Trav,

I find 20 spare minutes for an additional comment two days later and suddenly I must have a lot of spare time for internet discussions? Like with “not understanding each other”, I suspect my points make you feel uncomfortable and so, to protect your belief and avoid confronting them, you just broadly interpret the discomfort as “this guy must have a lot of time on his hands.”

Ah, it takes me back.

You made this same suggestion in a previous discussion and so I’ll explain to you, again, that it really doesn’t take much time to post responses when you have reason on your side. It gives you the advantage of not having to go off and ponder the point and pray about it for the next day or two just to come back with some sophistry that a lot of creativity and mental gymnastics had obviously gone into. Just look at the timestamp for our posts on Wednesday night. It took me a mere 30 minutes to put that response together.

<<An opinion is simply a view or belief about something...>>

I rest my case. Oh, wait up...

<<...and of course a view or belief can lead to another view...>>

It doesn’t matter how many times you stack opinions, my point still stands. Without evidence to justify them you are still just left with opinions and opinions can be wrong.

<<...and thus if shown to be plausible an opinion can be used to “demonstrate an assertion”.>>

No, the justification (which should describe the evidence) for that opinion is what demonstrates an assertion, not the opinion.

You keep saying it yourself: “...and thus if shown to be plausible...”

At least you’ve started backing away from this argument.

...Just a little further now.

<<The part you’re really missing is that the justification for opinions can comprise other opinions. Thus, opinions can comprise evidence, and whether directly or indirectly is beside the point.>>

Precisely why it doesn't matter how many times you stack opinions!

You're getting good at this. You're even rebutting yourself now too!

We make a good team.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I’ve answered these specific points [about external factors causing people to cherry-pick the good bits in religious doctrines] in earlier posts and I won’t be repeating myself.>>

Gee, a bit harsh considering you’re quite happy to make me repeat myself over and over and over.

Sorry, but your answers did nothing to negate the fact that external factors help people to ignore various parts of their religious doctrine and that therefore, your expectation of a war-ravaged world in the event of religion being inherently divisive was narrow-minded.

<<I’m confident that most people will read our respective comments and agree with me that 1. Religion is not the primary cause of war...>>

I didn’t say it was.

<<...The world would not be a more peaceful place without religion because human nature would dictate that people would simply fight over other things...>>

For the third time now, I didn’t necessarily say it would be.

But the stats I provided strongly suggested that the world certainly wouldn’t be any worse off without religion.

<<I can know what others think when they tell me what they think.>>

So you’ve had people - who you knew described themselves as “freethinkers” - tell you that they flat-out refuse to even start to consider the opinions of others? Why would anyone want to make themselves appear so ignorant. Not even those who are like that would say such a thing.

I think someone’s telling porkies.

<<When people write their thoughts down and they choose to make themselves come across as dogmatic naturalists, then I can call them dogmatic naturalists.>>

Okay then, give me an example of what you’re talking about?

<<This distinction [between “examine” and “change”] makes no difference to the arguments I’m making.>>

It makes every bit of difference. Examination can still be carried out even if one avoids ever coming to a particular conclusion.

<<You cannot assume that “Christianity” is a single belief system with one single view on epistemology.>>

Oh I couldn’t agree more; you know, with the whole “external factors” bit we were talking about ‘n’ all.

Continued...

...Continued

The more we learn, the more creative and obscure the sophistry becomes to maintain religious belief, which in turn, diversifies what it means to be a Christian.

But to one degree or another, my point still stands for all of them.

----

Ammonite,

I agree that none of it would prove religious dogma; that’s what I was trying to get at when I mentioned the uphill battle theists would then be faced with after such a discovery.

----

Crabsy,

Looks like it would really do you a service to acknowledge the ...“given what we currently know” in an earlier statement of mine too. Perhaps you could look-up the definition of “dogmatic” as well...

<<LOL! The dogmatist denying dogmatically that he is dogmatic. Logical empiricism revealing its own arrogant will to power over the world.>>

Yeah, name-calling’s really funny, isn’t it? Especially when it sounds all catchy ‘n’ stuff.

<<As always, he demands that only the scientific approach to life can lead to awareness and understanding of reality. Anyone taking another approach is “incredibly stupid”.>>

I haven’t said anything of the sort. You need to go back and read my posts again. I’ve specifically said that there are other pathways such as guesses and intuition, but there is only one proven and demonstrably reliable method.

<<And it was not merely by logical consideration of empirical data that I arrived at that view about supernaturalism.>>

You may have used an additional unnecessary method but you would have no way of demonstrating the reliability of that method and that’s what’s relevant to what I’ve been saying.

<<Therefore I must agree with Trav’s observation...>>

I agree too.

But like most Christians, I would not consider you a Christian (take it as a compliment). Try walking into a random church and telling them their god doesn’t exist and see how they react. From what I can tell, you are an atheist who uses Christianity as a cultural framework for interpreting what can only be classed as episodes of textbook hallucinations.

Had you lived in the India, Hinduism would have done you just fine.

I'm beginning to doubt you, just a little, Trav

>>Pericles, I haven’t forgotten about your post, btw<<

Not that I'm holding my breath or anything.

But I would be kinda-sorta interested in your explanation as to who exactly were the "twelve" that the resurrected Jesus was supposed to have appeared to, and what form that apparition took. (Context: your question, "why does this discount the evidence of early belief in the resurrection given by 1 Corinthians 15 vs 3-8?")

If it's too much trouble, just say so. No shame in that.

Pericles,
Jesus resurrection was not an apparition. He spent many days with several of the disciples, eating with them, talking to them, walking with them; and he himself said he was flesh and bones - the very same body pre his death. There had been no change to his body. The bodily transformation came as he dissapeared as a cloud before their eyes and in spirit returned to God 40 days post his physical resurrection.

Philo, I am perfectly well aware that this is what Christians believe, and that it is an important component of the whole structure of that belief:

>>Pericles, Jesus resurrection was not an apparition. He spent many days with several of the disciples, eating with them, talking to them, walking with them; and he himself said he was flesh and bones - the very same body pre his death. There had been no change to his body. The bodily transformation came as he dissapeared as a cloud before their eyes and in spirit returned to God 40 days post his physical resurrection.<<

I was simply making the observation that there are no contemporary accounts that support this belief. And pointing out that even the version in Corinthians is full of holes.

You are perfectly entitled to believe whatever miraculous behaviours you like. It is your prerogative.

But you should not ascribe to those beliefs, held in direct conflict with everything that we know about the workings of the universe, any semblance of historical accuracy.

'Cos there ain't none.