Why only three days

[Hope]

Scientific means are methodologically naturalustic. They cannot be used to determine supernaturalistic claims.

Not surew why you keeping banging on about this - I haven't suggested in this thread that naturalistic methods can determine supenatural claims (not sure that I ever have).  However, there are those who use naturalistic methods to study and research the documentary materials in terms of their validity as documentary evidence.  When that evidence points to a particular explanation as being at least as possible as any other explanation, that is when the choice kicks in.  That is all I have stated; so far, none of the explanations produced - such as the stealing of the body of Christ from the grave - have stood up to critical study.  It assumes far too much on a whole range of issues, and even more so than the accepted understanding - that Jesus was God in human form and therefore could perfectly reasonably be expected to rise from the dead.  OK, you could say that my faith is based on a least-bad option.

[Shaker]

Least bad? Bloody hell.

[Hope]

Well chaps; I think we can conclude that after years of searching we have finally found the one person in the world apparently prepared to defend the stance that he can consciously choose what to believe.

Sorry, Shaker, I can think of thousands of such people.  My experience is that it is only here that there are those who don't think that.  Clearly, as this forum is but a microcosm of humanity, they must reflect the thinking of others, but then so must I.

[Hope]

Least bad? Bloody hell.

Yes, its an ugly phrase, but does seem to be the in-one nowadays.

[Shaker]

Sorry, Shaker, I can think of thousands of such people.

Since I've never before seen anybody - not even theists - state openly that they think that belief is voluntaristic, you'll have to name a few.

[ippy]

"Hold the front page", is Hope getting very near to letting us have this mysterious legendary evidence of his ?

ippy

[BeRational]

Hope

Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?

I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here).  However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.

Do you accept that your beliefs form or emerge from your analysis of the evidence?

[jjohnjil]

If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"

That man would have real credibility in my eyes!

[floo]

absolutely not they could have my head first

But Islam competes with Christianity in religious popularity. So if as some contend if many people believe in a faith it must be true, you should think Islam is the business too?

[Alien]

Hope

Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?

I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here).  However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.

Do you accept that your beliefs form or emerge from your analysis of the evidence?

People can ignore evidence (or arguments) though. Either the atheists or the theists seem to be doing it. Both can't be right in their conclusions.

[Alien]

If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"

That man would have real credibility in my eyes!

Why would you want people to do that?

[Alien]

absolutely not they could have my head first

But Islam competes with Christianity in religious popularity. So if as some contend if many people believe in a faith it must be true, you should think Islam is the business too?

So who are these "many people", floo? People on here? If so, please link to their post(s). I've missed seeing them.

[floo]

I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!

[Nearly Sane]

Hope

Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?

I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here).  However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.

Do you accept that your beliefs form or emerge from your analysis of the evidence?

People can ignore evidence (or arguments) though. Either the atheists or the theists seem to be doing it. Both can't be right in their conclusions.

Both cannot be right but given the statements about personal revelation from many theists, then the evidence is specifically said to be different. Also the idea of ignoring evidence or arguments seems to be the same problem about choosing beliefs. If you cannot choose beliefs then you are not able to choose to believe that you should ignore arguments to allow you to choose beliefs. This idea that either of atheists or theists are somehow en masse ignoring evidence/argument seems ludicrous and seems to argue that individual perspective is meaningless.

[Alien]

I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!

Your impression?

[Nearly Sane]

 

Scientific means are methodologically naturalustic. They cannot be used to determine supernaturalistic claims.

Not surew why you keeping banging on about this - I haven't suggested in this thread that naturalistic methods can determine supenatural claims (not sure that I ever have).  However, there are those who use naturalistic methods to study and research the documentary materials in terms of their validity as documentary evidence.  When that evidence points to a particular explanation as being at least as possible as any other explanation, that is when the choice kicks in.  That is all I have stated; so far, none of the explanations produced - such as the stealing of the body of Christ from the grave - have stood up to critical study.  It assumes far too much on a whole range of issues, and even more so than the accepted understanding - that Jesus was God in human form and therefore could perfectly reasonably be expected to rise from the dead.  OK, you could say that my faith is based on a least-bad option.

But your position is that documents that make supernatural claims can be evaluated as to their validity using naturalistic methods. Those claims cannot be regarded as being evaluated in any sense by those methods.

I have no idea how you can slip in 'Jesus as God' as an accepted understanding in using this methods since in the terms of the methods that is a meaningless statement

[Alien]

Hope

Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?

I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here).  However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.

Do you accept that your beliefs form or emerge from your analysis of the evidence?

People can ignore evidence (or arguments) though. Either the atheists or the theists seem to be doing it. Both can't be right in their conclusions.

Both cannot be right but given the statements about personal revelation from many theists, then the evidence is specifically said to be different.

I'm actually not sure who, if either, is right in this discussion as I think people may be using certain words in different ways. People do ignore evidence and arguments to varying degrees and the result is that they have, effectivelyl, chosen to not believe something. I'm not sure that is what Hope means though.[/quote]Also the idea of ignoring evidence or arguments seems to be the same problem about choosing beliefs. If you cannot choose beliefs then you are not able to choose to believe that you should ignore arguments to allow you to choose beliefs. This idea that either of atheists or theists are somehow en masse ignoring evidence/argument seems ludicrous and seems to argue that individual perspective is meaningless.[/quote]Well, there are things I have said here and people said I have argued for the opposite. Sometimes it will just be that people have misunderstood stuff I (and you and others) have put forward or have forgotten what we have said.

[floo]

I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!

Your impression?

At least I often put imo after my posts, which is more honest than those who state stuff in the Bible is true with no evidence at all to back it up.

[Nearly Sane]

You aren't making any sense here, if you are precluded from doing something then you have no choice, and you do not have free will in your belief

NS, you are making even less sense.  I am able, as a human being, to make a choice about one or more action/belief/etc.  As a human being, there is nothing stopping me making that choice.  As an educated human being I choose to make that choice based on the evidence.  As can be seen, there are often occasions when the same evidence results in more than one choice (take those in Tunisia, recently, some of whom chose to stay in the country and others who chose to come home early).  I fully accept that there may be legal or societal hindrances to making that choice - look at the numbers of places where changing one's political or faith position can result in one being disowned by your community, perhaps imprisoned and/or tortured - perhaps even executed - but those are man-made hindrances, not barriers that are intrinsic to being a human being.

You stated that the evidence precluded you from not believing. In that case there is no choice.

[Alien]

I got the impression that is what cyberman backed up by 2corrie on posts earlier in this thread!

Your impression?

At least I often put imo after my posts, which is more honest than those who state stuff in the Bible is true with no evidence at all to back it up.

You forgot to put "IMO" at the end there, floo.

So how does working off your off only your impression make it valid, even if you stick "IMO" on the end?

[jjohnjil]

If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"

That man would have real credibility in my eyes!

Why would you want people to do that?

It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.

[Nearly Sane]

If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"

That man would have real credibility in my eyes!

Why would you want people to do that?

It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.

Except you have no real reason to think that it is honesty. We are back at this idea of choosing beliefs, do you really think people do that?

[jjohnjil]

If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"

That man would have real credibility in my eyes!

Why would you want people to do that?

It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.

Except you have no real reason to think that it is honesty. We are back at this idea of choosing beliefs, do you really think people do that?

Maybe just 'hope' then.

[Alien]

If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"

That man would have real credibility in my eyes!

Why would you want people to do that?

It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.

It would be refreshing to not have people's beliefs caricatured once in a while.

[Nearly Sane]

If only I could read a post just once where a theist says "Yes, I know it all sounds complete bollocks and I'd never believe it in any other context and I dismiss just as ridiculous claims in the other religions of the world, but it gives me comfort to believe and hope it might all be true"

That man would have real credibility in my eyes!

Why would you want people to do that?

It would be refreshing to have a bit of honesty once in a while.

Except you have no real reason to think that it is honesty. We are back at this idea of choosing beliefs, do you really think people do that?

Maybe just 'hope' then.

People sometimes appear to argue because of the consequences but I don't think they come across as necessarily not believing, do you? In most cases even if I think they are wrong they seem to be being honest about that. This idea being touted by you about theists and Alan Burns about atheists that we chose our views and then ignore evidence seems back to front to me. It also seems to go down the route of ignoring internal experiences