Importance of religions

[ProfessorDavey]

Your definition of "brought up as" is in my view most suspect to the point where I would say you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Yawn - as ever Vlad you are talking bollocks.

I'm not making up any definition of 'brought up as' - I am referring to proper bone fide academic research on religiosity. So to an extent it could be considered to be the definition of the academic experts. But it isn't even that, because the point is that the researchers typically ask that question of the research participants. So it isn't my definition, nor realistically is it the researchers. Nope is it the view of the people be asked as part of the survey - it is them defining for themselves how they were brought up in terms of religion.

So unless you are saying that these people are wrong about their own views on their own upbringing (or you are jumping all in on the no true Scotsman fallacy) then you are talking complete non-sense. Realistically I would trust an individual to be able to define whether or not they were brought up christian, or muslim, or non-religious rather than me or you Vlad.

[Gordon]

If you say that resurrection couldn't happen in 1st century Palestine because there was no human technology for it.
1) Christians aren't arguing human technology.

If you say resurrection is something humans will never have the technology for on what grounds do you make that claim?

My but you are dense at times: I'm wasn't talking about technology: it was you (a Christian) that mentioned it and not me, so be careful with all that straw.

My point is that since you guys aren't able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies, and since the claim is metaphysical one that is, frankly, fantastical in nature, then there are no good reasons to take it seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My but you are dense at times: I'm wasn't talking about technology: it was you (a Christian) that mentioned it and not me, so be careful with all that straw.

My point is that since you guys aren't able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies, and since the claim is metaphysical one that is, frankly, fantastical in nature, then there are no good reasons to take it seriously.

By technology I mean the use of any technique for example techniques in meditation techniques in baking etc.
That is what is meant here when I mention the word technology.

Again if life is merely the arrangement of matter, then as a materialist you HAVE to accept, and certainly in an infinite universe that the possibility of being able to resurrect has or will be achieved.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yawn - as ever Vlad you are talking bollocks.

I'm not making up any definition of 'brought up as' - I am referring to proper bone fide academic research on religiosity. So to an extent it could be considered to be the definition of the academic experts. But it isn't even that, because the point is that the researchers typically ask that question of the research participants. So it isn't my definition, nor realistically is it the researchers. Nope is it the view of the people be asked as part of the survey - it is them defining for themselves whether how they were brought up in terms of religion.

So unless you are saying that these people are wrong about their own views on their own upbringing (or you are jumping all in on the no true Scotsman fallacy) then you are talking complete non-sense. Realistically I would trust an individual to be able to define whether or not they were brought up christian, or muslim, or non-religious rather than me or you Vlad.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yawn - as ever Vlad you are talking bollocks.

I'm not making up any definition of 'brought up as' - I am referring to proper bone fide academic research on religiosity. So to an extent it could be considered to be the definition of the academic experts. But it isn't even that, because the point is that the researchers typically ask that question of the research participants. So it isn't my definition, nor realistically is it the researchers. Nope is it the view of the people be asked as part of the survey - it is them defining for themselves whether how they were brought up in terms of religion.

So unless you are saying that these people are wrong about their own views on their own upbringing (or you are jumping all in on the no true Scotsman fallacy) then you are talking complete non-sense. Realistically I would trust an individual to be able to define whether or not they were brought up christian, or muslim, or non-religious rather than me or you Vlad.

Do you have any point to make Vlad. Lovely to see you simply post my post in full without comment. Perhaps it is because you've accepted my points completely ... but somehow I doubt it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My but you are dense at times: I'm wasn't talking about technology: it was you (a Christian) that mentioned it and not me, so be careful with all that straw.

My point is that since you guys aren't able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies, and since the claim is metaphysical one that is, frankly, fantastical in nature, then there are no good reasons to take it seriously.

I can understand your incredulity over things not witnessed on a day to day basis and to be frank fascinated by what you find you can believe in and what you are unable to

And I suppose that leads on to how you gate new experiences.

At the end of the day, I came by Christ by means of the God first and by the moral condition of humanity which led me to abandon humanism as too rose tinted and toward the Christian diagnosis of human morality.

[Gordon]

By technology I mean the use of any technique for example techniques in meditation techniques in baking etc.
That is what is meant here when I mention the word technology.

Again if life is merely the arrangement of matter, then as a materialist you HAVE to accept, and certainly in an infinite universe that the possibility of being able to resurrect has or will be achieved.

 
I don't you know: you are making a religious claim of a fantastical sort based on ancient anecdote for which you haven't excluded the risks of mistakes or lies, and where the anecdotes have no meaningful provenance. On that basis alone I can reject the claim that a specific dead person didn't stay dead 2,000 years ago.

I don't have to even consider whether true resurrection will ever be technologically possible until such times as you, since the possibility of resurrection using technology is your suggestion, can explain how that could ever happen. In any event, it's not as if Jesus was cloned for a few days 2,000 years ago.

You may as well ask me to believe that winged kangaroos were spotted flying over Kelvingrove Park in Glasgow because somebody said they saw them - it's only 15 minutes away by car, but I wouldn't bother going to check. I know ridiculous when I hear it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 
I don't you know: you are making a religious claim of a fantastical sort based on ancient anecdote for which you haven't excluded the risks of mistakes or lies, and where the anecdotes have no meaningful provenance. On that basis alone I can reject the claim that a specific dead person didn't stay dead 2,000 years ago.

I don't have to even consider whether true resurrection will ever be technologically possible until such times as you, since the possibility of resurrection using technology is your suggestion, can explain how that could ever happen. In any event, it's not as if Jesus was cloned for a few days 2,000 years ago.

You may as well ask me to believe that winged kangaroos were spotted flying over Kelvingrove Park in Glasgow because somebody said they saw them - it's only 15 minutes away by car, but I wouldn't bother going to check. I know ridiculous when I hear it.

Firstly winged Kangaroos flying over Kelvingrove park(hardly believable) good be explained by heavy use of alcohol and drugs in that area (highly believable).

In other words the Christian reports of resurrection have a far wider basis than your single incident scenario.

Also, since you believe that life is merely the arrangement of matter, your plea of it never happening either deliberately or spontaneously contradicts that.

So resurrection possible.But belief in it is reinforced by encountering the risen Christ, a fear of that encounter is not so much that it is scientifically improbable but it’s consequences for your moral ego.

[Gordon]

Firstly winged Kangaroos flying over Kelvingrove park(hardly believable) good be explained by heavy use of alcohol and drugs in that area (highly believable).

I'm sure the residents of Park Circus will appreciate your views: have you been there, Vlad?

In other words the Christian reports of resurrection have a far wider basis than your single incident scenario.

Is it not the case that this 'resurrection' is a single incident claim?

Also, since you believe that life is merely the arrangement of matter, your plea of it never happening either deliberately or spontaneously contradicts that.

Is this with or without the technology you mentioned earlier?

So resurrection possible.But belief in it is reinforced by encountering the risen Christ, a fear of that encounter is not so much that it is scientifically improbable but it’s consequences for your moral ego.

Nonsense.

[Dicky Underpants]

I'm sure the residents of Park Circus will appreciate your views: have you been there, Vlad?

Is it not the case that this 'resurrection' is a single incident claim?

Hi Gordon

Well, according to 1Corinthians 15:6, the risen Christ was supposed to have appeared to more than 500 people. The nature of these appearances is not specified, but since it is Paul who is writing, I suppose he is talking about internal mental events, like his own vision of Christ ("The Lord revealed himself in me"). We might be justified in giving another explanation to these appearances than the one of Christian believers. At any rate, Paul's vision differs considerably from the very physical manifestation of Christ, reported by the gospel writers (who of course were writing later, and probably needed to beef up the 'in your face' solidity of the risen Jesus.
Of course, the actual Resurrection was supposed to be an individual incident, but everything was written about so long about after Jesus' earthly ministry, I don't see why we should trust such fantastical narratives, especially since they are contradictory.
I do wish Vlad wouldn't keep banging on with his 'one size fits all' explanation of why Christ doesn't 'appear' to people. Many have by no means poo-pooed the idea that Christ might still be living, and have not been granted any spiritual experience at all. The 'Holy Cow' Mother Theresa was one such.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Firstly winged Kangaroos flying over Kelvingrove park(hardly believable) good be explained by heavy use of alcohol and drugs in that area (highly believable).


I say old chap! steady on! High class alcohol and drugs please! followed by Tiffin on the lawn standards dear boy standards

Gonnagle.

[Maeght]

If you say that resurrection couldn't happen in 1st century Palestine because there was no human technology for it.
1) Christians aren't arguing human technology.

If you say resurrection is something humans will never have the technology for on what grounds do you make that claim?

Think Gordon's comment was aimed more at the second part of your post rather than the first.