One other thing AJ Phillips.

You said earlier
[the Bible was never reliable to begin with.]

But latter amended this statement.
[it is unreliable evidence for a divine Jesus.]

I'm not sure if this list of finds will help you or not, but if at least the bible can be given credit as showing historical accuracy that's at least a start.

Not_Now.Soon,

I apologise for the delay in reply. Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like.

<<My complaint and frustration is that you gave so little, even with your explanation now, but you ask for others to offer much more then you yourself provide.>>

I invite you (or anyone else) to. But, over the last ten years on OLO, I have had lengthy debates on just about every claim I make. I’d rather not be a forum hog on topics I have covered in excruciating detail with others many times before.

<<It is easier to provide a counterpoint that offers doubt (you can do that in less then 2 sentences), then it is to give an explanation.>>

Indeed. I would note that it is theists who still bear the burden of proof. So, naturally, it is theists who are going to be doing most of the explaining.

<<Keep that in mind in your responses and don't ask for something you are reluctant to provide yourself.>>

I have never been reluctant to expand on anything. I have a posting history of 10 years demonstrating this,

<<Yes expand on the mixed bag.>>

Here is a link to a page which goes through the entire Sermon in great detail:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_mount

As for the archaeological finds your link cites, I would go back to my point about Spiderman. That the Bible notes some events and places that really did happen is hardly surprising. As evidence of these events and places, however, it is unreliable by itself because it is a book primarily concerned with religious proclamations.

I would not take that particular site very seriously, though. Any site that talks about the Flood as though it actually happened loses all credibility. There is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood. Had such a flood occurred, the planet would be filled with geological evidence for it, yet there is none at all. The fact that there are a lot of stories of floods in a lot of different cultures is a testament to the fact that floods occur frequently.

http://i.imgur.com/VsZ6rTj.jpg

To AJ Phillips.

Thankyou for that reply and assurance that you are ok with being questioned as equally as you question. That you'll answer those questions. Based on this I'll reconsider my approach with you, based on the idea that your questions and answers are sincere. (After a while I've learned the hard way that some are very much not sincere, but instead use any device to try and trip someone up. I'll try to keep my actions away this conclusion with regards to your responses. Hopefully this will work out.)

If you have written out a response to my questions elsewhere then go ahead and put a link to it if you don't wish to re-explain it all again. That sounds fair, as long as you still put the effort to answer the questions or critisms.

As for the sermon on the mount I've a thought on that, but would like to address a separate issue first.

In our first conversation (after reviewing it), I noticed several times you are willing to disregard the rationale and experiences of a Christian (and perhaps for anyone who has spiritual beliefs.)

[Rational and intelligent people can still believe irrational things.]

This is bad and unfair logic. Undermines rational people without cause, and creates a witch hunt situation of doubt based on their conclusions believing in God and being "irrational" without merit or reason.

[If one wants to believe strongly enough, then naturally one is going be convinced that they found evidence or witnessed a sign, eventually - whether or not a god exists.]

This logic allows you to not seek for yourself, nor be willing to take in the evidence and rationale brought by others who have sought God. It's a blatant unwillingness.

...(continued)...

...(Continued from above)

From part of the discussion between you and OzSpen.

[None of your so-called evidence is particularly extraordinary. Certainly not extraordinary enough to believe that the miracles in the Bible actually happened as reported. That’s some pretty mundane stuff you’re provided me with, actually.]

This shows a disregard to evidance in general and a lack of showy evidance counts as no evidance.

[Even if you could rule out all the other more rational explanations, though, all that leaves you with is a mystery. There is no way to rationally conclude that any of it was the work of a god.]

This last statement is an approach agnostics take. It is a more honest approach.

These rationales for disregarding Christian or religious observations are well tight nit to avoid actually looking. They are much of my criticism to atheists in general to open their eyes. The world is full of extraordinary experiences, events, and observations. Not all of them need to fit into a Christian mindset about God, but do give merit to conclusions that something is out there.

Don't be willfully blind. Even if we do not come to the same conclusions, there are things that don't have a more rational explanation. The best that sometimes can be offered if you can't settle on an explanation is that it's a mystery (as you've said). At least that much will acknowledge events, even without concluding their causes.

//This is bad and unfair logic.//

No it isn't. It is accepted as sound and valid logic in every philosophy department in the land. And your counter-argument - that everything rational people say is necessarily rational because they are rational people - is question-begging.

//It's a blatant unwillingness.//

A blatant unwillingness to what? Accept hearsay as evidence?

Seems reasonable to me. Keep up the good work, AJ.

//The world is full of extraordinary experiences, events, and observations.//

Yep, and damn near all of them can be understood without recourse to the supernatural. Mind you, that wasn't always the case. That's the problem with Gods of the Gaps: the poor buggers keep shrinking, until they just fade away into Small Gods.

//Not all of them need to fit into a Christian mindset about God, but do give merit to conclusions that something is out there.//

Yep, it's called the universe. And there aren't words to truly describe how majestic, beautiful and awful (archaic sense) it is. Far more impressive than any story our tiny little monkey brains might ever dream up.

//there are things that don't have a more rational explanation.//

Nah, there are always more rational explanations. Look at Newton: everyone thought his theory of gravity was the bee's knees until Einstein came along with general relativity. The idea of consigning the mysteries of our universe to the Gods of the Gaps and giving up the search for answers because 'some things don't have a rational explanation' is abhorrent to me, and fills me with despair. Just because we don't know what the rational explanation is yet, it doesn't follow that it doesn't exist, it just means we haven't found it yet - and giving up looking should be the last thing we do.

Not_Now.Soon,

I’ll happily admit that some of what I say is to trip people up. It is, after all, a good way to get them thinking. Either way, if one’s position is sound, then one cannot be tripped up. If you feel you have been tripped up in these sorts of discussions before, then there is probably a very good reason for that, and one which probably requires more attention from you.

<<If you have written out a response to my questions elsewhere then go ahead and put a link to it if you don't wish to re-explain it all again.>>

I often do this, but I can’t always remember when, or with whom, I discussed a particular topic.

<<I noticed several times you are willing to disregard the rationale and experiences of a Christian ...>>

Absolutely, but never without good cause. Why I disregard the rationale and experiences should be what matters, and for so long as I have good reason to do so, there should be no problem.

My rejection of the rationale and experiences of theists and mystics is the (tentative) end point, not a starting point; it is a (tentative) conclusion, not a methodology. Your concerns, regarding my rejection of supernatural claims and so-called experiences, confuses these two.

<<This is bad and unfair logic.>>

No, it was a perfectly reasonable observation. I can’t add anything more to what Toni Lavis said other than to say that I found your accusations which followed this claim both confused and bizarre.

<<This logic allows you to not seek for yourself, nor be willing to take in the evidence and rationale brought by others who have sought God.>>

No, but it does prevent me believing things without good reason (as Toni Lavis hinted at, hearsay is not a good reason to believe something). As I pointed out earlier, though, the ball is in your god’s court. If He wants me to believe in Him, then He would know how to convince me, and given the consequences of not believing, He would be an absolute monster not to do so.

Continued…