Burden of Proof

October 22nd, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

If you have proof of something and you want me to see it, you have to get it to me.

I had an exchange on Twitter with a christian that said he had indirect proof that god exists.


Vincent says he has proof the devil exists, which would prove the bible is true, which in turn would mean that god really does exist.

This, naturally, piqued my curiosity. If there is proof that god exists, then it’d be interesting to see. Vincent may turn out to be a crackpot, in which case it’d be amusing to shatter his delusional bubble, or he could be right and this could be massive. I’m not going to make any judgements until I see this proof. I’m still waiting though.

This is because Vincent has the proof in on his (locked down) facebook page and I don’t do facebook. Vincent has offered to create and send me a facebook login, but I don’t really want to use a login from someone off the internet I’v never met, for anything, not just facebook. I’ve offered to send him my email address so he can email this prrof for me to see, but it has illustrations and other spurious reason why it’d be too hard to do.

This refusal to use facebook makes me biased and closed minded. Err, Ok then. (btw, I do feel a little superior as I never insulted the guy and was perfectly civil)

Anyway, the point is, if you have proof of something it is upto you to show it. i am not going to go chasing around the place to go and fetch it. I am happy to click a link or send my email address, but I shoudln’t have to login to anywhere I don’t already have an account, or give any details to anybody to see your proof.

You have to give it to me. If you don’t then, I shall presume you’re not what you say you are or your proof isn’t as watertight as you say it is. Either way, you lose.

5 solid reasons why the resurrection happened. Sorry, did I say 5? I meant 3. And they’re pretty shakey

April 8th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

‘Christianity stands or falls on the claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead’: So claimed Ludwig Kennedy in a radio debate with Lord Rees-Mogg. He was right. The Apostle Paul put it even more bluntly: ‘If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith’. (1 Corinthians 15:14) The resurrection is of ‘first importance’ (1 Corinthians 15:3,4), and yet the difficulty of accepting it is a major barrier to faith for some people.

But although the resurrection appears incredible, we believe it happened on the basis of solid evidence.

So says Dr Peter Saunders. This Dr Peter Saunders. Shall we see what evidence there Dr Saunders is putting forward shall we?

First, no-one disputed the fact that Jesus died on the cross. He was seen to breathe his last by eye-witnesses, and was certified dead by Roman soldiers whose very business was killing. They decided not to break Jesus’ legs (customary practice to hasten death in crucifixion), because they were convinced he was dead already; and this was confirmed by the observation of ‘blood and water’ (separated cells and serum) coming from his pierced side. This only occurs as a post-mortem event.

No one disputed that a Jesus died on a cross. Apparently there was a Jesus about at the right time, and so it is entirely possible that a Jesus was crucified. As for contemporary witnesses, there is not a lot of that about at all. The bible, remember, was written a few centuries after Jesus’ time.

The so-called ‘swoon’ theory, that Jesus may have only fainted and revived in the cool of the tomb, does not hold water. It involves believing that a man beaten to within an inch of his life, impaled on a cross and then wrapped in 75 pounds of bandages and spices (rather like a plaster of Paris cast!) could somehow unwrap himself, push away a one ton boulder, single-handedly overcome an armed Roman guard; and then persuade over 500 others that he had conquered death. The foolishness of this position is evidenced by the fact that no-one dared suggest the possibility until centuries later.

Yeah, the ‘swoon theory’ does sound quite implausible. If someone achieved the above, then they might not be the Son of God, but they’d certainly pretty fucking awesome.

Would Christ, the model of integrity, really deceive his followers by claiming he had risen when he knew he hadn’t? Apart from the testimony of eye-witnesses, no non-Christian historian at the time (see Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and Lucian) doubted that Jesus died.

If Jesus had claimed to have risen when he knew he hadn’t would indeed call in to question his integrity, but then at the time Jesus was considered the leader of a cult. What makes him different to any other cult leader – apart from fuck fooling fuck knows how many people over two millenia?

Dr Saunders first problem is this:

A man says he rose from the dead. His integrity can’t be questioned because he is the son of god. How do we know he is the son of god? Well, he rose from the dead, didn’t he?

hmmm, yes. I can see how this is going.

Second, the body was gone. If the Jews had removed it (Mary’s immediate assumption) then they would simply have reproduced it at the first rumour of resurrection. If the disciples had removed it, they would not have subsequently been prepared to die for what they knew had not happened. In any case, the tomb was heavily guarded, and they had all run for their lives when Jesus was arrested. Pilgrims never flocked to Jesus’ tomb. It was empty.

Fair point, I suppose.

Third, the post-resurrection appearances were impressive. Despite Jesus’ repeated predictions that he would rise from the dead, all his followers first thought of other explanations for the missing corpse. What convinced them? Mary, the twelve disciples, the followers on the Emmaus Road, Paul and 500 others (1 Cor 15:6) became convinced when they saw him. Some have suggested hallucinations as an alternative explanation; but hallucinations do not occur with varied groups, on multiple occasions, in different places, over a period of several weeks. They don’t light beach fires or eat fish either!

Erm, ok. I’m showing my lack of biblical knowledge here, so I’ll let that one go too.

Fourth, one has to account for the rapid spread of Christianity after Christ’s death. Most of the twelve disciples later died for their belief that Jesus was God. Although dying for a belief does not make it true, the point is this: they came to believe in Christ’s divinity after being convinced that he really had risen from the dead. It was this conviction that transformed them from fearful cowards into the bold apostles who literally turned the world upside down. The survival and growth of the early church resulted from the unshakeable belief that Jesus was alive.

Sorry, let me read that again.

Yep. I thought that’s what I read. Saunders’ fourth piece of solid evidence that Jesus H. Christ rose from the dead is the twelve disciples’ unshakeable belief that Jesus was God, or the son of God, or whatever.

Although dying for a belief does not make it true, the point is this: dying for a belief does not make it true.

Fifth is the personal experience of Christians, generations of people who have come to know Jesus as a person, with whom they enjoy a genuine friendship. Christianity is not just a creed to be followed nor an ideology to be embraced; it is a dynamic relationship with a real living God – through Jesus Christ.

And that’s it? That’s it? For fucks sake. This is the last solid evidence for the resurrection and it’s another few lines of hippy, happy-clappy, tree-hugging twaddle? This reason shouldv’e been the killer, the one that makes you stop reading and think “oh, yeah!”

How the buggery can anyone really know someone that lived two thousand years ago? You can read all the shite that’s written about them. You can listen to all the stories told, but they’ll all have changed so much from when the stories were originally written and told. Especially a story such as this that has been co-opted by the rulers and people in power who have changed bits and bobs to suit themselves. The bible has been edited for local populations and mistranslated many times over.

To recap Peter Saunders’ proof of the resurrection:

  1. Some bloke died on a cross.
  2. Said blokes’ body disappears.
  3. Some unexplained appearances of said bloke
  4. Twelve people end up dying because they believe said bloke
  5. Billions of people read stories of said bloke and think he all right
    1. Hardly “solid evidence” of the resurrection.

      Evidence based Christianity doesn’t quite work.

On government advice

November 2nd, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

Two more people have resigned from the drugs advisory council in solidarity for Professor Nutt…

Two members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs resigned todayin protest at Alan Johnson’s treatment of Professor David Nutt. Another member told the Guardian that the experts were “planning collective action” against Johnson, adding: “Everybody is devastated. We’re all considering our positions.”

Nutt said today that there was “no future” for the council in its present form and it is thought the group’s members may use a meeting next Monday to announce a mass resignation.

I would suggest that it needs to be swung on it’s head and it is not the councils’ present form that is at fault, but the governments attitude to it’s advice.

When the evidence is there for all to see that Nutt knew what he was talking about and some jumped up twat that wouldn’t know his arse from his elbow says ‘No, you’re wrong’ because the evidence conflicts with policy, then we’re all a little bit fucked, really.

What you make of it if Alan Johnson had made these decisions?

– Alan Johnson bans antibiotics saying ‘we must instead trust to the graces of Saint Dymphna and not confuse scientific advice with policy.’

– Alan Johnson says prospective female MPs are to be vetted with trial by drowning. ‘We must not confuse scientific advice with policy,’ he says.

– Alan Johnson announces the introduction of daily human sacrifices to ensure sun comes up. ‘We must not anger the Fire Gods or confuse scientific advice with policy,’ he says.

– Alan Johnson says he is to have Galileo exhumed so he can sack him because his scientific advice does not reflect policy.

Because that is what he has done. It is all well and good having a policy on something, but when the evidence shows something is not as bad, or as good, as was previously thought, then surely the only thing to do is modify that particular policy.

Lord Winston makes an obvious point…

I think that if governments appoint expert advice they shouldn’t dismiss it so lightly

Exactly. MPs’ deal with a huge range of subjects and can’t, and shouldn’t, be expected to know about everything. Alan Johnson is not an expert on the effects of drugs, just like David Cameron is not an expert on the problems of the working class. That is where the role of expert advisers come in, to tell politicians what is happening, so they can then figure out how to deal with it. It is one thing if the advice is a bit ambiguous, then fair enough, but in a case like this drugs one, where the expert says that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis, where is the justification for not lowering classification of cannabis? There is none. Johnson was either a) indulging in his own prejudices or b) unable to deviate from policy that it makes a mockery of the whole fucking system.

It could be Alan indulging himself, but then the policy is the American led pointless ‘War on Drugs’, which for twenty years or so has achieved fuck all except divert funds and effort away from areas that would help.

Kevolution says that this episode…

…highlights a bigger issue, that of the state of our democracy. In all the big decisions, the government either tell us we don’t know enough and that if we knew what they did we would understand (but they can’t show us the evidence as it is too sensitive), or they ignore the evidence and just do what they want. They are no longer representing us, they are just setting forth their own agenda’s

And there’s the nub of it. They no longer represent us.

How do we fix this? I dunno except that it won’t be sorted out by a general election*.

*That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t bother to vote. If I lived in the right place I would vote for D-Notice

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with evidence at Sim-O.