AJ,

Firstly, I haven’t “goofed”- I’ve made genuine attempts to understand you here. But perhaps if you didn’t make bad arguments and then admit that you worded them poorly and so have to explain yourself again, we could gain a better understanding. (As you did with your “100%” comment, for example).

[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.]

In your opinion there would be no point trying. In my opinion, we DO have little control over our biases but this does not imply that there is no point trying to reason objectively. That would be a non-sequitur, so I’m surprised that an enlightened free thinker such as yourself would make such a logical blunder.

(Actually, I’m not surprised at all- it’s merely more evidence for the original argument I made about the fallibility of reason and our use of it).

[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.]

You have also stated plenty of opinions here in this discussion! What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Instead of sitting here implying that my views are worthless because they are “opinions”, you should actually show them to be false or improbable.

[<<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?]

So, in your opinion my arguments have fallen down? Well, that’s complete nonsense because you are only stating an opinion.

(See how frustrating that is?)

(continued)

[My main contention was not so much that it’s impossible for a believer to think intelligently about religious faith ... ]

That may not have been your main contention, but it was certainly implied, as I noted in my previous post. Why are you trying to wriggle out of the implication you made? Is it because that implication is nonsense?

[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.]

In principle I agree with you, in the sense that I agree that we must be willing to open up our own presuppositions to critical evaluation.

[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.]

So let me get this straight, lest I misunderstand another poorly worded statement of yours.

Your position is that freethinkers can alter their presuppositions, but religious believers cannot. You seem to be claiming that this is because religious believers have a belief that “compels them to cling to it at all costs”?

Your point may be correct in some cases, but it is not warranted if you are making a general, blanket statement about believers and non-believers.

If by free thinker you mean someone who thinks critically, examines their own presuppositions and is willing to alter them, in other words thinks as freely as they possibly can, then there is plenty of Christians throughout history and alive today who have fitted into that boat. And on the flip side, there are plenty of atheists who claim to be freethinkers, yet they have a “dogmatic belief system” built on the view that nature is all that can ever exist.

Pericles,

[Thank you, Trav.]

Not a problem.

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

Do you honestly believe you do not have any faith at all in your worldview? Honestly? I’m not asking whether the question “computes”, I’m asking you make an attempt at computing it, and then answer it.

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

So did Paul meet Jesus or not? You suggested in your last post that he did not.

Allow me to ask: If he didn’t, as you are claiming, why does this discount the evidence of early belief in the resurrection given by 1 Corinthians 15 vs 3-8?

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

Do you?]

If evidence means something that raises the probability of the Resurrection being true, then yes.

The historical evidence for the belief in post mortem appearances and the historical evidence for the empty tomb both make the resurrection more likely than it would be without that evidence.

[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"]

[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..]

OK, so that's your explanation which you found "quite easy", as you put it.

So, let’s say you wanted to emphasise the special nature of someone and elevate their actions to a supernatural level. You knew, of course that the person really had no supernatural power. You were only pretending he did in order to create something “pretty special”.

Would you continue to proclaim their supernatural power if it meant you would suffer a horrific death for doing so?

Hey AJ,

re: The first part of my above post, on a re-read it isn't clear whether you're saying that we shouldn't bother trying to reason (as I read it), or whether you're claiming I made that implication.

Since I definitely don't believe that, I assumed you were making that argument. If you weren't then please disregard.

You are just a mass of assumptions, aren't you Trav.

>>Do you honestly believe you do not have any faith at all in your worldview? Honestly?<<

It is not necessary to have "faith" in a worldview. The word doesn't belong in the question, which is why it is impossible to answer. It's like asking "do you have faith in this ham sandwich". Daft.

>>So did Paul meet Jesus or not? You suggested in your last post that he did not.<<

*I* suggested? Good grief, where did you get that crazy notion? I simply pointed out that there is no evidence, anywhere, in any of his (or someone else's) stories, that he did. That's not a suggestion, it is a statement. No-one says he did, and I find their evidence persuasive.

>>why does this discount the evidence of early belief in the resurrection given by 1 Corinthians 15 vs 3-8?<<

What evidence? It's just a story. Stories aren't evidence.

>>The historical evidence for the belief in post mortem appearances and the historical evidence for the empty tomb both make the resurrection more likely than it would be without that evidence.<<

Not if it is just a story, it doesn't. What evidence of an empty tomb, by the way? Evidence of an absence of evidence. Persuasive.

>>Would you continue to proclaim their supernatural power if it meant you would suffer a horrific death for doing so?<<

Have you ever heard of suicide bombers? What do they die for?

A story.

i cant ignore the referances to miracles and reserction
jesus at the passover feast died..thre days later..he proved death..'where is thy sting'...

[and lying in ya grave till 'res-erction/day'..a lie]..
thus also rebutted 'judgement day'...

its what people live by
a promise writ in stone..
[but available to all...!]

there is plenty of more recent proof
thaty we all survive death..many have communicate with the 'dead'

jewsus in fact came back more recently..[and his own missed it]
and channeled..'his story'..in his own wordform's
in..'a course in miracles'..[that explains much
about the act's of the miracle..

[as well as
the way to atonment..[at-one-meant]..
with good/god..and with each other...

we are ALL eternal spirit..
having an incarnate..mortal..life in sentanence
we are each here serving out our 'life'/sentance..[we all got life]

this is satans realm..not heaven..nor hell
here is the place of the beasts..the place where we make our choices
and life a life without knowing the all good..is a undeniable fact

a beast dont notice its masters thoughts
it only thinks/acts..like a beast...feed me/milk me..sex me up

but just as every sperm is sacred
so too the life spirit animouse sustaining..it[and us]..into life

any who have been in a car-crash
know they lived on..but the car died

its the same with spirit..within our vessel[body]..
the spirit/driver of the body..leaves the building
and gets sorted into sheep or goat...wheat or tare

and our soul body takes us there...
[back to where we belong]

where more of the 'same' shall be given
wether you be in the fathers light room
or in that dark place/room..

or in the woumb
to get back to here

your works...have earned it
wherever it in truth lies..in the light
or the dark..because you reject the light

yet by grace your spirit
gets a new oppertruinity to earn more
wherever your spirit may be in HEaven or HEll
or HEre..

its about redeeming ourselves[in time]
in-body..embody..knowing our true essence within
is protected..

indestructable*..
but easilly destractable