Why only three days

[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?

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.

You can give whatever weight you personally feel relevant to any evidence you are aware of.
The point is that once you have done that you have no choice over your beliefs. They emerge from you analysis of the evidence to the best of your ability.

This is clear in that you cannot really choose what to believe, and those that say they can like
Hope, soon backtrack when asked to choose to believe something

[BashfulAnthony]

Great post, jj 

I do find it tremendously fascinating on a psychological level as to why otherwise modern-minded people living in modern homes in 2015 with all that that entails - wireless connections and smartphones and microwaves and what have you - would, if they heard of an alleged resurrection of someone in the next nearest town or village, presumably disbelieve it and bring to bear all the critical scepticism of which they're capable, whereas the same sort of thing sketchily written about in old documents compiled by ignorant people in a long-past pre-scientific and highly superstitious time is taken as read.

Nowt so queer as folk.

Ah! Shaker with his psychologist hat on today.  I expect he's having a rest from being a theologian, philosopher and all-round scientist for the moment.  Well he has spoken, so it must be right!

[Hope]

This is clear in that you cannot really choose what to believe, and those that say they can like
Hope, soon backtrack when asked to choose to believe something

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

I know that some here like to use semantics to bamboozle others, but sometimes I think they end up bamboozling themselves more than their intended victims.

[cyberman]

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

[Nearly Sane]

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

I've posted frequently that I don't think people make choices in their belief. I can argue why I think you are incorrect in those beliefs and that may have an effect on what you believe, but I certainly Didn't wake up one morning and think, hmmm I will be an atheist now. I just became one based on the impact of life, arguments and evidence. Given that Hope has stated the evidence precludes the choice of unbelief for him I don't see how his position on that is any different from mine.

I don't really understand how people think you can chose beliefs as it feels alien to my internal experience. Now I can't say that anyone can't chose but I'm asking why they think they do and how that feels to them.

[cyberman]

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

I've posted frequently that I don't think people make choices in their belief. I can argue why I think you are incorrect in those beliefs and that may have an effect on what you believe, but I certainly Didn't wake up one morning and think, hmmm I will be an atheist now. I just became one based on the impact of life, arguments and evidence. Given that Hope has stated the evidence precludes the choice of unbelief for him I don't see how his position on that is any different from mine.

I don't really understand how people think you can chose beliefs as it feels alien to my internal experience. Now I can't say that anyone can't chose but I'm asking why they think they do and how that feels to them.

Doesn't it just mean that your consciousness is operating autonomously when weighing up the evidence?

[jeremyp]

Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.

Or not depending on which gospel writer you believe.

That's interesting. Which writers have different lengths of time? Are you saying Luke has a different length of time to the one Luke has?

You should try reading the gospels accounts and Acts without your confirmation bias active.

[Nearly Sane]

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

I've posted frequently that I don't think people make choices in their belief. I can argue why I think you are incorrect in those beliefs and that may have an effect on what you believe, but I certainly Didn't wake up one morning and think, hmmm I will be an atheist now. I just became one based on the impact of life, arguments and evidence. Given that Hope has stated the evidence precludes the choice of unbelief for him I don't see how his position on that is any different from mine.

I don't really understand how people think you can chose beliefs as it feels alien to my internal experience. Now I can't say that anyone can't chose but I'm asking why they think they do and how that feels to them.

Doesn't it just mean that your consciousness is operating autonomously when weighing up the evidence?

And I don't feel like that is what is happening? Possibly, but as I say it does not chime with my internal experience. It also does not chime with any evidence I see from neuroscience where the conscious seems to confabulate reasoning when it has none but then given both my beliefs and what it would be if they were correct, I would say that, wouldn't I?

[jeremyp]

Great post, jj 

Naive post.

You wrote this

But your scenario is incomplete. Jesus came into a situation where a people, Israel, had a history where they saw God at work. Jesus healed people and even raised people from the dead. He predicted his own death and resurrection, which was something the Jews did not expect. The only resurrection they anticipated was at the end of time.

According to stories written about Jesus after the fact...

I think you need to reflect on who is making the naive posts here.

[cyberman]

Great post, jj 

Naive post.

You wrote this

But your scenario is incomplete. Jesus came into a situation where a people, Israel, had a history where they saw God at work. Jesus healed people and even raised people from the dead. He predicted his own death and resurrection, which was something the Jews did not expect. The only resurrection they anticipated was at the end of time.

According to stories written about Jesus after the fact...

I think you need to reflect on who is making the naive posts here.

Is there any possibility at all, do you thinl, that more than one person is making naive posts?
Given that that seems at least possible, I am not sure how pointing out that one person is making naive posts negates the assertion that someone else has also done so.

[Hope]

According to stories written about Jesus after the fact...

I think you need to reflect on who is making the naive posts here.

Are you suggesting that documentary evidence about other things isn't written after the fact?  How naive are you.

[Alien]

Eh? There's forty days between the resurrection and the ascension.

Or not depending on which gospel writer you believe.

That's interesting. Which writers have different lengths of time? Are you saying Luke has a different length of time to the one Luke has?

You should try reading the gospels accounts and Acts without your confirmation bias active.

That's a bit too vague to be helpful. Would you please be more specific. My question was a subtle way of pointing out the question of how the ascension is treated in Luke's gospel and (Luke's) Acts. Is that what you were referring to.

[Alien]

Great post, jj 

Naive post.

You wrote this

But your scenario is incomplete. Jesus came into a situation where a people, Israel, had a history where they saw God at work. Jesus healed people and even raised people from the dead. He predicted his own death and resurrection, which was something the Jews did not expect. The only resurrection they anticipated was at the end of time.

According to stories written about Jesus after the fact...

I think you need to reflect on who is making the naive posts here.

People tend to write about things after they have happened.

[BeRational]

This is clear in that you cannot really choose what to believe, and those that say they can like
Hope, soon backtrack when asked to choose to believe something

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

I know that some here like to use semantics to bamboozle others, but sometimes I think they end up bamboozling themselves more than their intended victims.

No you are not getting it.

You cannot choose what you believe.

You have confirmed this already by not being able to choose to believe God does not exist due to the weight of evidence as you see it in his favour.
If you could choose to believe something what has evidence got to do with it?

[BeRational]

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

I have no choice at all about my beliefs.

[cyberman]

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

I have no choice at all about my beliefs.

Does that mean that evidence is irrelevant?

[BeRational]

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

I have no choice at all about my beliefs.

Does that mean that evidence is irrelevant?

On the contrary, it makes evidence of paramount importance.

My beliefs are emergent based on how I interpret the evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

 

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

I have no choice at all about my beliefs.

Does that mean that evidence is irrelevant?

No. It means that evidence (and how you see it) is what determines belief as Hope has already written in saying the evidence precludes him not believing in God (I.e. he has no free will not to)

[Hope]

No. It means that evidence (and how you see it) is what determines belief as Hope has already written in saying the evidence precludes him not believing in God (I.e. he has no free will not to)

Wrong, NS, I can, using my freewill, investigate and test the evidence or not, making my mind up on the basis of that freewill.  As such, I have freewill to choose my beliefs.  By the same score, I have freewill to change my beliefs. 

[Hope]

My beliefs are emergent based on how I interpret the evidence.

Precisely, you applied your freewill as to how to interpret the evidence.

[BeRational]

My beliefs are emergent based on how I interpret the evidence.

Precisely, you applied your freewill as to how to interpret the evidence.

No no no.

You interpret as best you can.

During your analysis your belief form. You do not choose them, they emerge from your mulling over the evidence.

You have already said that you cannot choos to believe that God does not exist, so this shows that you are wrong.

Can you believe God does not exist?

[BashfulAnthony]

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

I have no choice at all about my beliefs.

Don't you?  I have choice about mine: I choose to think that you're an idiot;  but I am happy for you to try and persuade me to make an alternative choice.

[BeRational]

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

I have no choice at all about my beliefs.

Don't you?  I have choice about mine: I choose to think that you're an idiot;  but I am happy for you to try and persuade me to make an alternative choice.

You cannot choose your beliefs.

Can you choose to believe your God does not exist?

If not, then you have failed and proved me right.

Do you believe in your God?

[BashfulAnthony]

In what way is referring to evidence backtracking in regard to choosing to believe something?  If anyone is backtracking its those who seem to want evidence on which to base their choices, only then to denounce evidence as something that denies one freedom of choice.

A valid point. Do the atheists here hold that they base their beliefs upon evidence, or that they have no control whatsoever over what they believe?

I have no choice at all about my beliefs.

Don't you?  I have choice about mine: I choose to think that you're an idiot;  but I am happy for you to try and persuade me to make an alternative choice.

You cannot choose your beliefs.

Can you choose to believe your God does not exist?

If not, then you have failed and proved me right.

Do you believe in your God?

I made my own choice about my beliefs a long time ago, after much thought and soul-searching.  At times, way back, I wavered, but then came back to my belief.  That was my choice, not forced upon me, not inevitable.

[Nearly Sane]

The concept of choosing beliefs seems to me to create an infinite regress since in order to choose what to believe I would have to have a belief that it is the right thing to choose, and since that is a belief I would have to have chosen that which means I would have to believe it was the right thing to choose etc etc.