Jesus is still dead!!! Coherence, Skeptics, and Epilepsy

[markdzima]

Very nice presentation on Paul's possible temporal lobe epilepsy. I'll be doing several videos on that subject myself soon, adding a few additional points I've found. And I'll also be presenting some original hypotheses using temporal lobe epilepsy as a key to understanding aspects of the history of religions.

[Donnatella624]

"Evidence...coherence...the resurrection explains all the facts..." Crazypills, you are so patient with these people. Kudos to you. That being said, very interesting video! Epilepsy? Hey, why not?

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism troll, Dennett's redefinition of free will is analogous to redefining "God" to mean nature. But does he do that? No! But why not? Because it would keep the original illusion alive, and that is not his intent!

Mr/Ms Heterodox Troll, this is my last reply to you because of the butthead you have become.

The "Gospels" indicate Jesus didn't die on the cross. Muslims tradition holds Jesus didn't die on the cross. A corpse in a hot climate rotting for 3 days didn't come back to life

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism troll, why do you keep omitting words from my statement that are key to understanding? You want to create chaos, confusion, and argue? Precisely what did I say "means that psychology is more of a religion than science"? Wasn't it, "The logical conclusion of a will that is free from the laws of cause & effect means..."? Free will would be an uncaused causer, an unmoved mover. Free will would be a religious belief. Free will IS religious dogma preached from every pulpit in the land.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism when the Christian can believe "God" is a man-made myth with the same conviction that he now believes "God" is real, and when the atheist can believe "God" is real with the same conviction that he now believes "God" is a phantom, and the two can change their beliefs at whelm & believe one notion and then a completely contrary notion with perfect conviction, then & only then will I consider that beliefs are consciously chosen instead of merely circumstantial growths within the brain

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism troll. Now that would make sense Otherwise, you are not making any sense. You asked me a question. I went to all the trouble of trying to answer the question for you in a blog, since we are not staying on topic here in the comment section of CrazyPills2 video. And now you spouting something about see what your channel name means (one who departs from accepted beliefs or standards), which I have no idea why. Meaning what? Meaning you're a troll trying to create confusion and argue?

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, when the Christian can believe "God" is a man-made myth with the same conviction that he now believes "God" is real, and when the atheist can believe "God" is real with the same conviction that he now believes "God" is a phantom, and the two can change their beliefs at whelm & believe one notion and then a completely contrary notion with perfect conviction, then & only then will I consider that beliefs are consciously chosen instead of arising out of unconscious mental processes.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism maybe you can provide me with an explanation as to how it could be circular reasoning for me to provide a definition out of a reputable standard dictionary?

Also, I provided two definitions and no argument, except an earlier argument against free will as defined. Maybe you can explain how I can be arguing for free will as defined when I am arguing against such?

I don't recall arguing for or against determinism as defined by Merriam-Webster. Do you intend to? What do you mean?

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, you asked me, "Do you think that each of us arrives, *unconsidered* at beliefs that are pre-programmed by our DNA?" I didn't know how to take that question since I hadn't even remotely suggested such nonsense. I could only assume the question was rhetorical, or a logical fallacy attempting to put words I never said in my mouth.

Please clarify what you were asking or implying with your question. ("*unconsidered* at beliefs" (???))

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism I didn't say psychology is more a religion than science. I said that if the human had a mechanism within the brain that could function WITHOUT RESTRAINT OF PHYSICAL OR DIVINE NECESSITY OR CAUSAL LAW, then we may as well have witch doctors as psychologists. If free will is true, psychologists cannot understand underlying causal factors because the will would be without cause. Psychologists could not offer therapy because such a will could not be influenced. Got it?

Naturalism Org

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism said, "There's no point in inviting me to view your videos and blog."

Yeah, well you're the one that I took the time and went to the trouble of transcribing Dennett's narration and creating the blog for. Remind me not to have any such respect for you should we ever stumble across each other's paths in the future.

[unseenstrings]

determinism (noun): a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws. (merriam-webster com)

free will (noun): the power asserted of moral beings of choosing within limitations or with respect to some matters WITHOUT RESTRAINT OF PHYSICAL OR DIVINE NECESSITY OR CAUSAL LAW. (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1975)) [Emphasis mine.]

These are the definitions I use.

[unseenstrings]

I address a video directly to Dennett. The title to the video is "Daniel Dennett and Booger Eating". I would recommend that you watch the video at my blog so that you can read the extended explanation. See:

unseenstrings wordpress com

And the blog title is "Daniel Dennett and Booger Eating"

Please read the blog first. Watch the video. And read the blog again. (The blog, even taking into consideration Dennett's comment, is less than 1000 words.)

What beliefs are preprogrammed by DNA?

[unseenstrings]

The logical conclusion of a will that is free from the laws of cause & effect means that psychology is more of a religion than science; it means that one can blame kids for their shortcomings instead of parents, schools, & society for not interacting with children as they should and raising them properly; it means that punishment is a waste of time because the will cannot be influenced by anything, not even punishment of the individual. For more watch my "Dear Robin: An open letter" ReGUevwbX2k

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, Dennett is a compatibilist, I am not. Science presumes naturalism, because naturalistic explanations can be falsified, whereas supernatural explanations can't. (Besides, Occam's Razor slices away unnecessary entities once used to explain the unknown.) Free will is defined as the capacity to choose "without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1975)) But philosophers make up their own definition. Therein lies the confusion.

[unseenstrings]

The cultural and social ramifications of blindly believing in free will are more detrimental than the blind-belief in any god. Besides, once the awareness that free will is an illusion sets-in, people may be a bit more skeptical about gods and religion. In fact, the threats of hellfire from a just and loving god become utter nonsense once free will is seen for the illusion that it is. What power has religion without the fear factor? Dennett is keeping the old common illusion of free will alive.

[unseenstrings]

I once had a friend from India who had become atheist while attending college; but he still retained his vegetarian "habits." The individual may not be able to see over his epistemic horizon (as Dennett points out), but his behavior is nevertheless predictable with enough information about his psychological makeup. (Advertising and Public Relations base their strategies on scientific findings concerning human motivations and behavior) Evidently the Major Media promote free will to gain advantage

[unseenstrings]

Christians are humans and humans are capable of holding conflicting beliefs. Christians believe in free will but they burn and/or censor media that can causally influence members of their community in unfavorable ways. Christians believe in free will but everything that happens is according to "God's" omniscience. They believe in free will but believe nothing can happen unless it is "God's" will. They claim free will is a paradox. But it is a contradiction of reality. Free will is an illusion.

[unseenstrings]

If the Christian realized free will is an illusion then the Christian may realize that we are not free to believe that a corpse whose brain had turned to slush and deteriorated for 3 days can magically have an identical brain created with identical connections between 10^14 synapses. In fact, if the Christian realized free will is an illusion then the Christian may eventually wonder what causal factors could have him (or her) believing such and outrageously preposterous tale.

Naturalism Org

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, are you familiar with Oliver Sacks? He told a tale, I think it was in "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat," about a lady who had a stroke; and afterwards she believed her paralyzed arm was her son's, but had been grafted on to her. Also, phantom limbs are somewhat common for amputees. We tend to think we are autonomous agents with one section of the brain dedicated to our conscious mind which must rule over more "primitive" sections of the brain. But that is pseudo-psychology.

[unseenstrings]

BTW, many years have passed since I read Sacks' book. I can't recall why I didn't want to write him down as a preferred author. Seems he wasn't scientific enough for my taste. I don't remember for sure.

Anyway, we are only aware of a tiny fraction of the sensory input being received, memories being stored, & cognitive processes going on all the time. We assume we consciously create the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional & mental--that make us each who we are.

[unseenstrings]

But we don't. We don't consciously create the mindset we possess. We don't consciously create the attitudes and opinions we express. We don't consciously create our perceptual biases and confirmation biases. We don't consciously create the ideas and thoughts that pop into our head. We don't consciously create our likes and dislikes. We don't consciously create our personal sense of morality. We cannot freely choose to believe or disbelieve a 2000 year old story about a corpse coming back to life

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, "factual" multiple-choice exams according to whose perspective? Yours? A Christian's? A Muslim's? Imagine this: Please answer the following multiple-choice question without bias: (1) Jesus died on the cross and his corpse came back to life 3 days later. (2) Jesus died on the cross and his ghost rose to heaven 3 days later. (3) Jesus didn't die on the cross but only looked dead. (4) Someone assumed to be but not Jesus died on the cross. (5) Jesus died on the cross and is still dead

[unseenstrings]

Whosoever picks one statement out of the 5 presented (trying honestly to pick "correctly") will pick the "truth" according to his life's learning experiences. You can pretty much predict what a person will pick by knowing where he is from and knowing a little about him. A Mid-Easterner will likely pick number 3. And I would be inclined to agree. A person from the Bible Belt, who happens to be a Christian, will likely pick no. 1. Atheists will not pick 1 or 2, but instead 3, 4, or 5. And you?

[unseenstrings]

The most powerful religions in the world employ scare tactics. Let us take a look at the top 3. No. 1, Christianity: You're going to fry for eternity when you die if you don't believe in Jesus and follow the Christian Religion. (Bear in mind that some Christians don't believe in Hell for non-believers, but they are insignificant.) No. 2, Islam: Your going to fry when you die if you don't follow Islam. No. 3, Hinduism: You're going to be reborn as a cockroach, if you don't act "right." Fear works

[unseenstrings]

The average theist does not realize that he is an atheist toward all the many gods of the world's religions just like you, except you happen to be an atheist toward one more than himself. The same reason the theist would give for not believing in the God, Zeus, is the reason you don't believe in the god of the theist.

This fact ought to be recited along with the Pledge of Allegiance, so that the average theist can understand what "One Nation Under God" means to an atheist.

Naturalism Org

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, and even supposing the DNA resulted in identical brains at birth (which as you point out would be impossible because of the complexities involved along with the differences within the womb and sensory input being received), they wouldn't be alike for very long because experiences during dendrite development would result in the brains becoming "wired-up" differently. Besides, their interactions not only with others but with each other would make their brains different.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, my son tried to teach my granddaughter that the bogeyman and ghosts don't exist. He told her all the rational reasons why belief in such was ridiculous. (She's 13) Every horror film she watched with her mother (the horror lover) countered his rational reasons. Evolution has developed the mind in such a way that ideas that cause fear seem to be more readily absorbed than "reason." Jonah Lehrer, the neurologist I asked you about before, says emotion is necessary for decisions. >

[unseenstrings]

>Lehrer says the latest research indicates emotion has a strong influence on how the human brain makes decisions. Take away the emotional element & in most cases you take away the ability to choose between options. The beliefs of my granddaughter aren't directly related to choice behavior. But the examples were given to show humans are not as rational as we like to think.

I too have pointed out before that "empathy" (your term better) neurons result in emotion acquisition along with language.

[unseenstrings]

My deaf neighbors looked like Noh performers (Japanese) with their extreme body gestures and expressions. Couldn't deny the emotion of their communication. One sometimes cannot convey what he really feel by writing. Writers are considered artists who can create the necessary imagery to get the point across.

Can you imagine trying to teach a child language while speaking through a voice synthesizer so emotional variance would be removed, and standing behind a screen so no body language seen?

[unseenstrings]

I suspect emotion is so intertwined with language that often words can evoke emotion, & conversely, emotion can evoke words. Where does this leave those who believe reason is not only possible without emotion but impossible with it? Well, basically it leaves them without language.

Because of "empathy" neurons, Christians believe the story of a maggot & bacteria eaten corpse coming back to life after 3 days.

Of course, that is an oversimplification. The brain is much more complex than that.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, my nephew has been diagnosed with ADD. Now whether he has an underactive anterior cingulate cortex, I don't know.

I do know the feeling I experience as the realization set-in that stories of The Bible are literally stories, as in "mommy, he's telling a story," meaning BS (which a kid isn't allow to say). I even had nightmares during that period. Otherwise, I seldom dream.

But that was 30 years ago. I was around 35 at the time. Took 5 years for me to settle on my new ideology

[unseenstrings]

Well to "win" by using logical fallacy would be a win. And under the circumstances it probably was the only way I could "win" at the time. But if I was to cheat while competing with someone, I can't accept the "win" as a win. Do you know what I mean? I felt the win was sort of cheating, like the type Christians often do in debates. I mean, the mere fact that we are debating whether someone died & rotted for three days, then magically came back to life is plumb laughable. People are easily fooled

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, I have a strong interest in Abigail and Brittany Hensel because they are identical twins (same DNA) who practically share the same body. I have sort of an introductory video of them in my uploads.

People usually look for the similarities in identical twins. For some reason Abby and Brittany are encouraged to be different. When the Major Media find that one likes mustard and the other doesn't, or one likes ketchup and the other doesn't, much todo is made to insinuate free will.

[unseenstrings]

I have a photo showing them clinging to a rope & swinging over a swimming hole. One has an expression of fear & the other a look of glee. Identical twins sharing the same body & reacting differently to the "same" experience. Of course, one reason for the difference in reaction to what is supposedly the same experience could be because one may feel insecure with the hold on the rope whereas the other may have a firm grip. (They each control one arm & leg.) Differences are not free from causality.

[unseenstrings]

Yes, I've read a little about Adler and by Adler. The same applies to Freud and Jung. Probably more of Freud's stuff than the others. But when you start reading theories of the mind espoused by the different schools of philosophy and psychology, you'll get bogged down so deep in a quagmire of rhetoric that you may never get out. Now I realize it is only after the data comes in, as Patrica Churchland says, that the ideas which happen to be a quagmire of rhetoric can be seen for what they are.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, well, we know neurons are not literally comparing an observed action to personal experience of a similar action; but I get the gist of what you were saying.

Science doesn't function by assuming magic. The scientific method assumes naturalism. History is suppose to do the same. Otherwise we'd be bogged down in a quagmire of superstition and nonsense as past generations were. And no so called science is science unless it is falsifiable.

If Jesus didn't die he'd be dead by now!

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, I'll agree wholeheartedly but feel I should point out to any reader of our comments that the thoughts & behavior of such uppity individuals is the result of causality. They have learned to think & act as they do because of the environmental circumstances to which they've been exposed as individuals.

Mirror neurons that result in a person acquiring dialects, attitudes & opinions of others is a confusing term, because to mirror means to mimic without feeling, which isn't the case

[unseenstrings]

Me and my brother shared the same house, but we didn't share the same personal experiences. He is a Christian. His choice was determined by his personal learning experiences.

His son was a Christian also. He would often try to debate The Bible with me. As mention in the video on your channel, Christians are usually more ignorant about The Bible than atheists and agnostics. Our debates were basically him throwing logical fallacies at points I made.

He gave me some music to compile him a CD.

[unseenstrings]

I compiled G. Carlin's routine, "Religion is BS" in with the CD music tracks. A year later, when he was back in town, we met and he was voicing some of the same argument put forth by Carlin. I was perfectly amazed at the change that had come over him. I doubt it was Carlin alone that brought about the change. Although, admittedly, laughter, ridicule, and scoffing at ideas are the easiest and quickest way to "win" a public argument. Logical fallacies work wonders outside of groups bound by logic.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, no buttons (True/False/Mix/Unknown) exist when a story is received in email. A built-in validation indicator would really be nice though wouldn't it? It certainly would save me time from having to do searches on sites such as truthorfiction com and snopes com.

I'll admit guilt of hasty generalization in political affiliation demographics. I'm from the South (FL) and my friends and family were always Democrats. I voted first time at 21 in VietNam, and a couple times afterwards.

[unseenstrings]

I noticed that no matter who was elected President, he immediately becomes the blunt of comedians across the land. He is sort of a scapegoat. We get rid of the old scapegoat and elect a new one. And nothing really changes. The system is setup so that it runs the same no matter who is at the helm.

Liberals=Doves, Conservatives=Hawks. Chomsky said the Doves wanted to settle the Indian problem by shrinking lands until all were gone. Hawks wanted to take the calvary and kill them all immediately.

[unseenstrings]

Same agenda, they just want to employ different methods.

The greatest lesson of history is the fact man doesn't seem to learn from history. Until we start looking for the causal factors involved in public opinions, then opinions are quite irrelevant to any issue, except maybe the strings available for manipulation. That brings us back to crazypills2's video. Reasons exist for Christian opinions.

My son is an atheist. His wife loves HORROR. My granddaughter thus believes in ghosts & magic.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, go to snopes com/politics/obama and take a look at the misleading email that gets forwarded to me on a regular basis from Christian friends and family. I too am interested in the causal factors that resulted in the Christian Democratic South switching to Republicanism. I don't know if 700 Club and such along with regular church had anything to do with it, or something else. I wish I knew of a study concerning the factors involved. One thing I know for sure, magic wasn't the factor

[unseenstrings]

I don't get emails from Democrats making up lies and telling half-truths about Republicans--only vice versa. What in the dickens is going on? Is the stratagems of FUX News and lookalikes being passed on to viewers?

Research centers usually have what are called "think tanks." Such are made up of intellectuals and theorists that more or less research research and issue reports on the implications. Government "think tanks" are usually called "committees." But corporations don't have think tanks?

[unseenstrings]

The question mark was intentional. When one says corporations have "think tanks" that research research & apply the implications to their stratagems & agenda, all of a sudden he's accused of being a conspiracy buff. The accusation has the unfortunate consequence of shutting down brain processes that normally seriously consider anything said concerning important issues. Ironic isn't it? I think the habit was acquired because of the way FUX Newscaster scoffed & laughed & ridiculed "conspiracies."

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism the "immune" system of the brain certainly isn't going to be equivalent to the immune system of the body. I merely pointed out that the "mind" seems to have an "immune" mechanism to protect itself against alien idea invasion just as the body has an immune system to protect itself.

The idea that a lion will kill and eat you--once established in our prehuman ancestor's mind--was advantageous to he who was most fixated with the idea. This is probably the reason for horror's effect

[unseenstrings]

Yes, I've read a little about sensory deprivation driving neural circuits "nuts." One study was concerning a cat's brain that had all sensory input removed except one eye. When the sensory input from that one eye was removed...well, you know.

Say, Jonah Lehrer seems to be trying to popularize recent finding in neurology as it applies to human behavior. He has some videos on YT User ForaTV's channel (also some at their web site (fora tv)). Any thoughts on the matter or recommendations?

[chickinstompin]

why do they always sit in front of alot of books? is this some sort of subliminal ? are we to beleive he read all those books? this is a cheap ploy to make us think there more learned than they are . alot of people do this and i laugh .

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism the "mind" does seem to have an immunity-like defense mechanism. However, stress breaks down the immune system of both body and mind. The condition responses of Pavlov's research animals were discovered "lost" after the lab flooded, drowning some of the animals, nearly drowning others, all in sight and hearing of one another.

Employed to modify human thought and behavior are techniques that break down the psychic integrity of the individual with regard to information (GoTo (2))

[unseenstrings]

(2) processing, information retained in the mind and individual values. Some techniques include dehumanizing of individuals by keeping them in filth, sleep deprivation, partial sensory deprivation, psychological harassment, inculcation of guilt and group social pressure. In "Influence, Science and Practice," social psychologist Robert Cialdini argues that "mind control" is possible thru more subtle means. Margaret Singer, in "Cults in Our Midst" also describes some subtle means of thought reform

[unseenstrings]

Noam Chomsky has pointed out, "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." He also has noted that "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." Now when we take these facts into consideration, along with the deep and long lasting impressions left by "shocking" portrayals and "horror" movies--providing such portrayals and horror have the "proper" moral-of-the-story, then mixed with peer pressure further propaganda is really unnecessary

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism I often quote Noam Chomsky because of his knowledge and statements concerning the "framework of rational thought" as established by the Major Media. But we separate paths on the free will issue. My question for Chomsky is, "what causal effect can the Major Media have on individuals' thought processes if the will is free?"

The fact is, you cannot freely choose what to believe and what not to. Belief is an automatic process. What you perceive is what you believe. Is God perceived?

[unseenstrings]

Many Christians perceive that they have a personal relationship with "God." But this is because God is a word. And to put it in the words of Joseph Goebbels:

"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise."

You won't find any BS notion of free will in a school teaching methods of effective propaganda.

[unseenstrings]

Well, I need to addendum my last comment:

You won't find any BS notion of free will in a school teaching methods of effective propaganda unless covering the manipulative aspects of teaching the BS notion of free will. A belief in free will is an effective way to prevent individuals from looking for and considering the causal factors involved in human choice behavior.

Belief in free will prevents the public from ever becoming aware of the unseenstrings by which they are/can be manipulated.

[disrxt]

Excellent video, it will of course be ignored by the credulous whose faith allows any rational explanation to be disregarded as the error of an unbeliever, you need the Holy Ghost to really understand, don't you know. It's why there is a whole branch of Christianity, apologetics devoted to developing specious explanations for the vast number of contradictions, inconsistencies and various outlandish claims in the Bible.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, LOL! Actually it came from one of my favorite books of The Bible. However, bear in mind the video that automatically plays when someone visits your channel. It may be the best seller of all time, but it is one of the least read.

The commentators seemed to be ignorant of agnostics and atheists. It was reading The Bible from cover to cover the set me on the path to atheistic agnosticism.

The philosophers of democratic Greece understood the persuasive power of the theater.

[unseenstrings]

And either Mark Twain or Robert Ingersoll condemned the clergy for badmouthing whosoever went to the theater. He (Twain/Ingersoll) said that The Church only taught morals on Sunday, while the theater taught morals the rest of the week. And he gave some examples.

When it came along, the power of persuasion fell into the hands of broadcast TV. Then it lost some of that power to cable/satellite TV. And that has lost some power to the Internet, which is power now being recouped by corporations.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, whoops I didn't see the second part of your post. Yes, the purpose of the Major Media is to protect its own interest, promote its agenda, and make money--not necessarily in that order. Anyway, if The Church doesn't interfere with the agenda and interest of the Major Media, then The Church will be sold air time for their purpose. But that still makes The Church dependent of the new virtual popes.

We are in agreement.

[unseenstrings]

@heterodoxism, community cohesion and crowd control are now primarily carried out by the Major Media. The 6 virtual popes of the US are the CEOs of GE (2009 revenues: $157 billion), Disney (36.1), News Corp. (30.4), TimeWarner (25.8), VIACOM (13. 6) & CBS (13). When a newscaster speaks from the podium of the Major Media, he gets more attention and respect than a Bishop. The public used to be controlled and directed by morals of Bible Stories; now it is morals of programs aired by the Major Media

[crazypills2]

@ReligionFreeDeist "Excellent research Steve. Excellent response."

Thanks Jordan.

[crazypills2]

@heterodoxism "Why would anyone take as factual any ancient, magic-biased, contradictory accounts (vanishing bodies, visions) that were first written decades after the purported events by individuals who were almost certainly not eyewitnesses?"

I have conceded all five 'facts' in an attempt to demonstrate that they don'r provide the conclusion Logos thinks they do. Even if true, the most likely explanation is NOT that Jesus rose from the dead.

[crazypills2]

@macnutz "...because I have experienced the hallucinations and other symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy. I have a relatively mild variation of the disorder."

Interesting. Did you ever have a 'religious' experience as part of one of your seizures?

[AuntieDiluvian]

Brilliant I watched a video about this the other day - although I think it may have been frontal lobe epilepsy - and how many sufferers experience intense religious experiences when having a siezure Mohammed is said to have had temporal lobe epilepsy of course. On a hunch, although I knew nothing about his personal life I looked up Joseph Smith. Yup -- he had epilepsy too.  It's scary to think how much religion may have been foisted upon us because of such an illness.

[unseenstrings]

@AuntieDiluvian, LOL! Damn good point.

Allow me to emphasize though some cases of TLE are not as extreme as others. And the person can be pretty normal otherwise. Therefore, when an otherwise normal person has a TLE seizure, the seizure will be interpreted as a supernatural experience. At that point, while trying to turn the indescribable experience into words, religions are sometimes invented--especially when the person having the experience is real eloquent and persuasive.

Naturalism Org

[crazypills2]

@AuntieDiluvian . "On a hunch, although I knew nothing about his personal life I looked up Joseph Smith."

Excellent hunch.

[drukenhard]

It makes the most sense when you think that Jesus wasn't put on the cross but someone else in his place....how similar would people in the middle east with long hair and beard look...especially when they are covered in blood and open wounds......they'd look like a hairy pizza!

This person was placed in the tomb....then the disciples spent 3 days moving the stone and disposing of the body while Jesus laid low......then he rocks up with cuts on his hands and feet and claims god mode!

[crazypills2]

@drukenhard "It makes the most sense when you think that Jesus wasn't put on the cross but someone else in his place."

Definitely a possibility. It makes more sense than a risen Jesus.

[nothingUnrealExists]

Seems pretty coherent to me. Granted, it's scanty evidence for temporal lobe epilepsy, but no more so than most theist's arguments based on the bible. I actually ran across a similar theory that TLE could explain the resurrection itself. As I recall, it had to do with reserpine, which when administered to TLE mice under restraint, causes a death like catatona. Persinger was the name of the researcher.

[crazypills2]

@nothingUnrealExists " I actually ran across a similar theory that TLE could explain the resurrection itself."

Interesting. I'll have to check it out.

[EvenGodsSuffer]

@crazypills2

Paul was preaching a risen Jesus years before Mark's Jesus walked the earth. It is not really certain that Paul's Jesus and Mark's or Matthew's or John's Jesus is even the same literary character. Only in Luke's Acts are the two Jesus characters clearly conflated.

Paul's Jesus has no ministry, no followers, works no miracles, is never interred and leaves no empty tomb (the thread from which "proofs" for a resurrection hang).

Are Paul and the gospels all referring to the same event?

[crazypills2]

@EvenGodsSuffer "Are Paul and the gospels all referring to the same event?"

It's an interesting question; however, I tend not to believe that Paul is the individual who invented christianity. Paul did refer to the disciples in his letters and, in fact, also notes his discussions with them. Whether or not Paul believed in a physical resurrection, I cannot know for sure, although I personally doubt it.

[EvenGodsSuffer]

@crazypills2

In his YouTube series, "‪Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?‬", TruthSurge points out that Paul never refers to Cephas and the others as disciples or followers of Jesus. In fact, none of the NT literature outside the gospels mentions disciples at all. Apostles - yes, disciples - no.

It seems not only Paul but all the other epistle writers present a Jesus different from that of the gospels.

It's a fascinating series. You may want to check it out.

[no1saphead]

Playing with made up evidence doesn't make it evidence.

[216trixie]

The experiences of Paul and others is best described in the book Cosmic Consciousness, by Bucke. A scholarly look at the phenomenon of enlightenment.

[HConstantine]

I'm tired of this,I can tell you.

1. Paul practiced Merkavah mysticism, and describes his experience in terms traditional to that discipline. NEUROLOGICALLLY NORMAL PEOPLE CAN HAVE MYSTICAL EXPERINCES!

2. You reading of Paul's trip to the 3rd heaven is forced and contorted. There is now as it can read as a seizure. Dostoevsky's description of seizures are on-line look them up and compare them. The Road to Damascus bit is invented by Lk--nil value as evidence for Paul.

[HConstantine]

@HConstantine The usual motive for trying to limit mystical experience to a seizure is to deny the reality of Mystical experience exists--thinking to attack religion. The only worse argument is to introduce hallucinogenic drugs. If all the mystical testimonies from various religious traditions, and the large body of secondary literature by scholars of religion, doesn't convince you that mystical ecstasy induced by meditation is real, pleas read Sam Harris on this point.

[unseenstrings]

@HConstantine, the situation that the individual was in at the moment he had the experience/seizure could hold the key. Epileptic seizures often seem to come out of nowhere, but are usually determined by the psychological stress the person is experiencing at the time. Whereas, the "mystical" experience is often achieved by a form of sensory deprivation, such is intense concentration on the air passing through the nose, or repetitive vocalizations or music. Expectations may also be a trigger.

[unseenstrings]

I've seen ladies of the church with hands raised in prayer, repeating the word "Jesus" over & over. In many cases they would start trembling & splat, hit the floor. Then start flopping around like fish out of water. Later they talk about the "power" in the name "Jesus." The irony is that the Jewish carpenter whom they worship was never called by that name. Very few Christian realize that fact. Their "Jesus" was called, by the Hebrew Yeshua, rendered Joshua in English. That's the power of myth!

[unseenstrings]

Another fact to take into consideration is that the symbol of the cross was pagan and preceded Christianity. You can read more about this in "The Non-Christian Cross" by John Denham Parsons, which, BTW is available for free at Project Gutenberg.

Also, "crucifixions" were usually done on a pole or tree. The story of The Cross may have been invented because of its importance the cross as a religious symbol. This gives the Muslim story of the CruciFICTION (posted herein) a degree of credibility.

[HConstantine]

@unseenstrings Yes, and since Paul describes his experience in terms of an established and well understood mystical practice, the inevitable conclusion is that he was engaged in that practice--not having a seizure.

[unseenstrings]

@HConstantine, I don't think it really matters whether the experience was the result of an epileptic seizure or mystical practice, because Paul's interpretation of the experience would have been pretty much the same regardless of whether the experience was self-induced or the result of disease. From my readings I get the impression that a TLE epileptic seizure is more profound than "self"-induced mystical experience, but probably no less convincing as a "supernatural" religious experience.

[HConstantine]

@unseenstrings It matters to the extent that he had one or the other, and there is sufficient evidence to distinguish which. Read further in Alan Segal's Paul the Convert and his earlier Two Powers in Heaven. Impossible to argue the point further on Youtube.

[unseenstrings]

@HConstantine, my point is that it is irrelevant whether the trance is induced by TLE, or by hallucinogens, or by doing a dance like the whirling dervishes of Turkey, or by the nullification and absorption of Judaism, or by complete detachment as accomplished by some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism, or by union with "God" as done in some schools of Christianity and Brahmanism, or by undergoing "Innate Knowledge" of Islam, or by practicing Voodoo in Haiti. No source is more reliable than another

[crazypills2]

@HConstantine " The usual motive for trying to limit mystical experience to a seizure is to deny the reality of Mystical experience exists"

What do you mean by 'Mystical experience'? Is this experience supernatural?

[HConstantine]

@crazypills2 Of course not. But it is possible through focusing attention (mediatation etc.) to alter the function of the brain (more and more work is being done on seeing this on brain scans) that results in a sate of awareness that is more like dreaming than waking, but not identical to either. But we also have a century of scholarship that wishes to deny this fact by attributing all such experiences to either seizures or drugs, which is really an argument from personal incredulity.

[crazypills2]

@HConstantine "Paul practiced Merkavah mysticism, and describes his experience in terms traditional to that discipline. "

How do you know this?

"Dostoevsky's description of seizures are on-line look them up and compare them."

So, you believe all people experience the same thing during their seizures? If so, I suggest you review more studies.

[HConstantine]

@crazypills2 Because he uses the stereotypical language of that tradition (3rd heaven, etc). See Segal on this.

[crazypills2]

@HConstantine "Because he uses the stereotypical language of that tradition (3rd heaven, etc)."

From this one text, you can conclude that Paul practiced Merkavah mysticisms? Please demonstrate.

[HConstantine]

@crazypills2 Did I say that about seizures? Dostoevsky's reports are accessible, and I can tell you that what he reports is typical, because I am familiar with the literature in this field.

You project the idea that you are lecturing me from a position of authority, but its clear that you don't know the literature on mysticism at all. So you're acting like a creationist. Would you care to post a list of mystic whose works you're familiar with, and the secondary literature that' you've read?

[crazypills2]

@HConstantine "Did I say that about seizures?"

I think you implied it. However, if you are willing to concede that not all people experience the same thing in seizures, then it's moot.

[crazypills2]

@HConstantine "You project the idea that you are lecturing me from a position of authority, but its clear that you don't know the literature on mysticism at all."

Did I lecture you? Please quote the portion of my post where I did this. I am truly curious.

"So you're acting like a creationist."

Nice claim, but I'm interested in hearing your justification for making it. Please show me how I have acted like this.

So you're acting like a creationist."

[HConstantine]

@crazypills2 I wrote my dissertation on Mysticism in Plotinus, Porphyry & Iamblichus, at the time I used a theoretical model of mysticism based on Deikman. I read Underhill & Zaehner and that crowd but didn't find them that useful. I have read extensively in Jewish mystics (with Scholem, Idel, etc.), and in the Carmelites. Kroll and Bachrach's Mystic Mind gives a good introduction to recent neuro-physiological work.

[crazypills2]

@HConstantine " I wrote my dissertation on Mysticism in Plotinus, Porphyry & Iamblichus, at the time I used a theoretical model of mysticism based on Deikman."

Ok, but I've hear little argumentation from you to back up your claim that Paul didn't have TLE, only insults and matter-of-fact statements.

[Cyrathil]

I take the tact from the beginning (that the sightings could have been hallucinations brought out by grief), and have even heard a fill-in for a problem I hadn't been able to work around in the comment section, so I just have to say that your response is definitely coherent (although, I may be a bit biased...), it's just the definition of coherence this guy seems to be using is off. As with most things in life, there is rarely a singular cause to anything. It's usually a confluence.

[crazypills2]

@Cyrathil "As with most things in life, there is rarely a singular cause to anything. It's usually a confluence."

Exactly.

[Kergillian]

What people forget is that the "evidence" for Jesus ever existing is really weak. Most scholars agree that most of the gospels were not authored by witnesses, and no original copies exist.

[crazypills2]

@Kergillian "What people forget is that the "evidence" for Jesus ever existing is really weak."

I know, but I have stipulated to the five 'facts' because christians accept them. I have done this to demonstrate that a resurrected Jesus is not the most likely conclusion to draw from them.

[Godlesspanther]

Sine 1977 when Elvis was declared dead there have been numerous sightings. The most likely explanation is that he was resurrected. This is the only explanation that is consistent with all the facts that have been reported by several eyewitnesses. Nothing else could explain it.

[Kergillian]

@Godlesspanther

Elvis is everywhere

Elvis is everything

Elvis is everybody

Elvis is still the king

Man o man

What I want you to see

Is that the big E's

Inside of you and me

[crazypills2]

@Godlesspanther "This is the only explanation that is consistent with all the facts that have been reported by several eyewitnesses. Nothing else could explain it."

Excellent point.

[RadarKat73080]

Why do we argue with these twits? Their faith is bulletproof!

[crazypills2]

@RadarKat73080 "Why do we argue with these twits?"

Because I was once a twit. And, believe it or not, there are windows of doubt even in twits.

[RadarKat73080]

@crazypills2 So was I, but I was immune to logic at the time. I had to figure it out on my own.

[unseenstrings]

Muslims call the supposed Crucifixion, the CruciFICTION. Islam teaches that Jesus didn't die on the cross but only appeared to die. Many people thru-out history have been pronounced dead only later to revive. How can one state positively that 2000 years a man named Jesus really died? An apparent death instead of real death would fit events as written in the New Testament. Also, iron & steel were too valuable to use for crucifixions. So pegs were used. And the pegs were not driven thru the palm

[unseenstrings]

...but driven between the radius & ulna bones of the arm. Or else the arms were bound to the tree or beam by means of rope.

It took anywhere from 3 to 6 days for the victim of a real crucifixion to die. For Jesus to die after only 3 to 6 hours is extremely suspicious. Of course, Christian apologists pretend Jesus was beaten almost to death in order to make excuses for the mere 3 to 6 hours it took for him to supposedly die.

Bitter herbs on a sponge were sometimes given victims to ease pain

[unseenstrings]

@crazypills2, now, with all these facts to take into consideration, if a radical preacher named Jesus really did approach one of his doubting disciples and tell the disciple to feel the wounds if he disbelieved, would you have to necessarily logically conclude that Jesus came back from the dead, or he really didn't die?

[crazypills2]

@unseenstrings "How can one state positively that 2000 years a man named Jesus really died? "

Can't. And, your explanation is much more likely than the virtual impossibility of Jesus rising from the dead.

[unseenstrings]

The Bible mentions Jesus taking a bitter substance soaked into sponge. Note Wikipedia:

Cultivation of opium poppies for food, anaesthesia, and ritual purposes dates back to at least the Neolithic Age (new stone age). The Sumerian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Indian, Minoan, Greek, Roman, Persian and Arab Empires each made widespread use of opium, which was the most potent form of pain relief then available....sponges soaked in opium were used during surgery.

Jesus on the "cross" likely took opium.

[TheNakedAtheist]

James' guilt in combination with other sightings may have driven his conversion, and his sighting simply been a case of his playing along.

[johnycannuk]

@TheNakedAtheist Again the possibility exists that this James was not the brother of Jesus. Thee are few places his siblings are named. James Zebadee is named most often but there is almost no passages that indicate the James was an actual (half) brother of Jesus. That is Catholic legend.

LogosApologia has a long way to go before he can assert his "facts"

[Blogrich55]

@johnycannuk WOW! I can't believe you actually wrote the idea that James was an actual (half) brother of Jesus was a "Catholic legend." THIS is just another example of why Christians don't take your sort seriously. USE YOUR BRAIN PLEASE:

HOW could that be a "Catholic legend" when the Romanists DOGMATICALLY believe and assert that Mary was EVER virgin?? Makes it a little difficult, wouldn't you agree??

[johnycannuk]

@Blogrich55 Uhm yeah. Because it isn't Catholics who assert James the Just was the brother of Jesus. No it isn't Catholics who have been writing about such things since the time of Iraneus.

Nope, the whole thing popped into existence 10 minutes after some German antisemitic idiot nailed a list of 99 things to a church door.

Catholics assert Mary's virginity as a miracle, despite giving birth and despite having other children - as mentioned in Mathew and Mark (though not named).

Romanists?

[Blogrich55]

@johnycannuk Uhm yeah, you are RIGHT "it isn't Catholics who assert James the Just was the brother of Jesus." So NOW can you explain why you referred to the idea as a "Catholic legend" slicko? ROFLOL You have been BUSTED!

[johnycannuk]

@Blogrich55 So it was a Protestant legend? Meaning it wasn't accepted until the Reformation? Well THAT certainly proves the case for veracity doesn't it?

So if it wasn't Catholics, was it the Gnostics? The Marcionites? Do tell?

Or are you asserting that the Catholics just skip over the verses in Mark and Mathew that talk about Jesus' siblings?

This should be interesting.

[Blogrich55]

@johnycannuk No what I am asserting is that YOU made a mistake and can't even admit it. I refuse to address any of your infantile jibes and red herrings. I have proved my point. Like most ignorant and arrogant atheists YOU can't admit to being wrong. End of story. ROFLOL

[johnycannuk]

@Blogrich55 You have proved nothing. You have just asserted I am wrong without providing evidence. I will happily admit to being wrong if that is the case.

You simply need to provide the evidence. Otherwise you are full of shit. Which, actually is normal for an apologetic, so no surprise there.

In fact, that you are NOT providing evidence merely shows I am correct.

I will leave it to others in this thread to determine if I am mistaken and inform me.

[johnycannuk]

@Blogrich55 Hegesippus, 2nd Century Christian historian, was not a Catholic? Origien was not a Catholic? St. Jerome?

Catholics don't read and understand Mark 6.3 or Matthew 13:55,56?

If I sound arrogant its because I have the facts and history on my side and you have nothing. I won't admit to being wrong, because I'm not wrong.

You are.

Deal with it apologetic, yet another atheist knows your religion better than you do.

Now sod off.

[Blogrich55]

@johnycannuk Do you think I REALLY care what a bunch of confused early church "Fathers" did or didn't believe? Iraneaus also taught Christ lived to be 50 years old. The cold fact is that the perpetual virginity is a Catholic Dogma and Protestants do not believe it. It is NOT a Christian legend. The Bible alone is the word of God and NOT the early Church "Fathers."

You may THINK you know Christianity better and that is YOUR deluded privilege to do so.

[johnycannuk]

@Blogrich55 Oh a Protestant Apologetic I see.

That certainly explains the lack of thought and the concentration on one small part of my comments. Typical.

Guess what? Nobody takes apologetics seriously. Except for entertainment watching you try to dance and twist logic to explain the obvious errors, contradictions and outright fabrications in the Bible, you aren't good for much else.

[crazypills2]

@TheNakedAtheist "...and his sighting simply been a case of his playing along"

Very possible. And, much more likely than him actually seeing a risen Jesus.

[johnycannuk]

@macnutz I know, I was responding to your "Devils Advocate" position to give responses to our hypothetical Christians.

Girding for battle, as it were.

;-)

[a0eoj]

Of course Jesus rose from the dead. We all know this because it says so in the Bible. And every Christmas Eve, Santa Claus flies all around the world delivering presents too. You should all know this because it's written in a book called, "The Night Before Christmas." How can you possibly argue with such proven facts???

[crazypills2]

@a0eoj "You should all know this because it's written in a book called, 'The Night Before Christmas.' "

In my next video, I will attempt to debunk Santa :-)

[johnycannuk]

@macnutz This means, taken in total, the story could not have happened and was clearly written by someone who was not a Jew nor a resident of Palestine and possibly someone who was not familiar with crucification.

Meaning it wasn't written by an eyewitness (Mark)

Meaning, of course, not only was there no empty tomb, the was no full tomb because likely there was no crucification to begin with.

But taken as purely allegorical fiction, with a sacrifice of a lamb like the Passover, it makes sense

[johnycannuk]

@macnutz But that just uses one set of ahistoric actions to explain away others. Firstly, the Jews had the authority to punish their own criminals, and did not have to ask the Romans to put someone to death. Second, the Sanhedrin would never have met on the evening of the Sabbath nor during Passover, nor in the middle of the night.. None of this has ever happened.

It takes days, not hours, do die from crucification.

So it is utterly ahistoric from the beginning, not just happened to the body

[wearealltubes]

@johnycannuk That's right, apart from the days/hours bit - it depends on how the person is crucified & how weak, dehydrated and or exhausted they are when they are nailed up. The limbs of the victim were sometimes broken shortly before the crucifiction - such "lucky" people were likely to die within hours. Also, jebus was supposed to have been stabbed with a spear - if that had hit his liver, he'd have croaked pretty fast.

[johnycannuk]

@wearealltubes Yes that is possible, but its a pretty big stretch. I lot of might and maybes. Not to mention Jesus is usually depicted as being speared in his left side, away from the liver.

But given the utterly fictitious and ahistoric nature of the rest of the narrative, it only makes the case worse not better - it is possible that Jesus died quickly because his liver was pierced, but that was not the norm. Making it MORE unlikely, not less.

[wearealltubes]

@johnycannuk I think it also casts doubt on his lazarus miracle - if he could bring folk back to life, why didn't he have wolverine style regeneration powers for himself? Surely god had seen x-men.

[johnycannuk]

@wearealltubes Well that goes without saying.

;-)

[johnycannuk]

@wearealltubes Josephus described mass crucifixions that resulted from the 70 CE uprising that destroyed the Temple in his book "War of the Jews" (75 CE). He even found and rescued a friend who had been crucified and been hanging 3 days. His reports rarely mention it taking hours.

So, with all the other improbability in the story, we have yet another one. Each impossibility makes the story less and less likely not more, so even if true, it doesn't help the case.

The story is fiction.

[ozmoroid]

Very coherent! ;-)

[crazypills2]

@ozmoroid "Very coherent! ;-)"

Why thank you. Hopefully I suspect Logos won't agree with you though :-)

[johnycannuk]

Of course, the other alternative was that there was never a tomb, empty or otherwise, to begin with.

Crucified criminals were left hung for days, even weeks as a warning to others.then tossed in a mass grave, or burned in the fires of Gehenna.

Frankly, THAT is the most likely explanation.

[crazypills2]

@johnycannuk "Of course, the other alternative was that there was never a tomb, empty or otherwise, to begin with."

True; however, christians won't accept it. So, I have stipulated all five facts in an attempt to show them that, even if all are true, the most likely explanation is that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

[Redbloodedsky]

I would have never thought of considering the disciples' illness... great vid as always man! :)

[crazypills2]

@Redbloodedsky "great vid as always man!"

Thanks.

[TheMudbrooker]

Logos doesn't quite seem to understand the difference between facts and assertions.

[crazypills2]

@TheMudbrooker "Logos doesn't quite seem to understand the difference between facts and assertions."

No, he doesn't. However, even when all of his facts are stipulated, the probability of his conclusion being right is practically zero.

[Royaleah]

LOL Using the Bible as evidence is like using Star Wars as a documentary on the Jedi.

[crazypills2]

@Royaleah "Using the Bible as evidence is like using Star Wars as a documentary on the Jedi."

If that's true, my son is going to be very disappointed.