Pericles,

[Can I imagine a scenario whereby I could come to believe the same thing? Not really. I am quite content to accept that not everything will become clear in my lifetime.]

Pericles, I applaud your honesty here for admitting that you have no idea in what sort of scenario you would believe in God.

Re: Your 2nd sentence, would you say that your belief includes a strong element of faith? ie: You have faith in your worldview, even though “not everything will become clear”?

[We know for a fact (he says so himself) that Paul never met Jesus. Yet here he is, saying that he did, along with 514 others.]

Do you think that including the rest of verse 8 (which you left out) might help us interpret this verse more accurately?

[Sure. That is pretty much what defines you as a Christian. But your opinion differs from mine. ]

Having the right opinion about evidence isn’t what defines a Christian. Plenty of Christians wouldn’t know the first thing about what evidence there is or isn’t for the resurrection. Anyway, back to your main point:

[You find it difficult, whereas I find it quite easy to explain the whole miracle-and-resurrection thing, as allegory.]

Go for it. I’d be interested to hear your explanation

Ammonite,

I’m truly humbled by your kind words. Thanks. My patience for OLO debating has been fading in recent days but comments like yours give me energy to fight another day.

----

Oh no, no, no, Trav, You don’t get to do that...

<<It seems we always do this! We always claim that the other person is misinterpreting us and we always fail to reach mutual understanding.>>

You don’t get to play the whole, “Look, I don’t think we’re understanding each other here”, card when you realise you’ve goofed, refuse to explain what it is that I’m allegedly not understanding out of an apparent respect for my time, only to later pull meanings out of what I’ve said that clearly weren’t there and then, when I correct you, ask why are we’re always doing this to each other.

And “claim”? My allegations progressed past the point of “claim”, sorry.

<<I’ve had plenty of discussions with other users... Discussions that haven’t resorted to this.>>

“Resorted”? I have not yet had to resort to anything.

<<We can and definitely should try to reason. But we must always remember reason’s limitations and also the factors which limit our ability to objectively apply it...>>

You say that like I had, at some point, forgotten it.

Limitations are one thing, but in your usual style, you overstated your point and implied that we had virtually no control over our biases clouding our ability to reason objectively, in which case, there really would be little point in trying at all.

<<Yes. [Discussing the requirement for evidence to be objective] was irrelevant to the extent that it distracted us from the real point of discussion, ie: The issue at hand.>>

When it affects the validity of your arguments regarding the “issue at hand”, it’s entirely relevant.

<<The “evidence” is the figure of 6.98% of wars being categorised by expert historians in an encyclopaedia as religious wars. My expectation is my opinion- it is my interpretation of the evidence.>>

Nice try.

The 6.98% figure, by itself, is not evidence for or against anything much at all.

Continued...

...Continued

For it to count as evidence for something you would need to gauge it alongside a control mechanism and you used your opinion of what you personally would expect to see as that control mechanism.

Are you getting any closer to understanding the fatal flaw in your argument now?

<<Yes, and your point is still just as unpersuasive as the first time you made it, due to the counter arguments I’ve made.>>

You mean the ones that have all fallen down?

<<But nonetheless as I already noted the failure or otherwise of any individual arguments for God’s existence still fail to provide support for your implication that one can’t be a believer and think intelligently about religious faith.>>

My main contention was not so much that it’s impossible for a believer to think intelligently about religious faith but that all the thinking in the world is of little use if one starts with a presupposition that they do not allow themselves to deviate from. The failed arguments for the existence of god were provided as examples of what results from this rigidity in thinking.

<<I agree. Same goes for you>>

No, the same does not go for me because I have not adopted, fallen in love and built my entire life around a dogmatic belief system that compels me to cling to it at all costs. That’s the advantage of being a freethinker - I can alter my presuppositions if the evidence dictates.

But we’ve already been through this in a previous discussion.

AJ Phillips

From now on I will try to refer to myself as a "freethinker" as it more accurately describes my reasoning abilities than does "atheist", which has acquired a negative aspect which I abhor and tire of trying to explain to those who think I am personally insulting them by referring to myself as such.

Cheers.

ammo[freethinker]
its a wise..to change words
when we find..*the meaning has alterd

im the same way..with being christian
if xtian means labling others..as dammed
well be dammed..if i want to be..*under that lable

i do hope aj and trave continue
with their civil discourses
i find i love both their passions and persistance
[noting both are missing from xtians]

if only we who claim to follow
THE TEACHINGS..and egsample
of the most holy christ...[would be seen to be doing the same good
then we would all KNOW god is love..for a certainty]

that we dont
infact that we EVEN attack our own*...lol

appart from the fact
we EVEN..hope to condem..those not 'like/us'
to eternal damm-nation..is ohhh soooo very un-christ like

the saying jesus wept..should read jesus weeps
ohh tha blasphemy..we do under your name

you [jesu]
who revealed the truth of the one father..
the living loving good/works of grace mercy

who is with and within us all....KNOW'sss
that that we do TO THE LEAST
[we do too..*to the most]

if only dead
REALLY MEANT DEAD

but you
had to go and prove
dead is only a re-birth

[yet those claiming to be born again*...lol..
still glory in the articles..of the flesh...ignoring completly the spirit..within the flesh]..that sustains the meat into life..*

ahhhh
men

see the insanity

see the materialistic...*joke

we got a KATE/bank-cheque..on tv
telling us were bad

[yet on her own mansions roof
sit over 60 solar cells]
estimated cost @ 1000$ per cell
=$60,000..[jeez how much power does she use?

did she get govt subsidy
for her gross excessive ab./use of power?

next joke is we got a solar ship..[oops sorry boat]
with 800 solar cells on its extended deck
did they get a subsidy i wonder

[cost 800,000$]
to run a large twin hull ferry size boat
PLUS*..REPLACING THE BATTERIES..[every few years]

[noting its going in..for service at cairns/next]
seems its batteries wearout every few thousand..amp hours

but there is yet more
to the materialistic [satanistic/..joke

but satan has made some numb..others dumb
yet anger wont fix things..[anger is his energy]

Thank you, Trav.

>>Pericles, I applaud your honesty here for admitting that you have no idea in what sort of scenario you would believe in God.<<

I'd be interested to hear your own answer to the same question. What sort of hypothetical scenario did you imagine that allowed you to believe in a higher power?

>>Re: Your 2nd sentence, would you say that your belief includes a strong element of faith? ie: You have faith in your worldview, even though “not everything will become clear”?<<

I have no idea what the word "faith" is doing in this sentence. I have a worldview. I am comfortable with it. It explains the things that I need to have explained, and accepts there is stuff that we are too primitive to get our heads around. It is a worldview that refuses to compromise on the facts, simply in order to feel comfortable.

Do I have "faith" in that worldview? I'm sorry, but that question doesn't compute.

>>Do you think that including the rest of verse 8 (which you left out) might help us interpret this verse more accurately?<<

What, "...as of one born out of due time"?

No. What do you find in that phrase that tells us that Paul actually met Jesus? Or that any of the others had?

>>Plenty of Christians wouldn’t know the first thing about what evidence there is or isn’t for the resurrection.<<

That's an interesting claim, indicating that you might actually have some evidence you'd like to share.

Do you?

>>I’d be interested to hear your explanation [of the whole miracle-and-resurrection thing, as allegory]<<

Simple. It is a story that was created in order to emphasise the "special" nature of the individual, and elevate his actions to a supernatural level. Likewise the "miracles".

It almost defines Christianity, after all. Believe that, and you'll believe everything else with very little effort.

As I said before, when you found a new religion, you need something pretty special to kick-start it, wouldn't you? Golden plates, tablets of stone, divine revelations, miracles, resurrection from the dead etc.

That sort of thing.