You don't see exactly what psychotropic drugs can do to a person. Even Lindosaurus came in here and stated pretty much what I stated and you merely brushed it aside.BumFluff122

I didn't. In fact I agreed with you by saying "Yes" in an earlier post. I don't disagree with you on what you said the effects of the drugs can be.

I've given evidence. During the time of the Egyptians and the Romans when they befriended the Egyptians and quite a bit of the Egypt was under Roman control Opium was used quite a lot durign this time. BumFluff122

Here's what I said.

For this to be of any relevance to this argument, you must demonstrate

1. They were being used by people around 30 AD in Israel.

2. Good reasons to suspect Jesus' first followers (now considering what you said below, they were not priests, warriors, or noblemen) of using them.MatrixSamurai27

You asked for a Cliffsnotes version of that video someone posted a while back in rebuttal to this argument. Here is one:

1. It is a psychological fact that people who dedicate their lives to strong religious beliefs will do anything to keep them intact, even going so far as to absolutely deny that any disappointment had occurred or that anything had not progressed as prophecized.GabuEx

Oops forgot you. The problem is that psychology as a science got up and running around the 20th century. It could analyze people with religious beliefs, but religious people with firsthand knowledge of whether those beliefs are actually true? Would like to see that. Anyway, I don't see how this can be used as evidence to say, "Yeah, people will die for something they know to be a lie."

2. There is very little, if any, evidence available that allow us to conclude that the apostles actually were martyred, and there is evidence for some of them that they died natural deaths.GabuEx

Well let's see their reasons for dismissing the evidence. Anyway, I don't really need all 11 dying martyrs' deaths. A few will do.

If you want to dispute these claims, I encourage you to watch the video series. It is really quite impossible to summarize properly, as it examines every single apostle's purported death and also examines people who are notably absent from most lists of such apostles.GabuEx

Perhaps I could watch it and start another thread to give an in-depth refutation, but there isn't time for me to do so right now.

You stating matter-of-factly that it definately can not be the result of 'hallucinations' as you say doesn't take into account the many other aspects that could have taken place. Such as being persuaded or manipulated to believe in certain things when they are under the effects of the drugs.BumFluff122

It would be nice if you take into account my response when you typed this. You're just repeating youself. Where's the evidence to make me think this occured? I thought atheists didn't take things on faith? You make it look they will make a faith commitment to the first thing that will make it easy to disbelieve.

Not to mention who really knows the general mental state of those people at the timeLindsosaurus

Social science research reveals a lot and makes way for a whole another line of evidence for the resurrection.

So you think that a man was resurrected from the grave after death and you see this as 'probable' even though no man in history has done that since.BumFluff122

I wasn't saying it was probable considering all history, but considering the specifics of the historical situation.

You are attributing it to unknown supernaturalism. The cause of this apparent resurrection of a man is a supernatural beign that is claimed to exist beyond space and time.BumFluff122

Show me where I attributed his resurrection to anything. Attributing his resurrection to Yahweh is another argument.

It is rather easy for someoen to manipulate others into believing certain things if they are high on psychotropic drugs.BumFluff122

Yes, but...

Why dont you introduce me to this scholarship?Free_Marxet

This link lays out the sources quite well.

Too much of the bible is inconsistent (adam and eves story about having two children, both being boys and somehow giving birth to humanity) and just flat out wrong (noahs ark, which can be scientifically disproven) The bible is shady and is about as factual as a superman comic book.Free_Marxet

*yawn* So do you have any reason for me to think the author of Genesis was giving a comprehensive history of humanity instead of a selective one? Glad you showed you think the ancients were so idiotic as to not realize that humanity couldn't have possibly came from a couple with two kids. Also, got any reason to show that Genesis mandates that the flood be global? Anyway, none of this matters when it comes to analyzing the evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

And frankly, the apostle statement was laughable at best considering if 12 people said they saw a flying spaghetti monster and put it in a book you would say its nonsense. Logically, you must say the same about jesus.Free_Marxet

Throwing out incredulity isn't an argument. Also, you obviously can't even tell the difference between the two situations.

However it is a possibility. Anyone who discounts this possibility is speaking from a very close minded stance. Evidence for both cultural and medicinal use of psychotropic drugs goes back 10,000 years. Opium production is well known to have been continued from it's Mesopotamian origin to Egypt and on to the Roman empire.BumFluff122

Like I said, however, you must show that it was possible and probable for both points I stated, not just the ancient world in general. Holding onto the fact that it may have been possible is just grasping at straws to not concede to the point that they claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, and it wasn't possible for this to have been the result of hallucinations.

There were plenty of people wandering around claiming to be messiahs back then.Free_Marxet

This fact is relevant how in disproving Christianity? The NT itself acknowledges there were others.

I dont htink I have any burden of proof. The only source for jesus's existence was the bible, and its a horrible source.Free_Marxet

If you were familar with the scholarship at all, you would know this is not the case. Burden of proof is still on you. Also on you for showing why the Bible is a horrible source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmpiricalFree_Marxet

Well the Apostles and saw (observed) the risen Jesus, so Christianity is based on empirical evidence.

Supernatural, meaning non-natural or unable to be proven through natural methods.BumFluff122

So you're saying that seeing the Risen Jesus walking around isn't enough to prove he actually did? If you think you can't prove supernatural events can't be proven through observation, then the whole debate is pointless.

One of the things that drive people to believe in false supernaturalism is psychotropic drugs, which were much used back in those days. And they were often used in religious rituals. Do I have any proof that they did these drugs? No.BumFluff122

Then this idea can't be used to overturn my argument.

I have about as much proof that they did these drugs as you do for the resurrection of Jesus.BumFluff122

The problem is that, I, unlike you, am not arguing for possibility, but probability. You're comparison fails.

You sure ask a lot of questions and proofs for someoen who is a theist. I find that kind of odd.BumFluff122

It shouldn't be. The NT tells Christians to test all things as well as commending people for not immediately believing the Gospel when they were told it by the person who wrote half the NT.

The Muslims who flew the planes into the buildings are a bad example. Many people die for their beliefs. It doesn't matter what those beliefs are, whether they are religiosu or not, many people die for them. Some of these beliefs, both reliqious and non-religious, occasionally have supernatural aspects attributed to them.BumFluff122

This is the last time I will state this. What I am saying is that UNLIKE all these other people that died believing their religion was true, the Apostles died believing it was true and having first hand knowledge of it's truthfulness. In other words, if it was a lie, they would know. The people you talk about merely believe in their religion's truthfulness and have no first hand knowledge of its truthfulness.

You need to leave the group if that isn't your worldview anymore. Although, I must say becoming an atheist won't solve your religious problems. Better to investigate Christianity.

Also, I don't know how much you know about social science, but from what you told me your family seems to have more of honor/shame and collectivisit mindset, which is unlike the individualist and guilt-culture of the Western world (neither is better than the other). This is probably why your father would say you leaving the group would be worst than death for the family. It would bring shame on your family (collectivisist societies give priority to the group over the individual, this could explain why he's more concerned about that than with you being honest with what you have come to believe).

The whole argument you are trying to make in the first part of your post has already been spoken about. People die for their beliefs all the time because they think they are truthful when actually they aren't. BumFluff122

Once again you ignore the careful distinction I have presented. Tell me, how did the Muslims that flew the planes into the twin towers have FIRST-HAND knowledge that Islam was true or not?

If you tell yourself soemthing long enough eventually you begin believing it. There have been numerous instances of this. Merely because they state that they saw it does not mean that they actually did. Many people are sure they've seen ghosts and UFOs and they were abducted by aliens. There have been many cults where the members of it burned themselves to death because they believed that their leader was a messiah. BumFluff122

Sorry, but for them to hallucinate the same thing, it would have had to have been a collective hallucination. Most psychologists say collective hallucinations don't happen [Weston La Barre, "Anthropological Perspectives on Hallucinations and Hallucinogens," in R. K. Siegel and L. J. West, eds., Hallucinations: Behavior, Experience and Theory (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975), 9-10.]. Even the couple that do state these criteria for one [Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones, Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Extraordinary Phenomena of Behavior and Experience (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982), 135-136.].

1. "expectation plays the coordinating role in collective hallucinations"
2. "emotional excitement is a prerequisite"
3. "must be informed beforehand, at least concerning the broad outlines of the phenomenon that will constitute the collective hallucination"

After Jesus died, none of his followers met any of those criteria.

During this time there was also much use of psychotropic drugs.BumFluff122

For this to be of any relevance to this argument, you must demonstrate

1. They were being used by people around 30 AD in Israel.

2. Good reasons to suspect Jesus' first followers of using them.

Also, remember possibility does not equal probability.