Pericles,

There is no COMPLETELY fool proof way to determine who is and isnt a "practical atheist". The majority of church attenders are actually "actively worshipping". Yes, some sit in their pews daydreaming, but the majority do participate in worship. A visit to a church on any given Sunday will tell you that.

Regarding the resurrection:

">>The only presupposition you need to believe my statement is that miracles might be possible<<

This is a nonsense.

It can be used as an argument in favour of the existence of the Easter Bunny."

I never used anything as an argument. We were simply discussing whether any presuppositions would be required to believe in someone rising from the dead. I'm saying, yes, you have to open with the presupposition that a resurrection may be, at least metaphysically possible, given good evidence.

"I have never been presented with "a mountain of evidence" for the existence of miracles, so I am unable to dismiss them, a priori or otherwise."

How about a mountain of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

Almost all critical new testament scholars and historians, (including atheist scholars, and there are plenty of them) grant the following as historical facts:

- Jesus was crucified

- The disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them after he died. They proved this by going on to proclaim the message, including facing sufferring and martyrdom for this belief.

- Paul previously a Christian persecutor, had an experience, after which he converted to Christianity. He then became a church leader and was later martyred for his faith.

- James, the brother of Jesus, who previously didnt believe, also believed he met the resurrected Jesus. he then became a church leader and later suffered greatly and was martyred for his faith.

A 5th fact is agreed to by 75% of all scholars:

- Jesus tomb was empty after his crucifixion.

These facts are, by and large, sourced from both the bible plus numerous external sources.

Given that you claim to have no a priori presuppositions, my suggestion is that a resurrection is the best explanation for the facts.

Trav, this may indeed be a blind alley, but let's walk down it just a little further.

>>I'm saying, yes, you have to open with the presupposition that a resurrection may be, at least metaphysically possible, given good evidence.<<

Does not compute. The only need for a presupposition here is to enable me to deny reality, should I choose to do so.

If the evidence itself were "good", there would be no need for presuppositions. Resurrection would be proven. Case closed.

>>How about a mountain of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?<<

I'm listening.

>>Almost all... grant the following as historical facts: Jesus was crucified<<

You're saying that numbers are key, right? Those who disagree are what... wrong? Just like Galileo was wrong, when the numbers were against him.

But ok, I can live with this.

>>The disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them after he died. They proved this by going on to proclaim the message, including facing sufferring and martyrdom for this belief.<<

On that basis, Joseph Smith was right about those golden plates. And those earnest guys in dark suits who accost you on street corners too, huh? Good job we don't kill people any more for their beliefs, I guess.

>>Paul previously a Christian persecutor, had an experience, after which he converted to Christianity<<

He hallucinated. He found a career path. Good for him. I won't go through the rest of the "evidence", except to say that every single piece of it has generated multiple theories.

>> my suggestion is that a resurrection is the best explanation for the facts.<<

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9U3pZFPNcc

I'm sure that you agree, the "best" explanation for this is that the performer was cut in half, and the two pieces later restored.

We know this can't be true, right?

People like me automatically, when faced with an impossibility such as this, search for alternative explanations. So far, I haven't found one for the David Copperfield trick. But I can certainly piece together an explanation that a few folk put together a new religion, and broadcast it to the world.

As did Joseph Smith.

"If the evidence itself were "good", there would be no need for presuppositions. Resurrection would be proven. Case closed."

Not at all. We can't "prove" the resurrection, just like we can't truly prove anything. It was 2000 years ago, I wasn't there and neither were you so we don't really know. But we can look at the evidence and ask where it points. What was the most probable event that took place, given the evidence we have?

"You're saying that numbers are key, right? Those who disagree are what... wrong? Just like Galileo was wrong, when the numbers were against him. "

No, not at all.

I'm no historian or NT scholar. But when 90% of NT scholars agree on something, that would suggest that there's very good reasons that they're right. I can go through each evidence I listed if you like, but as you haven't asked, I won't. Suffice to say, they're verified by biblical and external sources and good, critical historical scholarship find them to be true.

Regarding Paul:

"He hallucinated. He found a career path. Good for him."

If I wanted a new career path, I wouldn't pick one that have me continually getting thrown in jail, stoned and martyered for it. Not to mention betraying my former beliefs. Paul's conversion is the olden day equivalent of Osama Bin Laden converting to Christianity and then becoming a Christian missionary and being killed for it.

Regarding hallucination, sure. But this doesn't account for the empty tomb, or the appearances to the other disciples, or the conversion of James.

" I won't go through the rest of the "evidence", except to say that every single piece of it has generated multiple theories."

I don't doubt that there are multiple theories. I'm suggesting that none of those naturalistic theories account for the evidence in front of us. The resurrection however, does.

Regarding Mormonism, there are numerous, massive difference between Joseph Smith's tablets and the resurrection of Jesus. There are many good reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Mormon religion, and those claims. Will return to this comparison tomorrow.

Dear Francis,

Isaiah 2:4 "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." describes the messianic age. A real messiah brings it. Jesus didn’t.

I am not embarrassed because people believe in God or convert to another religion. Those are facts.

People have converted from Christianity to Judaism and vice versa. Count Potocki of Poland was burned at the stake because he converted to Judaism. There was a wise Hindu called Vinoba Bhave who advised people who were thinking of converting from one religion to another to look deeper in their own religion and see if they couldn’t find there what they were looking for.

Christianity is much more than German Christianity. However, it was the prejudices and hatred engendered by German Christianity that made Hitler’s Jew hatred acceptable to many of the German people.

Hitler did hate Catholicism, and the Pope hated Hitler. Nevertheless the Pope never made a public statement against the Nazi persecution of the Jews, and neither Hitler nor any other Nazi was excommunicated. The pope apparently saw the Soviet as a greater evil, and Hitler appreciated the tacit support of the Church.

The rabbi’s conversion does not erase the horrors and hate promoted by years of Christian persecution.

The Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary recognises Christian responsibility for the Holocaust:

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel7.htm

Time and again the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of Christians. They have been humiliated, deprived of their rights, accused of murdering God and blamed for every imaginable calamity. During the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms and, most horrific of all, the Holocaust, millions of Jews have suffered flagrant injustice.

At the beginning of the third millennium we can only confess this terrible guilt in deep shame before God and the Jewish people, deploring the involvement of many Christians. We seek His forgiveness for all the anguish that Israel, His chosen people, have suffered. By the grace of God we resolve to turn from these ways.

Trav, the article that began this thread postulated that "...defenders of religion preface their entire argument upon the acceptance of their position on blind faith".

You seem to be doing your best to prove it.

Your needing religion is absolutely no concern of mine. But I do object to the propagation of myths disguised as logic, which was why I questioned your loose application of "presuppositions and assumptions" in your response to bennie.

>>We can't "prove" the resurrection, just like we can't truly prove anything<<

This is of course the classic Christian reductio ad absurdum.

I can prove I got out of bed this morning. I can prove my train was three minutes late, and that the guy in the coffee shop said "Good morning Pericles".

What you really mean is that there is insufficient direct evidence available to settle the matter historically, due to a complete absence of contemporary records. But at the same time, there is entirely sufficient circumstantial evidence to convince a Christian that their faith is based on something more than an idea, nurtured by contemporary religious zealots.

>>I'm no historian or NT scholar. But when 90% of NT scholars agree on something, that would suggest that there's very good reasons that they're right.<<

Not at all. Vide Galileo.

>>Suffice to say, they're verified by biblical and external sources<<

Now that simply is not the case, as your mate Boaz knows full well, having had this discussion before.

If you would like to have a go yourself, be my guest. But there is no "verification" of the miracles, no "verification" of the crucifiction, and certainly no "verification" of the resurrection.

The closest you'll get is reference to a death sentence that might possibly have been carried out on someone who might possibly have been Jesus.

>>Regarding Mormonism, there are numerous, massive difference between Joseph Smith's tablets and the resurrection of Jesus.<<

I was not referring specifically to the plates, Trav, but to the creation of a religion via information whose provenance could not be categorically established, and whose disciples spend their lives propagating "the word".

Regarding Mormonism- Remember my above posts- early Christians Paul (former Christian enemy), and James (former Jewish Skeptic) had an experience with the risen Jesus and became church leaders who suffered martyrdom for their faith. Stephen was also martyred and so were other disciples.

However, in the case of the Mormon witnesses, there were two groups of early witnesses. “The three witnesses" then the "eight witnesses". The first 3 witnesses all left the mormon church during Joseph Smith's lifetime. And 3 of the others also ended up LEAVING the mormon church! So 6 of the 11 Mormon witnesses left the Mormon church at one point or another. Some of them then returned. Most of these witnesses were also already related to each other, which also brings their testimony into massive question.

(read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses)

Compare this to the witnesses to Jesus- they had every reason to leave and give up their faith, but they all stood strong and endured great suffering to proclaim their beliefs.

There’s no comparison. One group of witnesses was far more reliable than the other, and their lives showed it.

“no "verification" of the crucifixion”,

John Dominic Crossan, co founder of the Jesus Seminar (a group of radically critical scholars who claimed that only 18% of Jesus words in the bible are words he actually said), is quoted as saying that the crucifixion of Jesus is as historical as a fact can ever be.

Why? Because it’s recorded in all four gospels, plus numerous other sources- eg: Jewish Historian Josephus, roman historian Tacitus and others.

“What you really mean is that there is insufficient direct evidence available to settle the matter historically, due to a complete absence of contemporary records”

We have records of over 40 different sources referring to Jesus within 150 years. As historical figures go, that is a LOT. So much of the first and second century writing has been lost because it was written on material that wouldn’t survive 2000 years. We have only scant remainders of what was written at that time, yet we STILL have so many references to Jesus