Please Challenge This Hypothesis

[POI]

After years of debate, one topic seems to remain without waiver and/or adjustment. I'm placing this topic here, in the forefront/spotlight, to expose it to direct challenge. I will be more than happy than to (waiver from/augment/abort) this hypothesis, baring evidence to the contrary....

Hypothesis: The reason most/all believe in (God/gods/higher powers) is because of evolution. Meaning, 'survival of the fitter." Meaning, all humans who favored type 2 errors over type 1 errors are now mostly gone. We inherit our parent's predisposition to invoke type 1 errors, until otherwise logically necessary. Meaning, few will still BECOME atheists after "going to the well enough times" and not seeing God there.

Allow me to explain. In this context, a type 1 error would be first assuming intentional agency, and being wrong -- (good or bad). Alternatively, a type 2 error would be not to first assume intentional agency, and being wrong.

1) Walking down a dirt path, from point A to point B, and hearing a rustle in the weeds, and first assuming danger, would be a type 1 error IF incorrect. This person would still be alive if they are wrong. Maybe it was actually just the wind. Alternatively, if one was to instead first assume no danger, the wind, but there was danger, this person has first committed a type 2 error and is now likely out of the gene pool. And since this has been happening for a long time, we only have the ones who first invoke type 1 errors.

2) Getting in a car wreck with 3 friends.... Your 3 friends die, but you live. You assume you are purposefully spared. IF you are wrong, there is really no harm and no way to know. There is really also no way to confirm you were not spared. Hence, your possible type 1 error is never confirmed/corrected. Which means you can and will continue to attribute agency, where there may not really be any.

In essence, you first assume agency, until proven otherwise. For God, it is never really unproven. Humans connect the dots, accept the hits and ignore the misses, other...

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

[1213]

They act on the Golden rule naturally in that it is not done 'with love' but with the self and its' preferences at the center, as 'survival' instinct would dictate. The fact is that religion has to excuse why a god - given moral rule doesn't work half the time.

If it is a natural rule, why people don't act on it even half the time?

It is explained if it is a natural instinct of reciprocity that aids survival as co - operation can benefit both sides, though fighting over resources is an equal instinct.

Then it is not actually the golden rule and not from love, but it is actually opportunism, which tells nothing about does a person care about others really.

[1213]

Don't you know what's in your own Bible?

John 20. 1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we dont know where they have put him!"

This implies that John is aware that others are supposed to be with Mary Magdalene, even it looks like she goes to the tomb by herself.

Thank you for pointing about what you mean. Using the word we in that case doesn't necessary mean they all were there. One can say we don't know something, even not all of the we are present.

But that depends on the disciples running to the tomb twice, once just with Mary Magdalene by herself, and again after the women report back and i would suppose the disciples come back and Mary and the women waiting together and they say the angel has said Jesus was risen, and they all rush off to the tomb again; and after the disciples had left, Mary sees the angels (who do not deliver the angelic message so that isn't the first appearance) and Jesus appears, but there is no mention of the other women 'worshipping' Jesus.

Mary went there twice, not all of the women. First Mary went with the women, left and the others stayed and when she came back, the others had already gone.

[TRANSPONDER]

They act on the Golden rule naturally in that it is not done 'with love' but with the self and its' preferences at the center, as 'survival' instinct would dictate. The fact is that religion has to excuse why a god - given moral rule doesn't work half the time.

If it is a natural rule, why people don't act on it even half the time?

It is explained if it is a natural instinct of reciprocity that aids survival as co - operation can benefit both sides, though fighting over resources is an equal instinct.

Then it is not actually the golden rule and not from love, but it is actually opportunism, which tells nothing about does a person care about others really.

You are making the usual mistake and looking not at what it is or why it is, but what it became and what religion made it.

Reciprocity is a human benefit instinct. Opportunism, if you like. This became more codified into law and politics as society got complicated.

It camr e to have a moral dimension (like observing gameplay rules or not is seen as a mioral issue in games and sports when humans just invented the rules) and religions of course adopted the principle of reciprocity as part of their hi - jacking of morality for themselves.

The Gospel one isn't even original but borrowed from Hillel, or Judaism anyway, and is then inverted so not bothering other people becomes bothering them because it is good for them.

[TRANSPONDER]

Don't you know what's in your own Bible?

John 20. 1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we dont know where they have put him!"

This implies that John is aware that others are supposed to be with Mary Magdalene, even it looks like she goes to the tomb by herself.

Thank you for pointing about what you mean. Using the word we in that case doesn't necessary mean they all were there. One can say we don't know something, even not all of the we are present.

But that depends on the disciples running to the tomb twice, once just with Mary Magdalene by herself, and again after the women report back and i would suppose the disciples come back and Mary and the women waiting together and they say the angel has said Jesus was risen, and they all rush off to the tomb again; and after the disciples had left, Mary sees the angels (who do not deliver the angelic message so that isn't the first appearance) and Jesus appears, but there is no mention of the other women 'worshipping' Jesus.

Mary went there twice, not all of the women. First Mary went with the women, left and the others stayed and when she came back, the others had already gone.

Yes, one may argue that Mary was alone and just referred to the women back there ('we'). But apart from Luke saying they were all together, and Matthew nor Mark (1) hinting they split up but they all ran away together undermines your claim, or excuse, of course for inventing something Not in the Bible to get around a clear contradiction.

The women were at the tomb together and heard the angelic message (though John says not) and they - all ran into Jesus as a group, not split up and they - all Magadalene and the others, Luke says, reported the empty tomb, angelic message and running into Jesus if it had happened, but Luke says not and John knows nothing but Magdalene and all the others (so far as she knows - and like i say the synoptics say they all ran away together) have seen no angel, heard no message and haven't seen Jesus.

Your efforts to rewrite the Bible to say what you want fail even if they weren't blatant fiddling of the text.

I know why, of course. Faith tells you it must be true and thus Something unified happened and differences can be put aside in search of a unified story.

But the fact is that the Gospels are flub, and we know they are and the Faith that it is telling a valid story throughout is failure before it starts. You have only - as usual - denial, and fiddling the evidence to suit your Faithbased preferences.

And it doesn't matter It was never about convincing you as Religious apologists reckon that is reality contradicts the Bible, Reality is wrong.

It is, Like Maga lies, not what counts, but what the Populace will vote for - if they get to hear Both sides, that is, Religion having devoted themselves to ensuring only Their side gets heard.

That is the name of the game, and you may gamble your house and car on it.

(1) Mark4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.
(now here is where you propose Mary magdalene ran away. Wy? At least she entered the tomb and saw an angel even if she didn't hear the message. But then Matthew differs here, too.)
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 "Dont be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[a]

Matthew
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.(only Luke suggests there were more than the two Marys)
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him. Now I have told you."
(so Matthew weites trhat the two women saw the angel before they even went into the tomb, and of course no mention of mary Magdalene running away - not in any of them. That has to be inventing something not in the Bible)
8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

This is clearly on the way to report to the disciples. As I said and as anyone can see who is not willing to rewrite the Bible to save the faith, Mary Magdalene on her own only met the angels and saw Jesus in John after the disciples had gone to check the tomb, not before.

Now I would guess that John has heard the story (as he did the palsied man, the miracle draft of fish and maybe even the Blind man of Jericho and used them in his gospels in different ways) but clearly the event is not the same - the angels don't say that Jesus is risen but just ask a pointless question, and the meeting with Jesus is totally different.

Your expected ted denial aside, it is brutally clear that we have three writers inventing their own version of a Christian take on the Resurrection belief and - like false witnesses who don't get a chance to get heir story straight, contradict each other.

It totally trashes the resurrection account and any valid reason to credit the claim.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #134]

Namaskaram TRANSPONDER

Are we here to support and help everybody Will love set us free...

https://carstenplougolsen.com/christ

https://carstenplougolsen.com/english-section

You should make a playlist Where to begin...















Your friend forever

Waterfall

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't think Love is enough. Even at best it is lotus eating (they aren't bad, if you prepare them right) until you die, which is a Choice and do no harm even if it doesn't help anyone else at all and (like hippyism) relies on a working population to scrounge off to enable the work -free lifestyle. I propose that a characteristic of humans that makes us human is Curiosity. We want to know, discover, understand and find out.

It is a hunger particular to human beans and made us what we are today, and before we moan, our life is Paradise compared to what it was even 100 years ago, never mind a thousand.

So, no, Love is not enough, though it is not a bad thing to cultivate.

And understand, too because...regrettably...Love can so often mean 'Force my own opinions, policies and lifestyle on you because i think it would be good for you". Love can so easily become pestiferation, pushiness and politics.

[1213]

...and religions of course adopted the principle of reciprocity as part of their hi - jacking of morality for themselves.....

Why do you expect people to believe your claims that have nothing substantial supporting them?

[1213]

...
(1) Mark4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.
(now here is where you propose Mary magdalene ran away. Wy? At least she entered the tomb and saw an angel even if she didn't hear the message. But then Matthew differs here, too.)
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
...

This leaves possibility that Mary left before the others saw the man. And, that can be true, even if Mary left and saw the man later on her own.

[TRANSPONDER]

...and religions of course adopted the principle of reciprocity as part of their hi - jacking of morality for themselves.....

Why do you expect people to believe your claims that have nothing substantial supporting them?

Because of what the Theist apologists call 'observation'. You can surely see that all cultures invent their own gods, scripture and legends to suit themselves and reflect their ideas. bAnd every one of them think all the others have it wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
(1) Mark4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.
(now here is where you propose Mary magdalene ran away. Wy? At least she entered the tomb and saw an angel even if she didn't hear the message. But then Matthew differs here, too.)
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
...

This leaves possibility that Mary left before the others saw the man. And, that can be true, even if Mary left and saw the man later on her own.

Possibility - and not a good one. To use your own term - 'The Bible does not say that'. Instead it implies the following:

Mary Magdalene and the Other Mary (apparently Jesus' mother) went to the tomb together. (Luke's other women are nowhere attested by the others, so we can put this as a Lucan invention).
They ran away from the tomb to report to the disciples, and together ("We" in John), and saw no angel and heard no message, according to John.

The Synoptics 'original' gospel had just what Mark had. The empty tomb and running away and not even reporting to the disciples and that left too much to surmise, so added an angel to explain everything, thus contradicting John. The freer logion which you quoted is a known later add - on cobbled together from the other gospels (Matthew and Luke).

Thus not only is there no hint that the (two) women split up. but it implies they did not and both (reasonably) ran away together.

Understandably the apologists want to make the story work with 'well this must have happened' because it 'has to be true'. But the text is all against it and apologists have to fiddle and (as in the 'splitting up' argument), invent stuff not even in the Bible and implicitly denied by it.

I am aware that you want to believe it, no matter what, but to those whose minds are still open, it is by far the least likely of the possibilities, and the most likely is My theory Of course, which is that it originally had only the two women finding the empty tomb and it being assumed that Jesus had got up and flitted to heaven.

And why not do the Vid again, I'm going to vote today in the most pointless UK election I can remember. So let's have some fun.