George
You’d have to agree that my comment shows clearly that I’m no proselyte!

Thanks for your comment. I look forward to discussing your ‘world-view’. If you need to go over your 350 words I’d welcome you emailing me: gregnewt@bigpond.com.

I was commenting on Phil Dye’s article on “Easter Miracles”. As I’m new to this National Forum I hadn’t found my way to Travis’ original comment until now, however, I understand your point. While I’d prefer to to be called an educator rather than a humanist educator I’d still make the point that the process of education, which includes the scientific process, is incompatible with the teaching of religion. Similarly, while we can debate the pro’s and cons of various ‘world-views’, I suspect that only one can be true.

Dan Merengue
Of course we can be sceptical about evolution. Examining and testing repeatedly any of the tenets of evolution or any other aspect of our body of knowledge is exactly what science does. Good science relies entirely upon scientists being sceptical.

One Under God
Are you for real or just taking the piss? Your vile vitriol gives me the impression that you can only win debates by attacking the man. You’re right about the Tower Of Babel but it was God who stopped the extensions, (a small point, but then aren’t they all?).

Trav, that's just silly.

>>In this imaginary scenario, did you see Nick Riewoldt kick a goal? Using your logic, I guess not!<<

Since the goal depended on i) contact with the boot and ii) the ball crossing the line between the uprights, I'm happy to take the field umpire's verdict on the first, and the evidence of my own eyes on the second.

And Dan, your analogies are pretty far-fetched too.

>>Pericles seems to say that since no witness saw the body come to life in the cool of the tomb, then it probably didn’t happen... [his] argument probably arises from a misunderstanding of what Sells was saying<<

So what was it that I misunderstood in Sells' position? It looked pretty straightforward to me - there is no biblical support for the resurrection itself.

Is there?

>>Scripture, in fact all literature, from reading the back of the corn flakes packet to higher forms, must be interpreted.<<

I take this as agreement with my position, that the Gospels are not a reliable historical record of events.

Did you get that Trav?

My understanding from all this is that every individual is free to choose which parts of the Gospels they wish to take literally, and which may be viewed as allegorical.

Given the entirely voluntary nature of religious belief, this would seem an admirable trait, allowing both you and Trav to hold diametrically opposing views, yet still be Christians.

But this is an entirely separate proposition to addressing my questions on the flimsy historicity of the same Gospels.

After all your puff and bluster, there are still no eyewitness accounts of all those miracles, or indeed of the resurrection.

It is entirely reasonable for you to base your faith on belief that it all did, in fact happen - either in reality or allegorically - but unreasonable for you to scoff at my disbelief, or pretend that there is no yawning gulf between alleged acts and alleged recording of alleged acts.

Unlike Nick Riewoldt's kick.

Which, if necessary, I could review on the video playback.

Pericles

Although I haven't personally witnessed Nick Riewoldt kick a goal this year (which is very bad and I apologise), there is ample evidence that people can kick footballs. Therefore I believe that the golden boy did indeed kick a goal, go Saints! Hopefully St Kilda has not peaked early.

BTW zero evidence for resurrections. However, it is possible that Jesus could kick a goatskin, willing to concede to that.

Bronhill1,
Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was reacting to trav being accused of proselytizing (not by you), just because he stated and tried to explain the reasons for his beliefs, and used your contribution only to make my point.

>> my comment shows clearly that I’m no proselyte<<

Well, I do not know how else to interpret your statement that "only one (world-view) can be true". This is exactly how Christian missionaries were justifying their urge to proselytize, convert "heathens", in past centuries. Of course, instead of believing that "the scientific process (of education), is incompatible with the teaching of religion" they believed that the teachings of their Church were incompatible with other perspectives, including science-inspired ones that they could not understand, hence deemed incompatible with what they were supposed to teach.

Today there are many of us, theists or atheists, who, of course, have their own world-view, their own beliefs about what is the ultimate “truth”, however, we do not try to force them on others, even implicitly, by a priori proclaiming world-views we do not agree with (or do not understand) as inferior in whatever sense, as less true, less rational, less moral or e.g. incompatible with the findings of contemporary science. There are many world-views compatible with Christianity, from the very naive to the very sophisticated. The same with world-views compatile with atheism.

Of course, I’m not saying that they are all equally true: I only a believe that there is an “absolute truth“ and we all have some insights into it, some better some worse, some inspired by science, some by religion, some by both as in my case.

I hope you do not need a list of e.g. Christian scientists who did not find their profession incompatible with their faith. Only a naive interpretation of science (naive philosophy of science) is incompatible with any interpretation of Christian beliefs (and vice versa).

Thank you for your email address and your invitation. If you are interested in my attempts to explain my world-view, you can look at my contributions on this OLO (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=1953&show=history).

Peter the Believer,

The same British Empire that quashed China in the Opium Wars of the nineteenth century. Britain interfered in extreme measure in China's internal affairs, to address her trade imbalance, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.

In WWII, Germany had to deal with a mad leadership who would not listen to its generals, it was fighting on two fronts and as (anothter madman) Stalin expressed it, Germany faced the cold of General "Winter" in Russia. Several of Germany's best physicists left Germany before WWII started. (Ditto Italy's mathematicians)

Britain declared war on Germany with view of freeing German occupied Poland. At WWII's end, Poland sadly fell into the evil hands of the Russian Communists. Under Russia, Poland's fate was tragic.

George,

I appreciate your mature mind and balanced input to OLO.

George
Thanks George. I will check out your other contributions and stay in contact.
I also work in a band and will be away from home for a few days. If I can’t get access to a laptop I’ll get back to you next week sometime, either on this site or the other.
Cheers Greg