Hey Not_Now.Soon,
"As for God existing or not. Calling it a mental illness is a cop out plain and simple."

Cop out? How exactly?

Here's what I'm feeling:

You took personal offense at my choice of words 'mental illness';
Because you thought I was talking about you, because you identify as Christian;

In which case I was talking about you
- and especially so when you piped in and proved my point.

"All that means to me is that you haven't looked for yourself, or if you have, you have blinders on, so you don't actually observe what's around you."

'to me'

It's not about you or your belief, it was about mine.
(You butted in, because you took offense at my belief - because it undermines you and yours; what YOU BELIEVE.
You proved my point is showing your incapable of seeing my point of view.

I got blinkers off.

Lets say for example I said I KNOW for a fact ALIENS EXIST because I spoke to them in my back yard last night.
You'd all argue I'd have a mental illness right?
- Or there's a fairly good chance of it -

C'mon tell me.
Or tell me instead "Nah mate if you said that I'd believe your alien story 110%";
- You can't win.

And so, if I say those who claim they KNOW God exists (in the absence of any proof similar to the alien story) may instead be advertising a mental illness;

Then whats the difference?

You got offended by it because you can only see things from your point of view, (your side of the road);
And that was EXACTLY MY POINT;
AND you just proved it, thanks for that.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You ask me to provide the precise reference for my comment : “as the author himself admits, there is very little evidence available for in-depth research into the claimed resurrection of Jesus”.

Unfortunately, I did not take specific notes when I sifted through the 817 pages and don’t fancy doing it again. Nevertheless, I think you will agree that the only evidence he ever mentions anywhere in his book for the claimed resurrection of Jesus is the early Christians’ interpretation of the open tomb, the empty shroud and the testimony of the privileged few who claimed to have seen the “transformed” and resuscitated Jesus.

If it’s of any help, I just came across the following paragraph in the section sub-titled : (iii) The Form of the Story in Chapter Four Time to Wake-up (2): Hope beyond Death in Post-Biblical Judaisme :

« We are left with the conclusion that the combination of empty tomb, and appearance of the living Jesus forms a set of circumstances which is itself both necessary and sufficient for the rise of early Christian belief. Without these phenomena, we cannot explain why this belief came into existence, and took the shape it did. With them we can explain it exactly and precisely »

Also, as I’m sure you are aware, Wright cites Matthew 28:12-15 but discounts it.

If the same “phenomena” were to occur today, I, personally, doubt that anyone in his right mind would seriously consider that the dead person had resurrected. It is likely that modern investigative methods could produce a very different result than that imagined by early Christian believers and writers.

You mention Captain Cook, but I am not aware that anyone has ever suggested that he had resurrected.

You conclude that Christian faith is founded on “the FACT of Jesus’ bodily resurrection”.

I beg to disagree. The legal definition of the term “fact” is “the truth about events as opposed to interpretation” (OED).

Nobody has ever proven that there is a god (nor, consequently, a son of a god) – and that includes Tom Wright.

.

To Armchair Critic.

I'm not offended at what you've said. (Though I was the first time some one made that claim of mental illness in that way). But instead I was responding to your points. However are you offended that I called the view out as a copout?

The points I addressed were:

•That Christians are incapable of understanding a different world view.
-my counterpoint is that Christians come from a wide variety of people. Most have other world views in their history.

•agnostics and atheists have a bigger picture view of the world.
-counterpoint. No one has a better vantage point of the bigger picture because we need others to fill in the parts of the picture that we just don't have access yet of seeing. As a community, Christians have more of an vantage point because they've come together and can talk to each other about the world.

•regarding God existing or not, you gave the reasoning that that claim is advertising mental illness.
-I called this out as a copout. I stand by this. There are too many people who've testified that God exists because of what's occurred in their lives to pass it off so easily as a mental illness.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Moving on. Let's use the same logic about seeing UFOs and aliens. Though this is a smaller population then those who say that God is real, the application of whether they are mentally ill or not can be applied to them.

If someone says they saw a UFO, my first thought is if they saw something else and panicked, or if they didn't see it correctly and it was something else. This is the first view largely because 1) I haven't seen a UFO myself, and 2) I live in a skeptical society that doesn't want to be taken for a fool, or be conned. A second thought is to consider what they said and weigh the possibility of if it really occurred or not. For the most part all I have is their testimony. Even if it did occur, there's no point in putting too much focus on it unless there's a danger.

If multiple people say they saw the same thing, the rationale that this was seen under panicked conditions or just didn't see it correctly dwindles. Instead by multiple sources saying they saw something similar gives it credence that there was something seen regardless of if their conclusions are correct on what it was they saw. If there was any inkling thinking there was mental illness there this shoots that down for the reason of the sighting. None the less even weighing the possibility of this sighting being real, the issue of how that changes things is very minimal. Unless there's an active danger, or an ongoing effect because of UFOs, there's nothing much to do about it or be concerned about it.

(Continued)

(Continued)

At no point in this though do I assume mental illness is the culprit. Nor do I use mental illness as an excuse to not investigate or consider what was said. The only way I place mental illness there is if the witness testifying shows signs of mental illness.

This is where your view of claims of God being real stops and shatters. Instead of seeing if the witness has any symptoms of mental illness, you use the rationale as an excuse to not consider their claims. Plain and simple it is a cop out. Worse it is a cop out that is applied to a large population of people, justifying all of them as being mentally ill, when nothing should be suggesting that. There are no symptoms.

Hey Not_Now.Soon,

I'm glad you're not offended, because I never sought to do so.
- And I wouldn't want you to be offended unless I did.

I feel like you're turning this into a can of worms and making it more complicated than it is.
But maybe this is how it is for the believer, the corner the arguments back you into.

My issue surrounds the simple argument of 'I know' as opposed to 'I don't know'.
In this respect both the believer and unbeliever are on the same side: They 'KNOW'.
Whereas their arguments of 'Claiming to Know' (as a fact) sit in opposition to the people who say 'They Don't Know'.

If you go back and read my original comments you replied to, you'll see that I didn't make the claim that you and other believers ARE mentally ill.
If I made that claim then I'd have to be included as well, because I'd be basing my argument on also 'Claiming to Know' (That you were wrong, - and I don't know for fact that as a believer you're wrong)
What I actually said was - 'It may be just as likely' -

My argument was based on merit and logic in opposition to those whom 'Claim to KNOW - for a fact';
- And how you're only able to frame your views and opinions from that 'I Know' vantage point;
(You proved it in the way you responded to my stated opinion which was based on merit and logic)
Which also means than you can't see things from the 'I don't know' vantage point.
That's the bigger picture I'm alluding to.