mjpb

"You seem open to the idea of fundamentalist Christians in here but not fundamentalist atheists."

You're right, I'm not open to the concept of 'fundamentalist atheists'. Fundamentalism refers to the literal or traditional interpretation of a belief system. Atheism has no belief system. It's all about NOT believing. If there is no atheist belief, there can be no 'fundamentalist' interpretation of that belief. A 'fundamentalist atheist' is akin to an oxymoron in my book.

RObert

"Bronwyn, have you considered which posters alias is an anogram of Crap Ploy? An excellent fit if everthere was (almost as good as "Big Rally Ham")."

Yes, it was so considerate of him, wasn't it? The new moniker has given rein to much more inventiveness than the old BOAZ_David ever could!

Veronika

"Atheism is full of hope. More so than religion, because it is not a fatalistic way of looking at the world, but one that insists the world is what we make of it. What a honourable, beautiful, difficult challenge. Atheism (or perhaps I should say humanism) is a way of seeing ourselves both in relation to the universe, and in the small sphere of our influence, and, in our own small way, trying to reconcile these two images. It is hungry for truth and it is deeply invested in promoting goodness in order to coexist with others around us."

Beautifully put, and worth repeating I thought!

A burning bush! The first thing that comes to mind is to throw a bucket of water on it! Primitive man as seen a lot of science and how the pages of history are full of ghost stories.

Still not one piece of evidents!

EVO

I have to disagree with this statement:

"Atheism is full of hope. More so than religion"

Au contraire.. atheism is BEREFT of 'hope'.. this is especially so for a young man on the verge of suicide.

The last thing he needed at that point ..and which would have been completely ineffective would be "Oh..life is so full of interesting things.. so rich.. so much potential" That would have gone over like a lead balloon.

Atheism offers just one thing. Despair of any meaning "of" life.. not 'in' life.. we can create our own meaning for our own lives.. this is quite true..but the big picture of 'life itself' remains a sad mystery considering the general trend of human behavior.

Fractelle makes a very important point.. about if something was verifiable (and repeatable) it would no longer be a Miracle.

So.. we need to examine such events as the Lord Jesus

-walking on water
-turning water into wine
-giving sight to the blind
-raising the dead (after 3 days in the tomb)
-feeding 5000 then 4000 people with just a few fish and loaves
-healing lepers
-releasing demon posessed people.
-healing paralyzed people.

and in particular the report of His death and resurrection...NOT in a 'scientific' light which excludes the possibility at the outset, but in a 'LEGAL' sense.. based on the evidence of eye witnesses.

Paul himself is the most credible, as his own hand (or his emmanuensus) speaks of those who witnessed the risen Lord along with his own experience on the road to Damascus.

He reports this in his first letter to the Corinthians. A letter which is LEAST disputed by event he most radical critics who take 'evidence' into consideration.

Even in a courtroom.. a jury must make a decision based on such reports. The judge has to sift through 'admissible' evidence and inadmissible.
Using just the 'balance of probabilities' argument. Pauls seems quite sound.

gw,
>> What evidence would you need to completely change your religious / non-religious beliefs?<<
I think by now you have guessed from the answers (if you disregard the silly ones) that nobody can envisage beforehand with certainty what would have to happen for him/her to change thus drastically his/her world-view. Such changes, i.e. genuine conversions, do happen, and people can explain them to you (and to themselves) but only retrospectively. Something like you can understand and explain the factors that lead to this or that historical event, but only post factum. Even the best understanding of history does not make you a clayrvoyant.

The same with the history of your mental - if you do not like the term spiritual - development: you can analyse and evaluate a conversion - yours or somebody else’s - but only after it happened. You cannot predict nor list the factors that would necessarily lead to a conversion.

Observations like “apparently many individuals feel a need for religious belief and a belief in God in particular”, are equivalent to “apparently many individuals do not feel the need for a belief in God or religious belief in general” and, of course, do not answer your question. Neither do apologetic comments aimed at justifying the writer’s convictions (I respect that some people do not like to call faith their existential dedication to what they believe, or do not believe, in) telling you about their “religious experience“ (or lack of it), how happy they are with their convictions, how evidence (or lack of it: a rather subjective matter) convinced them one way or another, how they “lost their faith” (most often because the intellectual level of their RE was not adjusted to the level of other education they received), etc.

Thus conversions are rather rare, and they mean not just “changing your mind” about this or that, but a radical transformation of your total outlook and life experience. Thus by their very nature they are beyond description and comprehension until you enter- if at all - the process of conversion one way or the other.

It is unfortunate that this thread has degenerated into exactly the kind of "yes it is, no it isn't" argument that gw originally asked us to avoid.

But I guess it was inevitable.

Boaz, as usual, kicks us off with a clumsy straw man...

>>atheism is BEREFT of 'hope'.. this is especially so for a young man on the verge of suicide. The last thing he needed at that point ..and which would have been completely ineffective would be "Oh..life is so full of interesting things.. so rich.. so much potential" That would have gone over like a lead balloon.<<

No alternative strategy is offered, nor is any evaluation of why a reaffirmation of life's rich tapestry is somehow less effective than "God loves you, and wants you alive"

And miserable, presumably.

And for blind cheek, how about this.

>>So.. we need to examine such events as the Lord Jesus... and in particular the report of His death and resurrection...NOT in a 'scientific' light which excludes the possibility at the outset, but in a 'LEGAL' sense.. based on the evidence of eye witnesses.<<

But Boaz, the whole point is that there were no reports from eye-witnesses.

>>Paul himself is the most credible, as his own hand (or his emmanuensus) speaks of those who witnessed the risen Lord along with his own experience on the road to Damascus.<<

Since it was you who raised the legal angle - and in capital letters, too, so it must have been important - you need to understand that hearsay evidence has no standing in court.

>>Using just the 'balance of probabilities' argument. Pauls seems quite sound.<<

Only, I'm afraid, to someone accustomed to ignoring the need for actual, as opposed to imagined, evidence.

The balance of probabilities here is being strongly influenced by a strong dose of wishful thinking.

But it does encapsulate exactly how difficult it is for believers to change their mind, when they find it this easy to classify the bible's reports as evidence. Given the complete lack of corroboration in the form of contemporary reports.

The church of England is apologising to Charlie....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2910447/Charles-Darwin-to-receive-apology-from-the-Church-of-England-for-rejecting-evolution.html

I cant agree with this. The theory of Evolution is rubbish. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.