Poly adduced the issue of witness testimony. You claimed there was none. He raised the issue of Paul. You dismissed that as "imagined evidence" and when pressed claimed that we all know Paul only halucinated and didn't meet Jesus. I'm sorry but I don't buy the innuendo that Paul's evidence can be dismissed so easily. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 Paul writing about 35AD claims that Jesus appeared to him after he appeared to more than 500 people many of whom were still alive and after appearing to all the other Apostles. However you want to consider Paul's experience on the road to Damascus the credibility of his claim goes beyond it. He virtually says "If you don't believe me or the other apostles there are about 500 other people who you can ask".

On the specific issue of whether his experience was meeting Jesus or imagined, Paul admits in Galatians 1:16-20 that he reflected upon his experience for some time then sought out Apostles to compare notes. Only after doing so satisfactorily he committed his life to Jesus. His response seems quite lucid and credible and he compared notes with Apostles before acting on what could have been a hallucination. Is it normal for someone hallucinating to compare notes with people in a position to compare notes and discover they had the same experience?

mjbp, thanks for joining the cheer squad.

>>Can you please reassure me that your comment isn't disingenous?<<

I can assure you that it is not.

>>There may or may not be a belief system involved but your post is the first time I have noticed it discussed.<<

That was precisely my point, as I explained in the next sentence. Which you quoted, so you must have noticed.

"The sleight-of-hand that you, and many others, adopt, is to play around the borders of belief, and belief system.

>>So are you saying that anyone who claims to believe in God must share a uniformity of views and abide by a unified set of rules, and guidelines and accept penalties for non-conformance?<<

Yes. Although, as we know, there are as many sets of rules as there are religions. But they all perforce have their own codes and rituals, which stem wholly and solely from the fact that they believe in a deity.

And my point about Paul was that he was not an eye-witness, as had been stated by Boaz. Given that his claim was "in a 'LEGAL' sense.. based on the evidence of eye witnesses", I was merely pointing out that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in a courtroom.

The Bible is compromised as a historical source because it's a document of faith. Of course the Bible says that Jesus really performed miracles! Have you got a source from a secular scholar? Sorry to answer that question myself by quoting Wikipedia, but I am: "There are also secular references to the life of Jesus, although they are few and quite late. Almost all historical critics agree, however, that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans possibly for insurrection."

I certainly accept that. That the Bible constitutes evidence that a. God exists and b. Christ was his son I do not accept. Not because it's not in my "belief system" or whatever you would have us call it, but because it is simply doesn't constitute proof.

On George: "Helping people to articulate what they mean doesn't equate to trying to convince people they are what they aren't."
If you're referring to me, George is not helping me to "articulate what I believe". He didn't understand what I believe, and he attempted to reframe it in such a way as seems to suit him. If, as he claims, he is more philosophically sophisticated and intelligent than other posters, then why can't he understand my position? I may not have explained it well, but Pericles did, and I wouldn't have thought it was hugely difficult to understand.

Pericles: "The decision to be an atheist has nothing to do with the adoption of a belief, but the rejection of one single concept, that "there has to be a God"."

mjpb: "Can you explain further?"

I think the onus is now on you to articulate what you don't understand. It is already plainly put

cont...

mjpb: "Either you have substituted "belief system" for "belief" or I have missed something. There may or may not be a belief system involved but your post is the first time I have noticed it discussed."

The origin of this particular debate was your query about Fractelle's view that there could be no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist". A fundamentalist of whatever stripe does indeed have a belief system with "a unified set of rules, guidelines and penalties for non-conformance".

Much earlier in this discussion, George said, "Some - I would like to hope that most - people participate in these discussions because they want to broaden their perspective, enrich their world-view by trying to understand the other side's arguments and motivations."

Neither you nor George appear to be trying to understand the other side's argument. It seems to me your assembling semantic road blocks, rather than looking to the heart of what "a lack of belief" might mean. It is not a difficult concept, it's a simple one.

I have to disagree with the idea:

"RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BELIEVE WITHOUT EVIDENCE"

No no no...hardly.

The issue is:

What "kind" of evidence. (Legal or scientific)
and
How strong is it? (balance of probabilities)

If I could not trace the traditions of many new testament documents right back to the original author's..I'd have some fairly serious misgivings about their genuineness.

The existence of 'critical debate' about various letters, Gospels and works like Acts does nothing to diminish their value or truth, but it might sway a gullible or shallow minded person who is unable to identify the presuppositions at work in the minds of the critics.

There is amazing "evidence" just from the internal contents of the New and Old testaments themselves. Mainly found in the cross linking and comparison of important parts.

The ORDER of events though, is not usually

1/ Here is the evidence for the reliability of Scripture.. now
2/ Would you like to hear the Gospel?

Nope..its the reverse. Christ came and died to save sinners and rose to show his words were true...that's the "Gospel"..and it will take root in every heart prepared by God at the right time.

This could (but may not) include Pericles, Fractelle,Veronika, CJ, Bugsy, Stg and even my mate COL :) *SMILE*

FAITH..comes through hearing.. and hearing by the Word of God.

And that pretty much sums up the Boaz theological method: the evidence doesn't support my beliefs but I'm really attached to them, so the evidence must be unreliable