mjpb,

I’ve just realised that I missed perhaps the most important part of your last response to me (just goes to show what happens when you try to type something out quickly while you’re at work). But since I have promised to keep this thread alive for you, I guess it’s not such a bad thing after all.

<<These rhetorically most effective defences aren’t legitimate.>>

Yes, they are legitimate, because both unicorns and god share the same amount of evidence to suggest they exist, and they both fit the definitions of fantasy:

- Imagination unrestricted by reality; "a schoolgirl fantasy"
- Fiction with a large amount of imagination in it; "she made a lot of money writing romantic fantasies"
- Illusion: something many people believe that is false; "they have the illusion that I am very wealthy"

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:fantasy

<<The creators typically believe that there is no evidence for unicorns so therefore the absence of evidence is evidence of absence...>>

What they believe is irrelevant to whether or not absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

<<...and that can be overgeneralised via extending the absence of evidence to an absence of strong evidence for theism.>>

Considering god would be the greatest and most significant being in all existence (and that so much horror has been committed in his name nonetheless) an expectation of strong evidence should not be unrealistic.

But at least you’re now admitting that the evidence for theism isn’t strong (while still referring to it as “facts”). Still doesn’t explain the “extremist” claims coming from you though.

<<They are typically aware of weak evidence like fine tuning of physical laws and constants, religious experience, etc.>>

So what are the “facts” then? Facts, by definition, would be pretty damn strong evidence.

<<In reality there are numerous examples like theism where people might not accept evidence as strong yet that doesn’t logically mean that believing something is ridiculous.>>

No, it certainly doesn’t.

Continued...

...Contined

<<For example the idea that earthworms have a primitive form of consciousness. Many consciousness researchers believe that without strong evidence.>>

Yes, without strong evidence. Not a total absence of any objective evidence. And we’re still talking about the natural world here (something we know exists), not the supernatural (something that has never been demonstrated before).

Attempting to answer the big questions by appealing to the supernatural doesn’t accomplish anything because it’s an attempt to solve a mystery by appealing to another mystery (something Catholics are very fond of). That’s not an explanation, it’s a gap-filler. It doesn’t solve a mystery, it obscures it in an attempt to ease our discomfort with the unknown.

So how do we answer the big questions? The same way we’d answer any other question. First, we acknowledge that we don’t have an explanation and then we investigate until we do by using what we do know (ie. Our ‘practical knowledge’). The time to believe a proposed explanation is after it has been supported by argument and evidence - something you have not yet provided.

A very poor analogy, mjpb.

<<Many physicists believe in things like string theory or parallel universes without strong evidence.>>

Yes, but they don’t let their lives be guided by that belief nor do they believe with absolute certainly and conviction.

Another poor analogy.

<<If the absence of strong evidence made it ridiculous to believe those things we could pronounce those beliefs must be false and as absurd as unicorns.>>

Absence of strong evidence does not make the belief in something ridiculous and I never said it did.

What makes religious belief absurd is the certainty of the belief in an entire realm (ie. The supernatural as opposed to the natural) that has not yet been demonstrated in any way, shape or form, coupled with how much the believer lets the belief consume their life.

From my Roman influenced cultured ancestors from England and Scotland they were by culture warring with nearby clans and boroughs. What changed that culture was the advent of reformed Christian theology, and people could read for themselves what Jesus taught. The Roman Empire practised torture and murder of dissidents.

Similarly in Papua New Guinea where Christianity taught education to the natives it brought about cultural change and pay back murder and head hunting was no longer practised. it was not secularism that brought the cultural change it was their endeavour to follow Christ. Those that failed to be influenced by Christ and adopted the later practises infuenced by the secular Western culture still practise payback. Secularisation has not changed their value of a human life. Similarly in Western secular cultures an infants and an aged persons life is disposable.

Today women play important roles within the Churches reformed by the culture of Christ.

mjpb,

Although the thread’s still a while from closing, this will be the last time I attempt to keep it alive, uless you start posting again, as I don’t think Graham would appreciate me keeping it open like this, and your busy schedule looks like it’s probably going to last for at least as long as this thread is open.

But if there is anything I hope you take away from this, it’s that you should think a little more carefully before make such outrageous claims such as the beliefs of others being “untenable”, or that atheists have more faith than theists. If you’re going to make such wild claims, then you need to be able to back them up.

[As a side note, notice the negative connotation you applied to faith when you claimed that you didn’t have enough faith to remain an atheist but then, when it was demonstrated that atheists don’t have a faith, suddenly CS Lewis’s poetic definition was applied to it to make it sound like something beautiful.]

Let me remind you, that by refusing to disclose this evidence you have for god, you are in direct violation of 1 Peter 3:15.

Even if you don’t have evidence though, it would if you could at least apologise for the accusations of extremism, but that’s for you to live with.

Along with your violation of 1 Peter 3:15...

“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,”

I was about to type that I haven't time to read all this properly at the moment but your offer stands out and is appreciated and will help considerably and then saw the most recent one... Will you keep it open or won't you?

Yes mjpb, I’ll keep it open if you show some interest in continuing.

But lets be realistic about this; so long as you keep trying to discredit my responses, you’re never going to get to this evidence that you appear to be the soul possessor of.

There’s a pattern emerging here, mjpb. Recognise it and correct it.