"You fail to recognise that you as well as Philo and waterboy and myself are all believers to some degree. An adamant materialist is of the same colouring as a stubborn religionist, so certain and self-assured in their own views and beliefs that they are unable to consider alternate theories and instead only attack anything that challenges their own." - Donnie

D,

Conviction is the word you seek. The key idea is one holds a posit that is felt will be conformed at some indetermined (Polnayi) in the future. Perhaps, the difference is a religionist does not seek confirmation, because they feel they infallibly know absolutes. Somethinh, with whch, I would take issue and that is why Dawkins is not an athiest [7/7 point] athiest. Something, I have posoted even before read any Darwins. Whom incidently, I agree with only in general, and, would not make my top person top twenty list. In the God Dulusion he makes some minor errors I put down to having the wrong Reviewers, :e.g., he states the Israelites were initially monotheists. Acually, they were henotheists [key tribal god, with minor gods]. His ideas on group memes are better/more clearly managed, methinks,sio-biologists. He is also a little too missionary for me: Much like Peter Sellick [Sells], in personality, but on the opposite pole. For Dawkins, religion is an enemy. For, Sells knowledge is an enemy.

Where they differ is, a Dawkins would manage evidence in a different way. Were a geologist or a paleo-anthropologist, with evidence, show Darwin's he made a mistake, he would feel [or believe the ideal is] to admit, in public, if necessary. Were ancient document specialist or historian, pretty prove that the Council of Nicaea managed the documents inappropriately , and, therefore, Jesus did exist, but he was not divine. Sells would not bend to any evidence. In fact, the more unreasonable the posit in face of contrary evidence the greater his, "faith"...

...

Instead working from Creation? Gods? God? Jesus? Sells, takes the a priori position that Jesus is God, period. That is why in early threads I encouraged looking at the architecture of theocrasia, before making any commitment to godheads [different OT/NT] and looking at the history a generation each side of Nicaes [significant implications for the issue of the divinity of Jesus].

The OT and NT are tethered but also way out of synch. There is a difference between the Jesus house cults and denominational religion after Constantine? If you and Sells read this known history too and denigh it, religionism has created some sort of word blindness toward stronger alternative explanations.

Your are wrong if you feel I [and West?] have not reviewed the evidence. On the matter of the OT and NT having different godheads, when just needs to read the Bible. Moreover, on the characteristics of Mystery Cults, just about everything is borrowed [no just feast days to keep the Romans happy]. We see contradictions in reports between the Gospels. The OT god was clearly misognist warmonger who played cruel games with his creation. Jesus was more stable but, just the same, needed anger management. If Herod wanted him dead, he would have paid his thirty pieces od silver to some thugs to J in a back alley.

-- No one has yet explained why a loving god created the cruelty of the insect world? Do ants sin? Saying that its a matter of survival is just saying that God st*ffed up design. ----

Oliver, nice point on conviction, i would concur with this. I suppose believing could be described as a degree of quantity, not actually a binary fact. It might range from bafflement to doubt to confidence to conviction.

"Perhaps, the difference is a religionist does not seek confirmation, because they feel they infallibly know absolutes."
I think a religious person IS seeking confirmation by adhering to the religion. Also what you are describing here is arrogance. Arrogance is a trait that is certainly not unique or endemic to the religious. And I believe the predominant ideal of religion (at least those i know of) is one of humbleness, which is in fact an antonym of arrogance.

What is this historical evidence you present meant to prove though? Perhaps i have lost track of the thread of your argument.

Donnie,

My comments on History go vack several threads to Sells' article on "How does God?" An interesting question is posed. Different to, "Does God Exit"? History would sould suggest that the architecture of theocrasia regrading Christianity is typical of the Axial Period and into a century after Mohammed. In the first century there is a plenty of commonality among what are called, "Mystery Cults", shich more than just the Mystery. Things like sacrafice and Messagers from Heaven. Much more than borrowing Roman holidays. The first century Christians were in-house, small group worshippers. Saul-Paul Hellenised the "cult" (unstable doctrine) and later Constantine institutionalised Christianity as a "religion" (has a creed and doctrine). Paul morphed Jesus and generalised potential membeship to the cult. Constantine (aka Nicaea), ligitimised the religion. Before 325 (Nicaea)only 2% of Romans were Christian. Institutionalisation determined which of trinity and form of divinity became, The Chistian Church. Competing beliefs, were treated as heresies based on human judgements. In the time immediately afterwards the Fourth Century Christians acted like the Taliban do today. the Churches really sweep the first century under the rug and don't revisit the Nicaean debates with general congregations to re-consider validity.

Sells, I feel, is closer to Dawkins than you or I in personality; it is only the two maintain different ideologies. The alternative, is he is using the threads to test responses of theists and atheists, to see how our social paths evolve over time. I think the form, if he is a preacher.

O.

I have to comment ,even though this conversation can only go around in circles as I cannot believe fiction is truth and god believers will always reject anything that threatens the illusion dungeons and dragons promises.

History proves the bible is fiction so it follows claims based on the bible are fiction. Because Christians for example , as it is now known to be true of all religions deny their claims are fictionj then it is certain they are not seeking to know but are searching for confirmation, justification that what they decide to believe is some how magically true.

It is not only that the authors of the bible are known, that historically sequentially the bible has evolved and introduced concepts are dated or that much of the new testament was written in geographical, political, cultural and procedual ignorance of the lands and people it was concerned with. It is not only the fact that the bible was written in complete ignorance of the geography of the world , basic biology and even very basic astronomy. It is not only the fact the bible is literally ridiculous with claims of monsters, global floods, parting oceans, water walking ect. It is not only the bible is not supported by every contemporary of the alleged events of the bible. It would be a huge surprise to civilisations that existed that god created the world as they existed before god. Even Moses flight into egypt was unknown to the Egyptians let alone him parting the sea. The Romans had not heard of Jesus for over a Hundred years, son of god slipping Pontius's mind? Just like Harry Potter no claim of the bible is substantiated and most are directly contradicted

Jesus in the Roman era if he had existed would have existed in a civilisation far more advanced than the following Christian era. It would be as if the Taliban took over ran civilisation into the ground and interpreted 21st century politics, economy, society. Superstition may have been fine in the dark ages although given it was a time when Christendom achieved massive ethnic cleansing , not even matched by Hitler so it should not be claimed that Christianity served society well. The moral claim of Christ was extinguished with ethnic cleansing and also sectarian, religious and socio-xenophobic based persecutions.

What is Christianity left with? Certainly no god or truth, no justification, only the need to convince oneself that it is not what it is in all fact is. That’s why it is also important to convince oneself that those who see religion for what it is some how harbour superstition. Reality is reality it is not dogma, ideology, mere perception. Evil is not the lack of worship of some deity , evil is the un-empathetic harm of another. Certainly the agendas of churches and the exclusionary nature of Christ and god and the agenda to fill minds with untruths is evil.

Religion does not monopolise arrogance but it is not atheists or antitheists preying on (recruiting) children, using brainwashing techniques to recruit believers, advertising false promises on television and radio, dictating to you what you must believe. Christianity does and worst besides.