Stormbay, you need to go and do some reading on these subjects. First you tell me that I’ve got “fake evidence”, and "no real evidence" and that there is “nothing to support their credibility”. And you make a few other specific claims. So, I take you up on your claims. Now you say that “most historians” don’t agree with what I’m saying. You refer me to some unnamed Jewish researchers, and you don’t go into many specifics about their views either. After all that, you're “not going to argue with me” because your knowledge comes from your interest in “cultural anthropology”. Well, if you're going to make these big statements, perhaps you should be prepared to back up what you’re saying. If you start reading more history and less “cultural anthropology”, you’ll see the claims I’m making about history are absolutely valid. Jesus definitely existed and was definitely crucified, there is absolutely no doubt about that among credible historians. Those are moot issues as far as history is concerned. There’s also strong historical evidence to suggest that many people believe Jesus appeared to them after he died. Make of that what you will. I’m not saying there’s enough evidence to convince someone beyond any reasonable doubt- I never claimed that. But there is some credible evidence. Go do some reading and you’ll find out that I’m right about that!

Pericles,

[For all you and I know, it was found and disposed of nearly two thousand years ago by people who wanted to make up a story.]

Would you make up a story, knowing that you’d probably suffer persecution and even death over proclaiming that story, and then persevere with telling that story even when you WERE persecuted and your friends started getting killed?

Yes, no?

I’m guessing the answer is no. In which case, your “for all you know” scenario is totally implausible.

But I guess at the end of the day, you're right, in the strictest sense, we can't know. History can only go on probabilities. The problem is, your "wanting make up a story" line is incredibly improbable

Oliver,

Thanks for your reference to Polanyi and Prosch - I haven’t come across either of them before. I did a little digging into Michael Polyanyi - he wrote an interesting article in 1961 - “Faith and Reason’. His critique of the ‘modern positivist’ outlook shows how this has affected the secularist study of the mind and human affairs (past and present). This outlook has a mechanical conception of man – i.e. as merely a bundle of appetites, a mechanical toy and a passive product of social circumstances. “Behaviorism tries to replace convivial knowledge by I-It [as opposed to “I-Thou”] observations of the particulars…”

He alludes to something of what I was trying to express in my 'A shortcoming in the 'Age of Reason’ etc..." post – but he says it better...

“Such is the inescapable predicament of man which theology has called his fallen nature. Our vision of redemption is the converse of this predicament. It is the vision of a man set free from this bondage. Such a man would be God incarnate; he would suffer and die as a man, and yet by this very suffering and death he would prove himself divinely free from evil. This is the event, whether historic or mythical, which shattered the framework of Greek rationalism and has set for all time the hopes and obligations of man far beyond the horizons of Greek philosophy.”

Your reference to QM infers two levels of ‘reality’ – seemingly independent of each other but nevertheless linked, with a very stable system underpinned by ‘quantum random events’. Some scientists prefer a more deterministic view and would prefer the explanation of ‘hidden variables’. Particles exhibiting a type of indeterminate action or ‘free-will’, I guess, is a little hard to take :).

Pericles,

Over many months typing away and participating at OLO, I have found a few theists one can actually engage and have some sense of sensible discussion. George, Philo and relda think before they respond and seem to adhere to their beliefs, after some reasoning process. My comments do not apply to those persons.

On the other hand, for the few mindful theists, there seem to be hoards of mindless ones. Those satisfied saying every nonsense that comes to their minds.

When one offers alternatives citing highly respectable sources, they take flight or shift from dialogue to abuse.

Most recently aga is an example in point. I'm sure after he labelled me psychotic, despite his formal good-bye, he had a look back this thread and saw my post from the Catholic Encyclopaedia. To him a non reliable source? Heavens, I am using the sources he should know!

Then, we have others, who, like Lancaster Bombers, of old, drop their load, and leave. They do not enter into any thoughtful debate supporting their position. After-all this a forum. Arrogance, perhaps. It is easy to feel on has won an argument (in the mind of the presenter), when statements areone sided and in one does not engage opponent. Sells is king here.

With several notable exceptions amongst the OLO theists, including the abovemented; so many other theists ignore science, ignore history, ignore anthropology, ignore philosophers, igore neurology and even ignore academic theologists. Not just the fields of study, but peer respected experts in those fields.

What frustrates me is I am prepared to read the Bible and other religions scripts, to test beliefs (non-beliefs). I feel that makes me a good skeptic. Sells & Co., do apply a healthy skepticism is religious beliefs.

Rant over.

Cheers,

Oliver.

Oliver, I must admit, your penchant for relating exceptionally complex ideas in an idiosyncratic manner irritated me when I had first encountered it, but I must say you have improved markedly since then. And since then I have come to appreciate your view on some things far more than I have expressed previously. You are indeed imperturbable and very much better read than many you address.I appreciate your efforts in at least trying to understand that which you have come to disbelieve. I know that you have civility towards most, especially those that have at least the facade of civility towards you, but your thinking that relda, George and Philo actually reason before responding I think is misplaced. Mostly I have seen a definite avoidance of actually wishing to be understood with penchant for abstract concepts (more akin to poetry than conversation in some cases) and sesquapadalian remonstrance.

Like a fine wine, you just keep getting better Oliver, especially since I have found that you have read many of the same refernces as myself and can understand where you are coming from now (but it does take time).

I did feel that you were full of it at first, but after much reading, can now understand you have a much better grasp than most others (and spend obviously far more time than most others) on the historical situation of humanity's lamentable position in regards to religion.

BTW, Trav, do you know the meaning of the word, moot?

Yeah, I just looked it up. My apologies, I misunderstood the meaning of the word! I now realise that was in opposition to my previous sentence. So, please ignore that "moot issues" line!