Pericles,
Are you talking about a person’s physical resurrection or their spirit entering eternity?

If it is physical resurrection from the state of death, then there are hundreds of such cases even the recent atheist Kerry Packer was brought back bodily from a state of death.

If you are talking about the spirit leaving the body for an eternal state 90 of 100 people believe such except those that believe in reincarnation of the spirit or total extinction.

I happen to believe the spirit of the dead lives on in the lives of the living; in the impact their ideas, contribution and attitudes they had during their life. The righteous to the hope of eternal and holy life: and the unrighteous toward a life of turmoil and hell. You yourself are determining what ideas, attitudes lives beyond your physical existence. How do I prove that? By who uses your ideas, behaviours and contributions.

On another thread the influence of the words and attitudes of Jesus Christ has had on Western society is not an insignificant matter.

No idea what you are on about, Philo.

>>Pericles, Are you talking about a person’s physical resurrection or their spirit entering eternity?<<

I was on a completely different topic. Discussing with Trav the Bible story about the resurrection.

Trav was trying to explain how Paul met Jesus. I was pointing out to him that - even if you are using the Bible itself as evidence - there is no record of his doing so.

Nothing whatsoever to do with Kerry Packer. Who, incidentally, was revived only because the ambulance was - unusually, and fortuitously - fitted with a defibrillator. Are you suggesting this is a parallel of some kind? What would have been Jerusalem's equivalent to a Packer-whacker, do you think?

But you also seem to be in two minds about the resurrection itself.

>>Jesus resurrection was not an apparition... he himself said he was flesh and bones<<

But you have a bet each way with:

>>I happen to believe the spirit of the dead lives on in the lives of the living...<<

The latter uses "spirit" where I would use "influence", but otherwise I can't quibble. But that being so, why is it so necessary to invent a story as far-fetched as the resurrection?

Why isn't it enough that you hold Jesus up as an example to follow, rather than gussy it up with a whole lot of spook-speak?

Sorry Trav. To my disappointment, I had misread the second sentence here (I read the second “comprise” as being “compromise” but you’ve still helped to rebut your own claim to some extent)…

<<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.>>

So I’ve decided to take a break from all those other internet discussions I’m involved with to come back to OLO for a moment.

Have you re-read the above at any point, Trav? That’s actually some pretty muddled thinking going on there. Let’s break it down a bit…

<<The part you’re really missing is that the justification for opinions can comprise other opinions.>>

No argument from me there. The justification for opinions certainly can be made up of other opinions. It just goes to show how unreliable opinions can be.

<<Thus, opinions can comprise evidence…>>

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

So because the justification for opinions can comprise other opinions, that then means that opinions can comprise evidence?

Now that’s a non sequitur if I ever heard one!

Opinions can be made up “from” evidence, but not “of” (i.e. comprise) evidence and this is the part that YOU are really missing.

<<…and whether directly or indirectly is beside the point.>>

Not sure what this was supposed to prove so I’ll just put it down to a brain fart in all that confusion.

Now let’s move on to those answers you put your foot down and - with arms folded and a stubborn nod - refused to repeat; the ones that apparently weren’t undercut by those external factors that determine how theists cherry-pick their chosen religion’s doctrines (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12050#208315)…

<<1. … there ARE plenty of people who try to think of their religion with virtually every aspect of their lives.>>

Yeah, “virtually”. I didn’t specify how much less than 100%. Irrelevant now anyway. I guess the part you were refusing to repeat was this…

<<2. The phrasing you’ve used is actually misleading because it shows a misunderstanding of the way people function.>>

Continued…

…Continued

And you have a better understanding than I do? What are your qualifications here?

<<A person’s worldview and life experiences can impact their overall view of life and their understanding of everything…>>

Yes, even religion.

<<…so that EVEN WHEN they aren’t directly thinking “What does my religion say about this aspect of my life” their worldview is still impacting upon them by shaping the lens by which they view the world.>>

…and their religion.

Um… so tell me how this isn’t impacted by the external factors I made reference to when they are exactly what you’re making reference to here as well…?

<<Religions deal with fundamental questions and thus they impact how people see things at a basic level.>>

Oh, so because religions deal with fundamental questions, that excludes them from being interpreted through a lens influenced by external factors such as life experience and the culture in which one lives?

R-i-i-i-i-ght!

Gee, it’s no wonder you refused to repeat this.

<<So if billions upon billions are seeing their world through the “divisive” lens of monotheistic religion, then it would make sense that that divisive lens would assist them in violence.>>

And whether that “lens of monotheistic religion” is divisive or not, depends very much on how the lens through which they interpret their religion was influenced by those external factors we’ve been talking about.

So in the end, it appears that it’s not that we disagree about “the way people function”, it was simply that you failed to acknowledged that there are more deeper underlying factors that help shape how one interprets their religion. All you’ve done is taken advantage of the fact that religions deal with fundamental questions to ignore the fact that they too need to be interpreted through a lens.

Phew! Glad we finally got to sort that out.

Thanks for the opportunity.

AJ,

[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?]

20 minutes is a while. Besides, it’s eager of you to be commenting multiple times when the other person hasn’t responded yet. Wait your turn next time.

[it really doesn’t take much time to post responses when you have reason on your side.]

I’m happy to let others be the judge of that.

[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.]

Yet the opinions can still be used to demonstrate the truth of another assertion. Therefore, opinions comprise part of the evidence for that other assertion. That was my point. Opinions may have other evidence underpinning or supporting them, for example “scientific evidence”, but if the opinion is demonstrating an assertion it still forms part of the overall evidence.

If you define evidence narrowly enough, then I can see how it could fit into the inflexible, rigid understanding you have of its relationship with “opinions”. But I’ve given a common sense definition of evidence, and using that definition it’s clear that an opinion can be a part of one’s evidence for an assertion.

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

I haven’t backed away from anything; I’ve used the same consistent definition of evidence from the start. Evidence is, simply, anything that can help to determine the truth of something, and opinions can form a part of this.

Your view only makes any sense if you define evidence as being something narrower

[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?]

Strawman.

[I think someone’s telling porkies.]

It helps to read and understand the arguments of others before making claims about them.

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

Have a read of Sam Harris or Richard Carrier and you’ll see some dogmatic close mindedness. Refusal to thoughtfully consider opposing points of view and the making of overstated, under supported assertions are surely traits that are consistent with being a dogmatist and completely inconsistent with being a free thinker.

[Examination can still be carried out even if one avoids ever coming to a particular conclusion].

Yes, I realise this.

But again, this distinction (and your subsequent clarification) make no difference to the substance of my arguments that there are plenty of Christians who are critical thinkers and plenty of atheists that are not. Thus, your claim of the atheist sole ownership of critical thinking was unwarranted.

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

Clearly, you’d like to think so.

I’m just waiting for you to demonstrate that to be the case.

If you’re simply going to repeat your existing statements and then clarify them, it’ll be time to stop discussing this topic as well, because I think my responses have more than adequately shown where you go wrong on this issue. I’m happy to continue dialoguing, but it’s clear that we do understand each other’s arguments here (which is good), and equally clear that we won’t convince each other. Thus, I’ll let others be the arbiter of the truth of my arguments. Christians can be either critical thinkers or dogmatists, as can atheist naturalists