mjpb,

There’s a few points I’d like to make that I didn’t make in my last ‘banged-out’ response.

Firstly, your claim that yourself, and others you know of, came to faith using reasoning actually conflicts with George’s view...

“...faith, of whatever form or denomination, cannot be acquired through reasoning...” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#183361)

I tend to agree more with George here. In fact, I can think of a few Christians I know of wouldn’t claim that they came to faith via reasoning (often it’s just ‘personal revelation’).

George’s view also conflicts with CS Lewis’s definition of faith. Now if there was so much evidence that you can shake your head at me and imply that I’m an extremist (while incidentally branding many on OLO ‘extremists’), then why is there so much inconsistency here. It’s like Christians all claiming to have a personal relationship with Jesus at the same time as disagreeing on who exactly he is and what exactly he wants, and now, in some cases these days - whether or not he actually even existed as a real person in the first place.

<<Take Pericles. He is an atheist but doesn't seem to hold blind faith just an opinion based on his call of things (or so my experience has indicated).>>

So how does someone hold on to something their reason once excepted in spite of their changing moods blindly?

Face it, mjpb, Lewis’s definition of faith is ridiculous. It’s a non-specific bit of sophistry made to sound poetic that could be applied to many things, even atheism (as I’d pointed out before) and even you’ve admitted that atheism isn’t a faith...

<<There are atheists with a type of faith even if atheism perse isn't necessarily a faith.>>

But apparently some still have a “type of faith”.

Of course, you don’t go into what this type of faith is, because then you’d have to present these facts that support the existence of god - something to which your avoidance of is coming across as a form of apologetics that can only be described as a ‘dogs dinner’.

Continued...

...Continued

You make less and less sense as we go, mjpb, and now you’re panicking because you’ve committed yourself to presenting something you know you can’t.

As for your confusion in regards to what I meant by “theists on OLO who you’d think must sit there with their fingers in their ears singing: “La, la, la... I can’t here you.””, I’ll give you an example...

I had explained to you that there is no such thing as a “secular fundamentalist” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3079#72527. I even clarified it for you at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3079#72615, and yet here you are referring to “secular fundamentalism” as if it could exist.

Theists don’t absorb arguments that contradict their religious beliefs. They can’t, because unlike atheists, they let their position on this subject define who they are as a person. I remember putting up that metaphorical wall as a barrier myself as a theist. One example is when I used to debate creation and evolution. I can remember all the arguments I used in favour of creation, but can’t remember many of the rebuttals I got at all.

<<I’m sure [Lewis] wasn’t ignorant of the fact that a legend explanation is implausible.>>

I had, at first, assumed that you meant to say “plausible”, because this sentence would have flowed much better and made more sense had you meant to say “plausible”.

But in case you did mean “implausible”, I’ll link you to a recent post of mine where I briefly explain why there is no reliable evidence for the existence of the alleged Jesus and thus ‘legend’ is missing from Lewis’s trilemma (which should actually be a ‘quadrilemma’)... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4092#101756

I have many more posts where I go into more thorough detail if you’d like.

Anyway, mjpb, that should be enough from me for now. But to save you some time, I’ll just explain to you in advance that our existence and the consciousness are not evidence for god - just in case you were tempted to use them, as so many are. Using them as evidence is an argument from ignorance and thus fallacious.

Over to you...

Sorry, mjpb. That should actually read...

“So how does someone hold on to something their reason once ACCEPTED in spite of their changing moods blindly?”

Anyway, I’ll look forward to a reply that consists of a little more desperate attempts to cast doubt on what I say with accusations of extremism, or presumptions like this...

“So appearing like a genuine mistake makes it more ingenious and more likely to be sophistry? Excuse me if that sounds a little like McCarthyism but it looks like,from theists, you will see sophistry no matter what so at least I know now what to expect.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814#99114)

Sorry about all this posting, mjpb, but I just realised I missed an important point in your last response...

<<When was it proved?>>

History is a litany of proof. The fact that you have to ask this is simply astonishing. Terrorist attacks on Western targets, the shooting up of abortion clinics, wars, you name it.

<<I keep reading that it doesn’t need to be proved.>>

Where did you read that?

<<The track record of atheist societies isn’t good.>>

The societies you're referring to weren't atheist societies, nor did they commit their atrocities in the name of atheism - as so many religious conflicts were committed in the name of religion - they were anti-religious societies.

I flashed back to this old topic to see what the argument was about and it appears AJ Philips is obsessed by passion in an argument by himself. Endeavouring to prove an atheists world view is not held with exclusive passion like a theists world view.

I thought I heard that metaphorical wall going up and figured it must have been coming from this thread. The sound of it brings back memories from my days as a Christian.

An argument by myself, Philo?

<<I flashed back to this old topic to see what the argument was about and it appears AJ Philips is obsessed by passion in an argument by himself.>>

mjpb hasn’t yet given any indication that he’s done. He’s made a wide range of absurd claims that need correcting, and I’m simply covering his response as thoroughly as I possibly can to prevent this dragging out any longer than necessary.

I don’t see anything wrong with being passionate about standing up for reason. Particularly when the unreasonable side of the debate is the cause of so many problems in the world.

<<Endeavouring to prove an atheists world view is not held with exclusive passion like a theists world view.>>

There’s no reason why an atheist’s worldview can’t be held with the same level of passion. The difference is though, that any passion an atheist might have is a founded passion that is only in direct response to the problems caused by the unfounded passion of theists.

One is a faith-based assertion, the other is a reason-based response to that assertion. So your attempt to point out some sort of perceived irony in my posts in order to contradict me, fails unfortunately.

Now do you have anything to offer other than ridicule? mjpb could really do with the help, but let’s face it, you have about as much of an idea of what these facts are that he’s referring to as I do.

Zilch.