AJ Phillips:
<< Faith is simply a term applied to beliefs that we have no good reason for believing.>> Not so. “Faith” is not such a simple term at all: it is interpreted variously and deserves more enquiry and analysis. Your definition covers only one possible strand of the concept, and it is the strand that I consider least important for spiritual development. To save space here, I suggest you read my article on the topic: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11366&page=0

<< Faith may provide a premise, but reason can’t work from such a basis when there are elements of that premise that simply cannot change regardless of where reasoning may lead you. As soon as certain conclusions need to be circumvented or passed-off as a "mystery" because they contradict an immovable aspect of the premise, reason has been abandoned. >>

Are you suggesting that reason is more than logic? If so I would be interested in an explanation. I suspect you are using “reason” to embrace both logical thought and empirical perception. If so I suggest it is better to refer to these two components separately to avoid confusion. This seems important because it is legitimate to “reason” about non-empirical perceptions also. (See my earlier post in this thread Monday, 20 December 2010 5:24:05 PM)

<<Christians don’t own Christmas and it’s high time we non-theists contested them.>>
Heterosexuals don’t own marriage and it’s high time we homosexuals contested them.

Does anyone else detect a pattern of deconstruction going on?

Forget about offending people by referring to Christ in relation to Christmas,
what about all those poor souls who feel threatened by Christmas trees?

We need to apply scientific reasoning to solve the problem:

<<Christmas trees should be removed from public places to avoid making non-Christians feel “excluded”, scientists have suggested.>>
"We're not suggesting 'no Christmas' or 'no Christmas displays at all,' but in contexts where we really do value respecting and including diversity in terms of religion, the safest option is not to have these kinds of displays.
I understand why it might feel threatening to people.
But I think if people do care about making a whole range of different kinds of people feel included and respected, then we can make some small changes that would go a long way toward creating a more multicultural or inclusive society."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/8214222/Christmas-trees-make-non-Christians-feel-excluded.html

I guess that's what happens when "reason" meets multiculturalism.

@AndrewFinden

Yes, I am prepared to accept the *arguments* of some [biblical] scholars, and I never claimed "they're *irredeemably* biased" - that is a strawman *you* created.

""pure conjecture that Tacitus was just repeating"" - really? and the propostions you put with absolute certainty aren't? e.g. "It remains, an important non-canonical corroborative source", and "two non-canonical sources corroborating the very existence of a figure well documented in the canonical sources" of course he is [reasonably] well documented in the canonical sources! Do you subscribe to the two or three source hypothesis.

""the stretch is to claim that such an unlikely and rapidly expanding movement could be borne without even a real figure at the centre of it"" - the same argument could be used to justify Scientology.

"early, independent, multiple textual attestation" is over-statement.

"normal historical methodology" - i.e. the historical method - shows the sources to be unsubstantiated!

@McReal

>"Yes, I am prepared to accept the *arguments* of some [biblical] scholars, and I never claimed "they're *irredeemably* biased" - that is a strawman *you* created."
-I see.. they're not all biased - just when they disagree with you? In any case - it's STILL ad hominem until you demonstrate that actual bias.

>""pure conjecture that Tacitus was just repeating"" - really?"
-Yes. Really.

>"and the propostions you put with absolute certainty aren't? e.g. "It remains, an important non-canonical corroborative source","
-I'm absolutely certain that historians consider it an important corroborative source. The links you gave us even demonstrate this.

>"and "two non-canonical sources corroborating the very existence of a figure well documented in the canonical sources" of course he is [reasonably] well documented in the canonical sources!"
-And to just disregard those sources because of later 'canonical' collation is completely fallacious. If his existence is 'reasonably;' well documented by ancient sources, then clearly it's just prejudice that causes you to reject that existence. But you're welcome to reject it - just like I'm free to side with the scholarly consensus because of the evidence.

>"Do you subscribe to the two or three source hypothesis."
-I acknowledge that parts of Luke and Matthew use a Markian and Q basis.

>"the same argument could be used to justify Scientology."
-Comparing modern and ancient figures is spurious.. but never-the-less, I don't question the existence of Ron L Hubbard either, actually.

>""early, independent, multiple textual attestation" is over-statement."
-Nope. It's what they are.

>"the historical method - shows the sources to be unsubstantiated!"
-Nope. Not according the way I've seen almost all scholars apply it. Maybe if you only read the heavily criticised fringes like Price and Doherty. But as I said - you're free to disregard all the historical evidence like that, and I'm free to accept it.

And your point is, Proxy?

>>I guess that's what happens when "reason" meets multiculturalism<<

The report was published in the November 2010 issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. You probably only know of this august publication from the sound-bite you were fed by the Telegraph.

The JESP publishes a wide range of reports, each of which is the result of a completely scientific, objective study.

For example, they recently examined:

"The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence"

Their methodology is invariably factual, and statistical in nature.

In this particular study they showed that: "participants who previously played a violent video game had lower heart rate and galvanic skin response while viewing filmed real violence, demonstrating a physiological desensitization to violence."

In your example, they discovered, through a similarly objective process, that non-Christians were less effective in the presence of a Christmas tree.

Hence the summary:

"The results raise concerns about the ubiquitous presence of dominant cultural symbols (such as Christmas displays) in culturally diverse societies."

I am sure you weren't surprised by their conclusions as to the effect of video game violence. Why would you be surprised at the results of this experiment?

Would you have been amazed, for example, if Christians had been measured as less effective in the presence of Islamic symbols?

More importantly, would you have ascribed that reaction to "what happens when 'reason' meets multiculturalism"?