together. Stay tuned...
[Edit: 30,000 lines was the first number that came into my mind as I was writing this. On reflection, that seems absurdly large. I think it was more than 3,000 lines, certainly. We got complaints from the lurkers
[ 03-24-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
Clearly it is possible for a quick-witted and ununscrupulous medium to deceive some people through judicious questioning. But think of the effort required to do this over and over again, for years on end.</strong>
The effort to do so is minimal. Especially in the psychic medium business where the stock and trade is just asking questions, not some psychic phenomena that is more materialistic. It's easy because people want to believe and it helps them get by or maybe it's just more fun for them.
<strong>And don't people vary in their gullibiity levels? Is it really credible to suggest that every single one of the thousands of people who must have been to see Anderson over the last 15-odd years have been credulous suckers waiting to be taken advantage of?</strong>
I wouldn't put it in the way you have stated it, but we, humanity, are gullible creatures. I've said it before, logical thought isn't an innate trait of human beings. Merely, the process of hearing sounds and interpreting meaning from them is. And that in of itself has to be learned over several years. The believability of the abstract concepts behind those sounds is a totally different matter.
The numbers games is also a little bit of specious argument to me. Consider two monotheistic religions, Islam and Christianity. Of the some 3+ billion followers of the two, at least half considers the other is wrong. In my case, it would all of them
Btw, if people want to see him and pay for his services, that's their business and money. If they find it worth the money, then great for them.
<strong>If it was all BS, wouldn't someone have spoken out, especially given the fact that "We Don't Die" was apparently a national best-seller?</strong>
The "moon landing hoax" theory had a movie about it and recently a TV special on it. I know people who have been on the moon and met the people that got them there, yet there are plenty of people in the world that would rather believe it is a hoax. Maybe believing that it was a hoax is more fun.
In other words, someone can speak out on it, but it doesn't matter if people want, if not need, to believe in it. They will continue to do so in the face of reality.
<strong>It is worth noting that the Anderson books describe sceptics attending for readings, people going along in disguise, giving false names, etc.</strong>
The fact the "skeptics" were convinced doesn't convince me
For instance I'd love to see GA's success with 1st generation American Asians, Indians, Nigerians, et al. 1st generation meaning they speak perfect American English. If he can come up with foreign language names, then it again would be very interesting. There is a relatively common profile amongst 1st generation Americans, so he'll even have a starting point to use.
<strong>But my assertion would still be that the evidence pressented across whole of the book(s) is strong enough to withstand that kind of scrutiny IF approached from an unbiased point of view (that's unbiased, not credulous, believing, etc).</strong>
My simple experiment would be to have the medium do the reading without any input. No replies of "yes" or "no". The subjects have to remove all jewelry, clean up, and change to some bland clothes. It's in the experiment, and no experiments were done from what I've read so far, just readings. I can be convinced if the phenomenon was proven through experimentation. Having a scientist or skeptic do a reading isn't experimentation.
<strong>It's several months since I read the books, I'll have to dig out some specific references for you. The book describes Anderson doing many readings during a radio show on the paranormal with anonymous radio listeners - thus depriving him of all visual clues and the assumption that all the subjects must have lost friends or relatives.</strong>
I await anxiously.
<strong>So we're back to the 'no matter what evidence he presents, it must be fraud" stance .......</strong>
You're a cynical writer, no? You're telling me that writing today - I won't even mention the media overall - is of such character that it presents information clearly and unbiased? In general it would be good for everyone in America to doubt the veracity of the stuff they read.
An experiment should have been done, the data presented, and if they really care, have it peer reviewed. It doesn't matter if I'm biased or if I'm a hardcore skeptic, as long as there is evidence and experimentation to prove ot, it becomes very tough to doubt it.
<strong>Of course. I am in way attempting to suggest that skepticism isn't healthy and laudable, just trying to suggest that you have already made up your mind and you haven't read the book.</strong>
I don't see him as any different from John Edward. The style of questioning is exactly the same. I was looking forward to some experimentation, but I didn't see any. Just seems like the same stuff over and over.
Btw, I have to be in the running for the largest post ever, and for largest average postings. I've had 5 page long debates with the Fluffy man himself and with the infamous PeterB.
<strong>
You're now taking the approach NoahJ started on, then rejected - suggesting I'm in some way "uncomfortable" and have ulterior motives for being skeptical. Care to share what you feel my issue may be?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
When did I reject this? I still take that approach. You prove it again and again when you give differeing weight to different evidence for thigs that cannot be proven successfully through first hand knowledge. I take you once more to you assertion that you'd believe there are aliens before you believe there was Jesus. The evidence for Jesus is much stronger and yet you reject it. You do not believe that people make up evidence for aliens? Even sientists don't spin the facts to make their theories more plausible until they can come up with conclusive evidence? You have a reason for you total rejection that Jesus even existed. I cannot tell you what this is and for you to ask me to tell you is ludicrous as I do not know you well enough to give you your motives. But I do know that from what I have read there is something more to your rejection than the facts as they are laid out for you on all sides.
I don't see him as any different from John Edward. The style of questioning is exactly the same. I was looking forward to some experimentation, but I didn't see any. Just seems like the same stuff over and over.
Btw, I have to be in the running for the largest post ever, and for largest average postings. I've had 5 page long debates with the Fluffy man himself and with the infamous PeterB.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Okay, THT, The Blue Meanie is back with a slightly less blustery post and some actual references.
[quote] I was looking forward to some experimentation, but I didn't see any. <hr></blockquote>
What, in the first few pages? Is that really surprising?
Here we go with some relatively random examples ? I could have chosen many others:
1/ Ps. 59-64: Anderson gives a brief private reading to author Joel Martin, who as previously described, is an experienced debunker of fraudulent mediums. During this reading, Martin attempts to mislead the medium by responding inaccurately, but Anderson sticks to his guns. He identifies and names Martin?s grandfather, correctly states that he was a traditional Jew, correctly states that the grandfather was disappointed when Martin drifted away from Judaism in his teens, correctly describes the appearance of Martin?s first wife, correctly names her, correctly describes her death and the injuries that caused it, describes a characteristic hand gesture, and quotes a characteristic statement. Martin acknowledges that the medium was ?accurate about everything?.
2/ Ps. 104-106:9: Anderson is giving a group reading. One of the participants is sceptical to the point of hostility and challenges the medium to read him. Anderson responds by immediately naming the subjects aunt, correctly stating that she raised him, and describing a characteristic gesture. The man is flustered, but then regains his composure. He goads Anderson to reveal something deeply personal about him. Reluctantly, Anderson reveals that the man and his wife, who is present, are having severe marital problems. The wife is shocked and accuses the husband of revealing intimate secrets of their marriage. They leave in consternation.
3/ Ps. 142-145: During lunch with a friend of Martin?s, Anderson is overcome by a feeling that a close relative of the friend?s recently died tragically and experiences a vivid feeling of choking. The friend allows him to speak but does not provide corroborative statements. Anderson then correctly states that the friends? mother had recently hung herself a couple of days previously and correctly describes the personal circumstances behind this. Martin was unaware of the suicide.
4/ Ps. 107-110: A sceptical psychiatrist goes to see Anderson in disguise. He is dressed as a derelict but Anderson immediately states that he is a ?professional?, that he is ?not what he appears to be? and sees a vision of Sigmund Freund over the man?s head. The man congratulates Anderson on his accuracy but says he can?t appear on Anderson and Martin?s radio show to talk about the incident because his colleagues ?would never understand?.
5/ We Are Not Forgotten (sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), Ps. 303-309: Anderson undergoes a videotaped electroencephalogram test. His brain waves are monitored during two accurate readings of anonymous subjects, one a doctor dressed in disguise. Dramatic changes in Anderson?s brain wave patterns are observed during the readings. The supervising doctor describes the reading as ?abnormal? and acknowledges that ?something really is going on?.
6/ Our Children Forever (second sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), [b]Ps. 207-220: A professional tennis player and coach goes to Anderson for a reading after the death of his severely disabled daughter who he had raised as a lone parent. Before the reading, while still in his hotel room, the man asks his daughter?s spirit to use a code word during the reading to prove that is really her. The code word is Bozo, the man?s private nickname for her. Anderson gives an accurate reading. At one point, he perceives that a particular word is ?very important? to the man. After seeing visions of clowns, the word ?Bozo? is psychically spelled out to him.
BTW:- [quote] The effort to do so is minimal.<hr></blockquote>
Are you quite sure abou that? I'm sorry but I just don't think most people are that gullible....
[ 03-26-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-26-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-26-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-26-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
1/ Ps. 59-64: Anderson gives a brief private reading to author Joel Martin, who as previously described, is an experienced debunker of fraudulent mediums. ...
2/ Ps. 104-106:9: Anderson is giving a group reading. One of the participants is sceptical to the point of hostility and challenges the medium to read him. ...
3/ Ps. 142-145: During lunch with a friend of Martin?s, Anderson is overcome by a feeling that a close relative of the friend?s recently died tragically and experiences a vivid feeling of choking. ...
4/ Ps. 107-110: A sceptical psychiatrist goes to see Anderson in disguise. ...</strong>
I said: It's in the experiment, and no experiments were done from what I've read so far, just readings. I can be convinced if the phenomenon was proven through experimentation. Having a scientist or skeptic do a reading isn't experimentation. I don't consider any of the above experiments. They are readings. I said I read the first few pages. I also said I scanned the book for experiments. I did not find any.
I will look at your examples and read it for myself though.
<strong>5/ We Are Not Forgotten (sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), Ps. 303-309: Anderson undergoes a videotaped electroencephalogram test. ...
6/ Our Children Forever (second sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), [b]Ps. 207-220: A professional tennis player and coach goes to Anderson for a reading after the death of his severely disabled daughter who he had raised as a lone parent. ...</strong>
Interesting examples, yes, but I don't have the books. Maybe my local library will have them. There were only 4 copies of We Don't Die in circulation in the Houston Public Library system, so maybe they have them as well.
<strong>Are you quite sure abou that? I'm sorry but I just don't think most people are that gullible....</strong>
I'm quite sure that 99% of the people out there are that gullible, and that gullible for the entirety of their lives. If people want or need to believe in something, all it takes is just a tiny bit of positive reinforcement to make them believe and make them ignore all the evidence against it. The rest of the time, they are just too lazy to even bother with making sure the information they get is accurate.
I'm quite sure that 99% of the people out there are that gullible, and that gullible for the entirety of their lives. If people want or need to believe in something, all it takes is just a tiny bit of positive reinforcement to make them believe and make them ignore all the evidence against it. The rest of the time, they are just too lazy to even bother with making sure the information they get is accurate.<hr></blockquote>
One of the most harsh rebukes against any form of religion this side of Greenwich.
With respect to supernatural mind readers:
Any of these try to volunteer predicting my investment trust stocks? We would make a small fortune then? So far NONE of these people are renowned for a comfortable and luxurious lifestyle due to their superior knowledge, they rather tend to appear during their usual sessions in smaller and smaller towns and collecting smaller and smaller entrance fees. This does undermine their creditability a bit, no?
Well, so far none of these gifted people showed any sign of their supernatural powers in any ordinary lab. Magically their power were stripped off due to the "unbecoming", "un-spirited"
surrounding of a lab. I would not recommend to buy a life insurance from one of these people, would you ? Not even a bottle of milk.
I clearly remember the magical spoon bender ( a Swiss if I recollect correctly) who seemingly was able to bend metallic pieces by mental force alone holding it between two fingers( thus covering the pre-applied crack as was found months afterwards) . Only when put into a laboratory his powers failed him and subsequently was forced to admit and show evidence (trial evidence that is) of his former tricks. He performed on several TV shows with "truly approved witnesses" and "tested equipment" and got a real reputation based on those appearances.
Christianity is most powerfull when it is expored outside of the facile phrase slinging of the religiously indoctinated. When seen in the phrase slinger's, bible quoter's eyes it becomes merely a belief system for the stubborn to feel secure with: as Keirkegaard would say real faith has nothing to do with systems or with 'security'.
I just can't help but think that if Islam were not so extreme against counter-belief (perhaps in a hundred years or so) it would result in endless threads just like this one, were the 'earnest' Muslims/Christians proudly try to piece together posts that more than anything just make themselves feel piouse and the "athiests' try the same, over and over, ad nauseum.
you will see what you can see: if you haven't the stumach to allow yourself the doubt that would inturn strengthen your understanding of faith then you will see only the truth of your little church group quotes.
mediocrity sees only mediocrity... the prodigal son et al.... anyway . . .
[QB]In 1000 years people will be arguing over whether the Mormon's founder Smith ever really existed . . . and whether he did or not will not make Mormonism any truer as a religion... it is still wrong.<hr></blockquote>
Ok, moving on
[quote]Christianity is most powerfull when it is expored outside of the facile phrase slinging of the religiously indoctinated. When seen in the phrase slinger's, bible quoter's eyes it becomes merely a belief system for the stubborn to feel secure with: as Keirkegaard would say real faith has nothing to do with systems or with 'security'.<hr></blockquote>
Expored? Exposed? What are you saying here? Are you saying that religious people only say what they have been told and do not truly believe or live out what they preach? If that is what you are sating then I would respond, there are those like that, yes. But not all Christians are that way, nor are all religious people ingeneral that way. If you are saying something else you will have to be a bit more clear and a bit less lofty in your wording. I am still trying to digest it properly.
[quote]I just can't help but think that if Islam were not so extreme against counter-belief (perhaps in a hundred years or so) it would result in endless threads just like this one, were the 'earnest' Muslims/Christians proudly try to piece together posts that more than anything just make themselves feel piouse and the "athiests' try the same, over and over, ad nauseum. <hr></blockquote>
Muslims/Christians? You don't see them as the same do you? The basis of their religious tenets are too different to be the same. And As far as just trying to appear "piouse", no thanks. I just call it like I see it, you don't have to agree. It does not make me a better person, and posting here helps me to better understand that which I already know anyhow. When you try to explain something to someone you learn it a lot better than if you just study it and never put it into practice.
[quote]you will see what you can see: if you haven't the stumach to allow yourself the doubt that would inturn strengthen your understanding of faith then you will see only the truth of your little church group quotes.
mediocrity sees only mediocrity... the prodigal son et al.... anyway . . .<hr></blockquote>
Once again not sure where you are going with this. There could be a couple things derived from what you have said but I will take the one I think you mean and you can correct me if I am wrong.
Your post seems to state that those posting here that are sticking to their beliefs are unwilling to expose themselves to other schools of thought for fear that they may change their minds and find out that they may not know the truth, or at least the complete truth as it exists. Right? You also appear to go on and say that if one were to stand firm in their beliefs that if you don't agree with them and feel they are incorrect they are merely mediocre. Did I misread?
And what about the prodigal son? Seemed a bit non-sequitor. I think I am more confused by what you meant than anything... If you meant what I think you do I disagree with most of what you said. If not, please clarify.
<strong>
Christianity is most powerfull when it is expored outside of the facile phrase slinging of the religiously indoctinated. When seen in the phrase slinger's, bible quoter's eyes it becomes merely a belief system for the stubborn to feel secure with: </strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly!
Noah, ever read the Koran? You might find it strangely familiar - it's full of references to one God, angels, Adam and Eve, Lucifer, Abraham, Noah and the Great Flood, Jesus....I could go on....
<strong>Quote:
One of the most harsh rebukes against any form of religion this side of Greenwich.
With respect to supernatural mind readers:
Any of these try to volunteer predicting my investment trust stocks? We would make a small fortune then? So far NONE of these people are renowned for a comfortable and luxurious lifestyle due to their superior knowledge, they rather tend to appear during their usual sessions in smaller and smaller towns and collecting smaller and smaller entrance fees. This does undermine their creditability a bit, no?
Well, so far none of these gifted people showed any sign of their supernatural powers in any ordinary lab. Magically their power were stripped off due to the "unbecoming", "un-spirited"
surrounding of a lab. I would not recommend to buy a life insurance from one of these people, would you ? Not even a bottle of milk.
I clearly remember the magical spoon bender ( a Swiss if I recollect correctly) who seemingly was able to bend metallic pieces by mental force alone holding it between two fingers( thus covering the pre-applied crack as was found months afterwards) . Only when put into a laboratory his powers failed him and subsequently was forced to admit and show evidence (trial evidence that is) of his former tricks. He performed on several TV shows with "truly approved witnesses" and "tested equipment" and got a real reputation based on those appearances.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some fair points there, Ms Matsuda. Of course there are fake psychics and fraudulent mediums, but that isn't proof that they're all fake, any more than - to take a random recent example from the UK news - one teacher caught having an affair with two of her pupils means that all teachers shag their students
<strong>[qb]
I don't consider any of the above experiments. They are readings. I said I read the first few pages. I also said I scanned the book for experiments. I did not find any.
I will look at your examples and read it for myself though.
[qb]5/ We Are Not Forgotten (sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), Ps. 303-309: Anderson undergoes a videotaped electroencephalogram test. ...
6/ Our Children Forever (second sequel to ?We Don?t Die?), [b]Ps. 207-220: A professional tennis player and coach goes to Anderson for a reading after the death of his severely disabled daughter who he had raised as a lone parent. ...</strong>
Interesting examples, yes, but I don't have the books. Maybe my local library will have them. There were only 4 copies of We Don't Die in circulation in the Houston Public Library system, so maybe they have them as well.
<strong>Are you quite sure abou that? I'm sorry but I just don't think most people are that gullible....</strong>
I'm quite sure that 99% of the people out there are that gullible, and that gullible for the entirety of their lives. If people want or need to believe in something, all it takes is just a tiny bit of positive reinforcement to make them believe and make them ignore all the evidence against it. The rest of the time, they are just too lazy to even bother with making sure the information they get is accurate.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Number four is an experiment, surely? And number one also involved the author attempting to mislead Anderson. And all suggest that Anderson's powers might be genuine. But I understand your interest in laboratory tests - there are other experiments/ laboratory tests in the books - I just couldn't find th page numbers yesterday. The examples quoted were just ones I particularly remembered and which leapt out at me when I was scanning the books for examples to quote.
As for your second point, hmmm....well. In my more cynical and frustrated moments I might be tempted to agree with you, but really....99 per cent of your fellow human beings are so gullible that they can be conned over and over again by a few silver-tongued charlatans?
I was going to say that such a statement is more than a little arrogant, but then I remembered the advertising industry <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-27-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>
Noah, ever read the Koran? You might find it strangely familiar - it's full of references to one God, angels, Adam and Eve, Lucifer, Abraham, Noah and the Great Flood, Jesus....I could go on....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? They believe that Jesus is the Messiah? The Saviour? The only way to get to Heaven? That he died on the Cross to take away the sins of the world? That he rose again on the third day? That he sits at the right hand of God and intercedes on our behalf? THey believe all that? Because if they do then I am wrong. If they don't then they are NOT Christians as Christians have the whole Jesus was the messiah thing going on. Kinda a cornerstone and all.
<strong>
Noah, ever read the Koran? You might find it strangely familiar - it's full of references to one God, angels, Adam and Eve, Lucifer, Abraham, Noah and the Great Flood, Jesus....I could go on....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to butt in, but think about it for a moment. Muslims claim Abraham (through Ishmael) as their spiritual father, just like Jews. The two faiths are linked. Muhammed came 2000 years after Abraham, though (7th century AD vs. 15th century BC). All of the current Jewish holy books were available then (except for some expansion to the Talmud), as well as all of our current New Testament. They accept Jesus as a great prophet (grossly underestimating him, IMHO). Since they claim the same spiritual roots, is it really that surprising that they would adopt many of the same motifs as Judaism and Christianity? The New Testament builds on themes from the Old. The Koran builds on both. Why is this a big deal?
<strong>In 1000 years people will be arguing over whether the Mormon's founder Smith ever really existed . . . and whether he did or not will not make Mormonism any truer as a religion... it is still wrong.
Christianity is most powerfull when it is expored outside of the facile phrase slinging of the religiously indoctinated. When seen in the phrase slinger's, bible quoter's eyes it becomes merely a belief system for the stubborn to feel secure with: as Keirkegaard would say real faith has nothing to do with systems or with 'security'.
I just can't help but think that if Islam were not so extreme against counter-belief (perhaps in a hundred years or so) it would result in endless threads just like this one, were the 'earnest' Muslims/Christians proudly try to piece together posts that more than anything just make themselves feel piouse and the "athiests' try the same, over and over, ad nauseum.
you will see what you can see: if you haven't the stumach to allow yourself the doubt that would inturn strengthen your understanding of faith then you will see only the truth of your little church group quotes.
mediocrity sees only mediocrity... the prodigal son et al.... anyway . . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm with NoahJ. This makes very little sense to me. As to the last paragraph, again I'm not sure what you're getting at. Doubt is one of the most powerful tools around for expanding faith. It is through chasing down that doubt, exploring it and finding what is behind it that we learn and grow spiritually.
Doubtless there are some who are terrified of doubting anything - probably because they were taught as children that doubting was bad. If that's the best they can do, then so be it. They certainly aren't representative of the whole - just convenient straw men for people looking for an excuse to ridicule faith. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
Not to butt in, but think about it for a moment. Muslims claim Abraham (through Ishmael) as their spiritual father, just like Jews. The two faiths are linked. Muhammed came 2000 years after Abraham, though (7th century AD vs. 15th century BC). All of the current Jewish holy books were available then (except for some expansion to the Talmud), as well as all of our current New Testament. They accept Jesus as a great prophet (grossly underestimating him, IMHO). Since they claim the same spiritual roots, is it really that surprising that they would adopt many of the same motifs as Judaism and Christianity? The New Testament builds on themes from the Old. The Koran builds on both. Why is this a big deal?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He was trying to show me how I was wrong saying that Muslims and Christians are not the same. His argument: "Their books have the same stories in them." Not a valid stand as the underlying religion is largely different in beliefs and creed. (if you understood his stand then sorry, but hey you butted in.