Robert,

Although I have a different opinion to that of your conclusions on the topic I agree that:

“I think that assumption that religious belief is without evidence misunderstands the position of many believers. The issue has to more to do with the credibility of the evidence and what is extrapolated from it.”

It almost seems that religious who dismiss atheists opinions out of hand and atheists who make assertions like that lack some type of confidence.

Pericles,

>>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.”

My experience has been completely different. At the other end of the theist range there are also theists who reject all formal religion. I don’t suppose you would take my word for it?

”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.”

And my point is that he claimed to be a witness, there is good reason to think he believed that he was a witness (going on the line about 500 odd witnesses not long after Jesus’ death), and there are some anomalies associated with the suggestion he wasn’t (that he confirmed the details of a hallucination by querying apostles who also claimed to have seen risen Jesus). He says he spoke with Jesus. Certainly his experience had a supernatural appearance which you assume to be a hallucination if you are unwilling to accept the possibility of supernatural but he was a witness to someone returning from the dead not a traffic accident.

Veronika,

“The Bible is compromised as a historical source because it's a document of faith.”

Why? I’m sure many recorders of history had biases.

“ Have you got a source from a secular scholar?”

I have heard of some forming that conclusion but naturally they convert.

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".”

Okay perhaps trying to help you articulate it might have worked better. I was responding to Pericles suggestion that George needs to convince atheists they were agnostic when he plainly had a different reason for joining the relevant discussion.

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”

Okay surely to be an atheist you must believe that there is no God. This involves rejecting a concept but I can’t understand how that fact explains why they have no belief on the subject.

I don't understand:

The NT has a woman impregnated by a ghost (like the Leda or other mortals impregnated by Zeus in one form or another) The protagonist of this epic walked on water, turns water into wine, gives sight to the blind, raises the dead (after 3 days in the tomb), feeds 5000 then 4000 people with just a few fish and loaves, heals lepers, releases demon posessed people (currently they would be classed as insane) and heals paralyzed people. He then dies and is resurrected (like Mithra and other pagan Gods).

Why should anybody believe such fairy tales? The Bible is no more credible than the supermarket scandal sheets. This nonsense is presided over by a supposedly loving God who subjects his son to great torment.

In the Jewish Bible he wipes out almost all life on earth by a great flood. You want to believe in such a sadistic nogoodnik?

1/ The path too enlightenment is not seen through the eyes of a god. IMO. David.f. its a little harsh with the word insane. I would put it as, the best they had at the time. A stepping stone, the beginning, a starting place, lolly words, awakenings, order from chaos, the first law and order, a grounding tool and so on. Through-out evolution, this belief system comes from the oldest part of the brain and to understand how that part works you must look in, not up.

2/ You must be at peace with all living things. I'll stop there! I was going to give you three pages, but one day at a time will do it.
The universe only goes at one speed, find that pace, and you will find you.
There are no words to describe or define.

EVO

One of the fun aspects of arguments like this one is the longer it goes on, the greater the Alice factor - that is, the closer the narrative gets to approximate "Alice Through the Looking Glass."

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."

Boaz, you can go first if you like.

>>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.<<

I appreciate that you use parentheses for the word "evidence". It could just as easily support my position, that the documents concerned were simply advertising material for a new religion... "merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (W.S. Gilbert)

And mjbp.

>>My experience has been completely different. At the other end of the theist range there are also theists who reject all formal religion. I don’t suppose you would take my word for it?<<

In short, nope.

What does "a theist who rejects all formal religion" believe that his God wants of him? There would on the face of it seem little point in actually taking the trouble to believe in a God unless a set of rules came along with it. Surely?

>>And my point is that he claimed to be a witness... He says he spoke with Jesus<<

But the fact is, there is no corroborating evidence that he did anything of the sort. So if he lied about that, what else did he invent?

>>there is good reason to think he believed that he was a witness<<

That wouldn't stand up in court either, would it?

"I'm an eye-witness, yer honour"

"Were you there?"

"Er, not exactly. But it was a pretty realistic dream. You know, the one where you think you're falling, and you wake up..."

I think not.

The "balance of probabilities" that Boaz loves to claim starts to resemble Geelong's third quarter: heaps of activity, no action.

Me: "The Bible is compromised as a historical source because it's a document of faith."

mjpb: "Why? I'm sure many recorders of history had biases."

I'm sure they did, but the Bible is more than biased. It's a book of faith, a book that's intended to convert and persuade. I understand that you don't agree and respect your position, but surely you realise that I'm not the only one who rejects it as a credible historical document in terms of proving Christ was really the son of god?

mjpb,

I fear we're just deadlocked.

You ask: "Okay surely to be an atheist you must believe that there is no God. This involves rejecting a concept but I can't understand how that fact explains why they have no belief on the subject."

I can only explain in the way I already have, which you have already pointed out several times you don't accept. It doesn't involve rejecting a concept because I didn't presuppose the concept in the first place. It's a subtle but I think simple point. I genuinely apologise for not being able to articulate it well enough for you to understand. For what it's worth, I have had the same conversation with people who have religious faith and they have understood.

This conversation has been profoundly depressing. I hope you won't give up trying to understand what we're trying to say.