Pericles,

[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.]

Wikipedia:

“Faith is hope and belief in the goodness or trustworthiness, of a person, concept or entity”

Clearly, the mere fact that you have a worldview (as everyone does, whether they admit it or not) shows that you have faith. If you agree with philosophical naturalism then you hope and believe it is true.

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

If stories couldn’t be evidence then the discipline of history would be in ruins, because there are many historical figures who are examined day in, day out in universities across the world, and a large body of evidence used to learn about them is....you guessed it, stories.

Also, if stories couldn’t be evidence then the criminal law process would be changed because much of the evidence used in criminal cases would be inadmissible.

Stories are unique in that by definition they cannot be repeated, but this does not mean we can ascribe no or little value to them. If that view was consistently held then the consequences would be dire.

Stories cannot be scientific evidence, but they certainly can be evidence.

[I hope you have some better evidence than "because Paul said so, it must be true". ]

How about this:

Having multiple independent source documents saying the same things serves to increase the probability that there is a core of historical truth.

There is historical evidence showing that the disciples believed Jesus came back to life. For example The book of Luke, the book of John and Paul’s letter to the Corinthians all mention that Jesus appeared after rising again. These documents are all independent of each other and are all early by historical standards. What’s more, they refer to oral traditions and eyewitness accounts that precede the documents themselves. This is one reason why virtually all reputable historical scholars in the world agree that Jesus’ followers believed he had risen again.

Historical evidence cannot tell us Jesus rose again- I accept that- but it can tell us that this was the disciple’s belief. Historians aren’t qualified to make pronouncements on supernatural events; however we can definitely see what history tells us and then attempt to interpret the evidence.

We also know from many sources that soon after, Christians were getting martyred for this belief.

My question is, how do we explain this?

[What evidence of an empty tomb, by the way? ]

1. Multiple attestation from early documents.

and

2. The fact that the testimony of women featured prominently in those early accounts in a time when women were considered much less reliable than men.

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

They die for something they believe in, which makes them completely irrelevant to the example at hand, and irrelevant to the “easy” explanation you gave for the Rise of Christianity.

Suicide bombers believe in the truth of what they die for. The disciples of Jesus were in a position to KNOW the truth of what they died for. That distinction couldn’t be more important here.

[Because his description of it all was pretty much at the same level as the prophecies of Nostradamus - all imagery, no fact.]

His description intended to proclaim a fact- he even says in 1 Cor v 14 that if Christ didn’t rise then our faith is in vain. Absolutely correct- Christianity’s key event is the Resurrection. Without it, there is no such thing as Christianity.

AJ,

After reading your latest group of posts, I am very glad I gave you the final word.

It would only frustrate me if I had to again show where you were making irrelevant clarifications that are of no consequence to the substance of the argument (Faith and Critical Thinking), and where you were obviously taking me out of context ("Tell me what they think").

It speaks volumes about your approach when you claim I'm "not making headway" and that "someone's losing confidence" when you aren't even arguing against the points I'm actually making (Opinions/Evidence), and when you talk as though my points are easily defeated, despite your failure to undercut them even after trying multiple times (War).

None of this is surprising in light of your admission that you "respond to posts as (you're) reading them"; this makes sense of the fact that you continually commit the errors I listed above.

Next time you quote-mine your way through one of my comments on OLO, I'll simply be giving you short responses like "Irrelevant", "Respond to 3rd para", "Different argument" or "Context please". This will save time that I could be spending on more important pursuits.

Nice job, Trav.

Since the “We’re just not understanding each other” looked a bit silly, you replace it with claims of irrelevancies on my behalf and accusations of taking what you've said out-of-context. Never mind whether any of it is actually true or not.

No, that doesn’t matter.

So long as you don’t have to address the irrationality and unhelpfulness of using opinions as evidence, the underlying influences that affect how people interpret their religion or provide an example to back your claim that some refuse to consider the views of others, it’s good enough for you.

And hey, after your forewarning, you can now just give curt and unhelpful responses as a way of burying your head in the sand rather than dealing with challenges head-on.

Just for the record, though, I have never once “quote-mined“. Quote-mining - since you don’t seem to understand - is selectively quoting, or omitting a part of a quote, in order to distort its meaning. But it’s always cute when a theist accuses an atheist of a dishonest act that tends to be exclusive to theists.

Speaking of quote-mining...

<<“Faith is hope and belief in the goodness or trustworthiness, of a person, concept or entity”>>

No, the full quote is actually:
“Faith is hope and belief in the goodness or trustworthiness, of a person, concept or entity, despite insufficient or contradicting evidence.”

Well there you have it!

When quoted in full, not only does it remain consistent with how I defined faith in a previous post to Saltpetre, but it has no significance at all to your argument...

<<Clearly, the mere fact that you have a worldview (as everyone does, whether they admit it or not) shows that you have faith. If you agree with philosophical naturalism then you hope and believe it is true.>>

Now who’s quote-mining?

Unbelievable.

AJ,

Quoting one small sentence from someone whilst paying scant regard to their overall arguments and overarching points is indeed quote mining.

FYI- Wikipedia has "evidence" of previous revisions in the form of the View History tab. Wikipedia has been updated since I copied that quote in a while ago (I find it easier to write responses in Microsoft Word).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faith&oldid=431943074.

Thanks in advance for taking back your example, which has now been proven wrong.

I consider it an assault on my character to be accused of such an obviously misleading and blatantly intellectually dishonest act. Not to mention that it would've been an incredibly stupid thing for me to do.

Thanks in advance for your apology, as well.

You’ve got that right, Trav...

<<Quoting one small sentence from someone whilst paying scant regard to their overall arguments and overarching points is indeed quote mining.>>

Are you talking about this...?

“I can know what others think when they tell me what they think.” - Trav (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12050#209355)

If so, then please note that my very next paragraph started with, “But if you were referring to what Sam Harris et al have once said before, then...”

In other words, I was moving on from there and giving you the chance to provide an example in the new broader context that I suspected you meant despite to poor wording. Hardly quote-mining.

But if that’s not what you were talking about, then please let me know and I’ll be only too glad to clarify. You see, Trav, I don’t need to quote-mine. My arguments have stood on their own so far and there appears to be no sign of that changing anytime soon.

<<Wikipedia has "evidence" of previous revisions in the form of the View History tab. Wikipedia has been updated since I copied that quote in a while ago (I find it easier to write responses in Microsoft Word).>>

And you didn’t bother to check it after all this time with Wikipedia being constantly refined the way it is? I note you even missed the full stop in your quote - a boo boo that would be rather rare for someone like yourself. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an unfortunate typo in an OLO post. I guess it was countered by the fortune in keeping an old quote that may not be there one day.

<<I consider it an assault on my character to be accused of such an obviously misleading and blatantly intellectually dishonest act.>>

Oh, don’t be too offended. After all my adventures on OLO, I just expect it now.

If you find such behaviour so abhorrent, then I hope to see you take-to-task the many theists on OLO who engage in these sorts of antics constantly, rather than inventing problems with the way I'm addressing your arguments.