# "Desecration" of the Eucharist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2011, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144 "2011-03-18T13:09:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/401 "2011-03-22T15:20:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There was no “stealing.” asserting it over and over again doesn’t make it true. Denying it over and over again doesn’t make it _not_ true. The point here is that the “legal” diversion was a response to your demand, not because it was the real objection to the behaviour. > [@](#): > > Furthemore, beliefs, _per se_, are not entitled to respect. What people are entitled to is respect for their _right_ to believe, not the respect for the beliefs themselves. Do you respect the religious beliefs of the nation of Islam or Christian Identity? Would you say that anyone who disparages race religions on a blog is 'troll?" Beliefs are not entitled to respect; persons who hold those beliefs are. I respect Catholics, not Catholicism. People have the _right_ to practice their beliefs without interference or harrassment. Stealing stuff from a religious ceremony to mock them is harrassment. It is both a breach of the respect to which those people are entitled, and a breach of their moral right to be left in peace. > [@](#): > > What we have here is two cases. One kid who took a communion wafer back to his seat to show a friend before eating it (subjecting him to a physical assault, death threats and over the top accusations of “hate crimes” from all the poor victims of his perescution), the other is a guy who put a nail through a wafer that was sent to him by a reader. It was his wafer, on his own time, involved no church or ceremony and could not be witnessed by anyone who didn’t voluntarily click on his blog. Both Cook and Myers have received death threats from your poor, suffering, persecuted Catholics. Who are the real jerks here? That’s an easy one - the trolls who mock other folks by desecrating their religious ceremonies are jerks, and the assholes who post death threats or physically assault others are, also, jerks. Just as Fred Phelps is a jerk for picketing gay servicemen’s funerals, and those who make death threats against him are also jerks. Getting death threats for acting like an asshole doesn’t magically make you not an asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/402 "2011-03-22T15:21:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Calculon, > > The (obvious) problem here is that these “certain things” that “must be observed” are not at all clear, and differ wildly, even in their very existence, depending on which deity you’re talking about. > > Can you think of anything that “must be observed” for the existence of your God? I can’t. Based on my understanding, anything He could do, if he so wishes, He could do without the possibility that I “observe” it. I agree that this is difficult task, and not one that is immediately obvious to me. Of course obviously anything that I would state as “must being observed” are actually being observed, because I think it likely that God exists. 🙂 If I were to start formulating an argument along these lines I would consider the character of God, and how that would necessarily impact creation. So one possible option is that God values human free will and wants people to make meaningful choices. Part of humans having the ability for meaningful choices is that theyt are able to understand how the world around them effectively works. Therefore, if God exists the world that he created must be effectively understandable. And this is in fact the case. The laws of could be far more chaotic then they are, or indeed there may be no static laws of nature at all. If this were the case then I would take that as a reason to think that it is more likely that God does not exist. I give that only as an example of what I mean. I am not convinced that is a good argument, but it is a type of argument that I am talking about. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/403 "2011-03-22T15:25:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Firstly, I don’t really think that atheism is very likely. For one thing I think it offers no good explaination of why there should be something rather than nothing at all. Secondly it does not explain really why the world is the way it is. I am a scientist (Theoretical chemist to be precise) and the more I learn about nature and about the aparent laws themselves that govern it, it just seems designed in a way that it is complex where it needs to be, but also understandable where possible. This is exactly what you would expect if God designed the universe. Note that I am not talking about objects such as animals or produced through evolution, but that actual underlying laws themselves. Secondly this universe in which we are in seems rediculously tuned for creation of life like us that can be in relationship with God. This is again what theism would expect of the world. I see no good answers for these properties of the universe in atheism. I understand the “multiverse” theory that proports to explain away this, but I think it is full of flaws. I understand your questions about the nature of the universe, but to me the concept of God does not answer them- how did God do it? How was God created? If the universe had to have a “cause”, then why does God not need a “cause”? > [@](#): > > In terms of why I believe in Jesus specifically, I believe that Jesus physically rising from the dead is the best explaination of the apostles, the gospels, and the early church. I think the gospels conform to the general standard of ancient history that we expect of other ancient authors, and are therefore generally reliable. I also think that no naturalistic explaination of Jesus resurrection (gospels were intentional lies, disciples lost the body, swoon theory, ect) really explain all of the facts surrounding the resurrection. No naturalistic explanation? This one’s easy- people lied. People made errors in reporting. People made stuff up. People used tricks and deception. People faked deaths. To me, all of these are WAAAY more likely than “God did it”. Just like, to me, it’s much more likely that the story of Noah (or Job, or Jonah in the whale) is NOT literally true, than that it is. Jonah is much more likely to have made up the story of being in a whale than to have actually survived inside a whale. > [@](#): > > On this point it surprises me that you say that the evidence for all religions are pretty much the same. I have investigated the claims of a number of other religions (although not all, obviously) and in every case found them less credible than Christianity. Apart though from the relative merits of each claim in many cases the types of evidence and arguments that different religions offer are very different. So for instance Christianity offers a historical type of argument in favour of Christianity. In constrast many Monistic Pantheist religions like Hinduism see history as unimportant and instead offer philosophical reasons why you should believe in that religion. Again still other religions offer more pragmatic reasons to believe in them. > > I can only really conclude that you havn’t really honestly looked at the evidence for each religion on it’s own terms. I would encourage you to really go back and have a look at why different people accept different religions. Especially asking thinking people of the faiths themselves what it is that they believe. I think if you do that, and really listen to what people tell you, you will start to find that the claims of different religious groups are not similar at all. Your conclusion about me is false. I have read extensively on major religions, attended religious schools, and talked to many knowledgeable believers. I’m sure I have a lot to learn, but none have any stories that are LESS believeable than the resurrection of Jesus, Noah’s Ark, Jonah in the Whale, miraculous healing, etc. For an event that happened 1 week ago, cops and prosecutors will tell you that eyewitness testimony is rarely 100% accurate. For an event 20 years ago, few law enforcement professionals would fully trust even a handful of eyewitness accounts. For an event 2000 years ago? Come on. Sure, I might believe that a _big_ historical event, like the Fall of Rome, occurred (based on multiple sources). But an event that, at the time, only affected or was witnessed by a handful of people? Not even close to qualify as good “evidence”. Based on multiple (and non-biblical) sources, I think it’s likely that a man named Jesus (or the local language equivalent) lived about 2000 years ago, and was involved in some sort of religious movement. But that’s all that I think there’s good evidence of in relation to him. > [@](#): > > I hope that in some way answers your questions. > > Calculon. It does. Thanks very much for sharing. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/404 "2011-03-22T15:26:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is hilarious. You really think these are clever answers. It’s only too easy to do whattheists always do. it’s a magic teapot, impervious to the laws of physics. They’re magic aliens capable of instantaneous teleportation. see? All you have to say is “it’s magic.” That’s what religion does. Magic teapots is a contradiction in terms. “Teapots” are, by defninition non-magical items. If the item gains magical properties it ceases to be a teapot. Since then the existence of “magical teapots” involves a contradiction, then they cannot exist. Simple. However, even if they do exist, so what? Do they impact my life in the slightest way? If not then why should I even care if they exist or not? Why is it so important to you that you must be able to affirm that magical teapots do not exist? Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/405 "2011-03-22T15:28:04Z")
> [@](#): > > If I were to start formulating an argument along these lines I would consider the character of God, and how that would necessarily impact creation. So one possible option is that God values human free will and wants people to make meaningful choices. Part of humans having the ability for meaningful choices is that theyt are able to understand how the world around them effectively works. Therefore, if God exists the world that he created must be effectively understandable. And this is in fact the case. The laws of could be far more chaotic then they are, or indeed there may be no static laws of nature at all. If this were the case then I would take that as a reason to think that it is more likely that God does not exist. Calculon, This is just framing your argument to fit facts that are already known. For example- “My concept of God loves blue and would want the oceans to be blue. Therefore, because the oceans are blue, my God exists”. It’s not at all convincing. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/406 "2011-03-22T15:38:56Z")
Calculon- To put it in logic terms: if A, then B, does not mean that if B, then A. For example, if “My God, who loves blue, were to exist” (A), then “the oceans would be blue” (B), does not mean that the fact that “the oceans are blue” (B) indicates that “My God, who loves blue, exists” (A). So your example, that (paraphrasing) the fact that “humans have free will and the ability to understand the world around them” (B) does not imply that “God, who values free will, exists” (A). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/407 "2011-03-22T15:39:24Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > So I also wanted to respond to this comment of yours as well: > > If you are talking about why I believe in God now, then there are a number of reasons. > > Firstly, I don’t really think that atheism is very likely. I assure you. Atheism exists. My post is my cite. 🆒 > [@](#): > > For one thing I think it offers no good explaination of why there should be something rather than nothing at all. Secondly it does not explain really why the world is the way it is. It isn’t supposed to explain anything. It’s not a hypothesis. It’s not a theory. It’s not a belief. It’s just an absence of belief in gods. > [@](#): > > I am a scientist (Theoretical chemist to be precise) and the more I learn about nature and about the aparent laws themselves that govern it, it just seems designed in a way that it is complex where it needs to be, but also understandable where possible. This is exactly what you would expect if God designed the universe. You know that the argument from design is a non-starter, don’t you? It only regresses the question back to the deigner, making the answer more complex than the question. Furthermore, you haven’t demonstrated that the universe shows evdience of design. you’re just declaring it by fiat. [quote] Note that I am not talking about objects such as animals or produced through evolution, but that actual underlying laws themselves.[/quiote] What about them? What’s “designed” about them? > [@](#): > > Secondly this universe in which we are in seems rediculously tuned for creation of life like us that can be in relationship with God. Oh, Christ, the fine tuning argument? Have you ever read Douglas Adams’ puddle analogy? [quote] In terms of why I believe in Jesus specifically, I believe that Jesus physically rising from the dead is the best explaination of the apostles, the gospels, and the early church. [/quote What does it exp[lain, exactly. and what makes magic a better explanation than non-magic? > [@](#): > > I think the gospels conform to the general standard of ancient history that we expect of other ancient authors and are therefore generally reliable No, they don’t, actually. They aren’t even intended as histories. That’s not their genre. Not that the standards of classical historians were al that great anyway. > [@](#): > > I also think that no naturalistic explaination of Jesus resurrection (gospels were intentional lies, disciples lost the body, swoon theory, ect) really explain all of the facts surrounding the resurrection. There is no need to hypothesize naturalistic explanations for something we have no primary claims of ever having happened in the first place. The empty tomb story doesn’t appear in Christian literature until at least 40 years after the crucifixion, and that author is neither a primary nor a secondary witness, so the story doesn’t require “explanation.” You first have to prove there actually ever was an empty tomb (there probably wasn’t). > [@](#): > > On this point it surprises me that you say that the evidence for all religions are pretty much the same. I have investigated the claims of a number of other religions (although not all, obviously) and in every case found them less credible than Christianity. Interesting since you have not been able to cite any supporting evdience at all for Christianity. > [@](#): > > So for instance Christianity offers a historical type of argument in favour of Christianity. What does “historical type argument” mean? You mean thgat it claims to be based on historical events? Like Islam? Like Latter DaySaints? Like Hare Krishnas? > [@](#): > > I can only really conclude that you havn’t really honestly looked at the evidence for each religion on it’s own terms. I have. I’ve actually spent considerable time on it. I have a BA in Religion. All religious metaphysical claims have exactly the same evidence. > [@](#): > > Thirdly I also believe in God because having become a Christian I have experienced something of the risen Jesus in my own life, and seen Him in the lives of other Christians I know. These kinds of arguments from personal experience are not unique to Christianity. Every religion has them. Even the ancient classical religions had them. People had experiences of Apollo and Zeus. People in India still have experiences of Hindu deities. What makes your experience more “real” than theirs? ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/408 "2011-03-22T15:40:06Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I take it you feel the same way about Fred Phelps? He routinely gets death threats. > > [Fred Phelps - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps) > > I guess, according to this reasoning, Phelps’ campaigns - in which he’s not a physical threat to anybody - exposes the _really_ dangerous people in this land - folks who hate him enought to send death threats. It’s a useful and informative exercise to picket funerals. Anyone who threatens Phelps is also a dangerous person yes, do you disagree? He is only exercising his rights and should be free to do that without fear for his safety. No doubt he is an odious little turd mind you. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/409 "2011-03-22T15:43:22Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > No, I think the likelyhood of that is low, but then I can mount an argument as to why I think so. > > The Sun is actually a bad example on your part. You probably would have been better off going with Uranus or one of the other planets. > > When you say “teapot” and “Sun”, the definitions of these words indicates that these are non-supernatural enities. > > The main problem is that teapots are very light in mass, and can only withstand certain temperatures. Because the teapot is light, for it to be a stable orbit it would have to be relatively close to the Sun. However the heat at such distances would likely vaporise the teapot. Secondly because the teapot is light it may be pushed out of any stable orbit by the momentum of photons and ionized radiation leaving the Sun. > > Therefore I think it extremely unlikely that a teapot would indeed be in orbit around the Sun because I think ultimately the laws of physics would prevent such an event from occuring. > > If you had said orbiting a planet though I would point out that a teapot is a created object by definition, and therefore must be somehow put there by some intelligent agent. Humans don’t have the ability, or else we would have heard about it. Extra-terrestials, even if they exist, are simply too far away to be able to do it. Therefore there most likely isn’t one orbiting a planet either. > > Calculon. So what are the odds? Please show your work. Then, if you could be so kind, can you show me your work in getting 50/50 for the existence of a god? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/410 "2011-03-22T15:44:58Z")
I can put it another way, Calculon- You’re an “atheist” with regards to Zeus. You’re an atheist for Thor. And Vishnu. And Horus. We have all that in common. In fact, you’re an “atheist” for every deity but the Christian one. So we’re pretty similar. I’m just an atheist about one more God than you. If you’re curious about why I don’t believe in your God, just look at the same reasons you don’t believe in Anansi the Trickster. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/411 "2011-03-22T15:46:27Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Beliefs are not entitled to respect; persons who hold those beliefs are. I respect Catholics, not Catholicism Do you respect White Supremacists? Do you respect Louis Farrakhan? > [@](#): > > People have the _right_ to practice their beliefs without interference or harrassment. Stealing stuff from a religious ceremony to mock them is harrassment. [ Nothing was stolen and nobody was harrassed except the poor kid in the student union. > [@](#): > > That’s an easy one - the trolls who mock other folks by desecrating their religious ceremonies are jerks, and the assholes who post death threats or physically assault others are, also, jerks. Really? To the same degree? No ceremonies were desecrated, or disturbed, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/412 "2011-03-22T15:49:18Z")
> [@martu](#): > > Anyone who threatens Phelps is also a dangerous person yes, do you disagree? He is only exercising his rights and should be free to do that without fear for his safety. No doubt he is an odious little turd mind you. Of course I agree. Phelps has every right to act the jerk. People who issue death threats are wrong to do so. I’m merely pointing out that Phelps is not performing some sort of valuable service by acting like an odious turd. The fact that he gets death threats isn’t evidence that his gay-funeral-picketing “services” are really exposing how gays - the target of his attacks - are ‘really’ Bad People. Similarly, the fact that the Myers posts an offensive blog which demonstrates he’s an ass and a troll isn’t performing some sort of useful service by exposing Catholics as Bad People, because he gets death threats. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/413 "2011-03-22T15:51:44Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Magic teapots is a contradiction in terms. “Teapots” are, by defninition non-magical items. If the item gains magical properties it ceases to be a teapot. Since then the existence of “magical teapots” involves a contradiction, then they cannot exist. Simple. Of course I don’t believe in _that_ teapot, that would be silly. Personally, I find it insulting that you would think I believed a simple teapot orbitted the sun The Teapot is, naturally, made of cerametaltic. This is a substance not found on earth, and we can only begin to imagine what its properties are. > [@](#): > > However, even if they do exist, so what? Do they impact my life in the slightest way? If not then why should I even care if they exist or not? Why is it so important to you that you must be able to affirm that magical teapots do not exist? > > Calculon. Obviously, you have not partaken of the Tea. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/414 "2011-03-22T15:54:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Do you respect White Supremacists? Do you respect Louis Farrakhan? Do you make no distiction between Catholics on the one hand and white supremacists/Louis Farrakhan on the other? > [@](#): > > Nothing was stolen and nobody was harrassed except the poor kid in the student union. > > Really? To the same degree? > > No ceremonies were desecrated, or disturbed, by the way. No, not to the same degree. Jerks and trolls are not as bad as those who issue death threats. Point here is that getting death treats does not make jerks and trolls into something admirable, or really have anything to do with their jerishness or trollitude; since time immemorial - at least, since nursery school - two wrongs do not transform into a right. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/415 "2011-03-22T15:58:56Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Magic teapots is a contradiction in terms. “Teapots” are, by defninition non-magical items. Says who? THIS teapot is magical. Sorry. Prove there isn’t a magic teapot on the other side of the sun. Prove there isn’t a Kokopeli. Prove there aren’t any half-elves. We can do this all day. There is exactly as much evidence for Wotan, for unicorns and for hobgoblins as there is for the Christian God. You know what religion actually has good evidence? Cargo cults. They at least have a genuine basis for their beliefs that gods will bring them gifts from the sky. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/416 "2011-03-22T15:59:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I understand your questions about the nature of the universe, but to me the concept of God does not answer them- how did God do it? How was God created? If the universe had to have a “cause”, then why does God not need a “cause”? Simply put, God has always existed. I think for anything at all to exist something must exist eternally. Given the properties of the universe, namely the second law of thermodynamics and the big bang, I think it extremely unlikely that the universe has always existed. Therefore there must be something else that exists for all eternity that brings the universe into existence. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No naturalistic explanation? This one’s easy- people lied. People made errors in reporting. People made stuff up. People used tricks and deception. People faked deaths. To me, all of these are WAAAY more likely than “God did it”. Just like, to me, it’s much more likely that the story of Noah (or Job, or Jonah in the whale) is NOT literally true, than that it is. Jonah is much more likely to have made up the story of being in a whale than to have actually survived inside a whale. First off, there is a confusion in terms of probabilities of explainations that goes back to David Hume. Basically Hume considered that all that mattered in considering competing hypothesis was the inherent likelyhood of the hypothesis itself. So he considered that miracles were always impossible because they are always the least likely thing to happen. The problem is that inherent likliness is only part of the picture. You also have to consider how much of the surrounding events. And for many hypothesis, the explaination of the facts outweighs the inherent unlikeliness of the hypothesis. So for instance say you are playing poker, and you get delt 5 cards. According to Hume you are never justified in believing that you have a royal straight flush, even if that is what you see, because that is the unlikeliest of all hands. However, if you pick up your cards and see that you do indeed have a royal straight flush you are indeed justifed in believing that you were delt that hand. It may be incredibly unlikely, but the explaination as to why you see those 5 cards in front of you outweighs the inherent improbability of being dealt that hand. So in considering the resurrection, you have to consider not just the likelihood of each hypothesis, but also what each hypothesis explains. In this case the resurrection is the best explaination because it explains all of the facts in ways that naturalistic explainations don’t. I don’t doubt that it is extremely unlikely for someone to be raised from the dead. I get that. However I believe in the resurrection because I think no other naturalistic explaination really covers all of the data. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Your conclusion about me is false. I have read extensively on major religions, attended religious schools, and talked to many knowledgeable believers. I’m sure I have a lot to learn, but none have any stories that are LESS believeable than the resurrection of Jesus, Noah’s Ark, Jonah in the Whale, miraculous healing, etc. What is your criteria for how likely a belief is? Is it just all miraculous stories have the same improbability value, or is it more nuanced than that? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > For an event that happened 1 week ago, cops and prosecutors will tell you that eyewitness testimony is rarely 100% accurate. For an event 20 years ago, few law enforcement professionals would fully trust even a handful of eyewitness accounts. For an event 2000 years ago? Come on. Sure, I might believe that a _big_ historical event, like the Fall of Rome, occurred (based on multiple sources). But an event that, at the time, only affected or was witnessed by a handful of people? Not even close to qualify as good “evidence”. Based on multiple (and non-biblical) sources, I think it’s likely that a man named Jesus (or the local language equivalent) lived about 2000 years ago, and was involved in some sort of religious movement. But that’s all that I think there’s good evidence of in relation to him. First off, I think you are selling ancient history short. In terms of the distance between the events and the earliest writings of the event the resurrection is one of the best attested facts in all ancient history. Scholars of other historical events routinely use sources that were written several hundred years after the events. That is standard practice. If you say that the gospels are unreliable historically because of the time between then event and writing, then we would have to throw nearly every historical literary source out. Secondly I don’t think the comparison between modern prosecutorial evidence and the gospels is a good one. There are a number of studies that demonstrate that ancient pre-literate cultures were actually very good at remembering facts and recalling them. Much better than people today. Also it has to be considered that the apostles saw the death and resurrection of Jesus as one of the central events in their life. Of course they would put a lot of effort into remembering it. In contrast eyewitnesses in trials are often called on to testify on details that are mostly irrelevant to them and which they have expended no effort in trying to memorise. A much better comparison would be if you asked older people today about some of the central points of their lives that happened 40 years ago. Ask elderly people about their weddings, or the birth of their children or other such things and they will probably give a very accurate account of what those events were like for them. They remember because it is important to the to remember, as it would be for the gospel writers. Calculon. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It does. Thanks very much for sharing. You’re welcome 🙂 Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/417 "2011-03-22T16:02:45Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Do you make no distiction between Catholics on the one hand and white supremacists/Louis Farrakhan on the other? I’m going to an extreme to make a point. If you agree that all believers are not automatically entitled to respect, then that angle becomes meaningless. > [@](#): > > Point here is that getting death treats does not make jerks and trolls into something admirable, or really have anything to do with their jerishness or trollitude; since time immemorial - at least, since nursery school - two wrongs do not transform into a right. Your charactization of “trolling” is not really applicable in either case. Do you really think the kid who brought a wafer back to his seat to show it to a friend before he ate was “trolling?” Do you think he committed a hate crime? I also don’t see how Myers could troll anybody who didn’t want to be trolled. Was anybody forced to read his blog. Any offense taken from Myers blog was purely voluntary and recreational. Just for the sake of argument, though, could you explain who is actually harmed by having their beliefs disrespected or mocked? How are they harmed? What are the “jerks and trolls” actually _doing_ to anybody? ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/418 "2011-03-22T16:03:07Z")
> [@martu](#): > > So what are the odds? Please show your work. Then, if you could be so kind, can you show me your work in getting 50/50 for the existence of a god? Thanks. It doesn’t matter what the odds are. So long as it is more likely that it doesn’t exist I am justified in believing that it doesn’t. What argument would you advance to suggest that my assigning a probability of less than 50% is in error? Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/419 "2011-03-22T16:08:48Z")
> [@](#): > > So in considering the resurrection, you have to consider not just the likelihood of each hypothesis, but also what each hypothesis explains. In this case the resurrection is the best explaination because it explains all of the facts in ways that naturalistic explainations don’t. I don’t doubt that it is extremely unlikely for someone to be raised from the dead. I get that. However I believe in the resurrection because I think no other naturalistic explaination really covers all of the data. I can think of many naturalistic explanations that cover all the data. Let’s assume this is the data- people say they saw Jesus get crucified. They say they saw him get put in the tomb. They say they saw the big rock rolled to cover the tomb. Three days later, people say they saw that the rock had moved, and the body was gone. And some of the apostles say that they saw Jesus. Here’s a totally naturalistic explanation that fits ALL the data- Jesus really did get crucified. He really did get put in that tomb. The big rock really did cover the tomb. But in the next three days, at some point, probably at night, someone else moved the rock and stole the body. Why? I don’t know- maybe they wanted to play a trick on the apostles. And then some of the apostles had dreams or hallucinations about Jesus, and thought they had really seen him. To me, that totally naturalistic explanation is much more likely than the explanation that he was resurrected. And it’s just one of many possible explanations- at any point in the story, people could be making stuff up, or being deceived by trickery, etc. > [@](#): > > What is your criteria for how likely a belief is? Is it just all miraculous stories have the same improbability value, or is it more nuanced than that? Yes, all “miraculous” stories have the same improbability value. But there’s a little more to it- if someone says they saw someone fly up in the air, I don’t immediately discount it. I might start looking for wires or a trapeeze. But I would immediately discount any explanation invoking the supernatural- largely, because there’s no point- anything supernatural, by its very definition, does not have to fit “naturalistic” evidence. So there’s no point in looking for “evidence” that God summoned my example of the flying man up to heaven, because even if it were the explanation, there would be no evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/420 "2011-03-22T16:09:33Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > It doesn’t matter what the odds are. So long as it is more likely that it doesn’t exist I am justified in believing that it doesn’t. What argument would you advance to suggest that my assigning a probability of less than 50% is in error? > > Calculon. Physical impossibility for one thing. Utter lack of demonstrated necessity for another. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=22)