Perhaps you should actually read what was written. Bob K read a book. That book stated a variety of things. Bob was looking for a discussion. If you'd like to address what the book is claiming, please feel free. If you just want to bash people who would dare to say such things, don't be surprised if you take flak for it.

By the by, some Christians do claim their faith is non-rational; they would not be insulted by such an assertion. That you are insulted indicates your extreme opposition to this view. I encourage you to articulate this as an argument.

"Perhaps you should actually read what was written. Bob K read a book. That book stated a variety of things. Bob was looking for a discussion. If you'd like to address what the book is claiming, please feel free. If you just want to bash people who would dare to say such things, don't be surprised if you take flak for it."

I did feel free to post my opinion. But since I did, I've been attack for daring to agree with Bede's quite reasonable statement that atheists are emotional too. I then proceeded to offer an example to support my statement. How is it that bashing?

"By the by, some Christians do claim their faith is non-rational; they would not be insulted by such an assertion. That you are insulted indicates your extreme opposition to this view. I encourage you to articulate this as an argument."

You are right, I have known some Christians who have said that. You are wrong, I am not insulted by BobK's original post (although I'm annoyed by your double standard). And, I already offered my comment. I'll repeat it: I agree with Bede. Atheists are emotional too, as illustrated by those of their ranks that reject historical consensus and insist that Jesus never existed.

Layman first wrote:
"You are absolutely right Bede. Look at all the atheists that continue to insist, despite all reason and evidence to the contrary, that Jesus never existed. The only explanation is their reactionary impulse to deny ANYTHING a theist affirms."

And later added:
"Atheists are emotional too, as illustrated by those of their ranks that reject historical consensus and insist that Jesus never existed."

This point really exercises you like nothing else. Why does it upset you so that some people don't even affirm that your particular religious figure actually even existed? Bede
just thinks we're silly, and Nomad treats us with his customary haughtiness, but you, Layman, insist on trolling out the bait twice, hoping someone will bite.

If you want to start yet another "Did Jesus Exist? thread" that would be the normal way to do it. This thread is not the place.

You might notice, after your troll using the word "reactionary" that I went out of my way to agree with Bede that atheists, indeed, affirm and make use of their emotions in evaluation of the problems of life. I am not a robot, and I trust and value my feelings. I suspect most atheists are the same way, and most theists too.

Here's how we can discuss your posts and avoid direct debate of the Jesus Exists/Not! question:

Why do you think that our rejection of Jesus is a purely emotional, knee-jerk and reactionary thing to do?

Michael

"Why do you think that our rejection of Jesus is a purely emotional, knee-jerk and reactionary thing to do?"

I explained myself already: "Look at all the atheists that continue to insist, despite all reason and evidence to the contrary, that Jesus never existed. The only explanation is their reactionary impulse to deny ANTHING a theist affirms."

I'm not the one trying to turn this into another "Did Jesus Exist?" thread. Noticed that I resisted ecco's attempt to draw me into the discussion by once again reitterating the "evidence." You, ecco, and daemon are the ones who are apparently "offended" by my statement that the denial of the existence of Jesus is an indication of the emotionalism with which many atheists react to theism.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
"Why do you think that our rejection of Jesus is a purely emotional, knee-jerk and reactionary thing to do?"

I explained myself already: "Look at all the atheists that continue to insist, despite all reason and evidence to the contrary, that Jesus never existed. The only explanation is their reactionary impulse to deny ANTHING a theist affirms."

Ah, thank you. Those of us who deny the existence of Jesus have a deep emotional need
to deny anything claimed by a theist. Thanks. BTW, you might have taken notice of how in spite of my emotional crippling, I actually agreed with Bede above. I guess I'm not one of those knee-jerk reactionary atheists. Thank heaven for that!

I'm not the one trying to turn this into another "Did Jesus Exist?" thread. Noticed that I resisted ecco's attempt to draw me into the discussion by once again reitterating the "evidence." You, ecco, and daemon are the ones who are apparently "offended" by my statement that the denial of the existence of Jesus is an indication of the emotionalism with which many atheists react to theism.


Let's see...
You troll. Twice.
Someone responds.
They have the problem.
Uh-huh.

Michael

BobK
I read an excellent essay—"The Question of Method as Affecting Religious Thought"—concerning the difference of decision-making standards between religionists and rationalists; this essay was attirbuted to "Anonymous" as printed by the Bristish publisher Thomas Scott in 1873, as presented in A Second Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism by Dr. Gordon Stein, Ph.D. [Philosophy], Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst Street, Buiffalo, NY 14215, 1987.

Hilarius
Greetings BobK. If more people would clearly document their sources, as you did, a great deal of unnecessary confusion would be eliminated. All too often people in discussions offer second-hand pat answers without clear attribution.

BobK
The essence:

Religionists make decisions based upon emotional standards/emotional methods: If it feels good it must be true. Hence if religion feels good, it must be true. [Problem: Good feelings do not prove anything true/not false and bad feelings do not prove anything not true/false. Example: Feeling good about O.J. Simpson does not prove he is innocent of the Nicole S./Ron G. murders, though he might be.]

Hilarius
Your logic is impeccable. Feelings alone do not verify conclusions.

The question is whoever said they do?

Secondly what is the author's basis for asserting that Christian decision making is based solely on feelings?

Thirdly is the author saying that emotions have no place in decision making?

BobK
Rationalists make decisions based upon rational standards/critical methods, standards of reason, requirements of proof:

(1) physical evidence—people/things/events
who/which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted;

(2) eyewitness reports from credible witnesses [contradictions/inconsistencies are problematic];

(3) logical arguments using verifiable/falsifiable/verified premises.

Where with emotional standards anything goes; with rational standards nothing goes that cannot be proven.

Hilarius
Again I applaud your logic.

The question is are you or the author excluding Christian Scholarship from the field of rational analysis? If so why?

Secondly how can physical proofs ever be used to prove the invisible?

A person views a painting or a beautiful piece of scenery. For them it has a spiritual meaning. What standard of proof would you accept as confirming that person's spiritual perception is correct? Note here I do not even presume a theist spirituality. It might be an American Indian speaking to you about a spiritual sense attaching to a natural phenomenon? Do you see emotion as an ingredient? Do you deny all non-theist spiritual concepts, merely because they are invisible and not susceptible to physical proof or other tests you have given above?

BobK
The Bible and hence the Xn religion do not stand up to rational standards because of contradictions and basic absurdities such as gods sending gods [as sons of gods] to be killed for the purpose of saving sinners, virgin births being required for sons of gods but raising the question of whether or not the sons of gods actually felt any pain during their sacrifices/acts of salvation, or the question of the necessity for the sacrifice, etc.

Hilarius
Are these your opinions or the author's? On what basis are they ruled out as irrational?
Suppose for the purposes of discussion the events actually occurred. On what rational basis would you assert they do not have the significance attributed to them?

I am sure you and others will have no difficulty responding unemotionally, although on second thoughts some of the examples of pavlovian hostility to Christian thought at this Board do not give me a great deal of optimism. I trust that you are above emotionalism, but I agree with my Christian friends that some of your colleagues are to put it mildly a little hot under the collar.

Blessings and Peace

Hilarius

"Ah, thank you. Those of us who deny the existence of Jesus have a deep emotional need to deny anything claimed by a theist. Thanks. BTW, you might have taken notice of how in spite of my emotional crippling, I actually agreed with Bede above. I guess I'm not one of those knee-jerk reactionary atheists."

I guess not. I thought it was pretty clear that I wasn't referring to every athiest.

Let's see. "Fundamentalist," "LA Lawyer," and now "troll." Seems indicative of strong emotional responses to me.

Are you getting tired of this yet?

Atheists are emotional too, as illustrated by those of their ranks that reject historical consensus and insist that Jesus never existed.

Look at all the atheists that continue to insist, despite all reason and evidence to the contrary, that Jesus never existed. The only explanation is their reactionary impulse to deny ANYTHING a theist affirms.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I assumed that sweeping, shallow generalizations, easily refuted and not backed up by any evidence, are trolls. Were these two repeated attempts to draw out remarks not trolls? Or did you have some honest belief that sincere communication could continue after comments like this?

Michael

"I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I assumed that sweeping, shallow generalizations, easily refuted and not backed up by any evidence, are trolls. Were these two repeated attempts to draw out remarks not trolls? Or did you have some honest belief that sincere communication could continue after comments like this?"

I guess the answer to my queston is no, you are not getting tired of this. Perhaps if you define what you mean by troll I could respond better. I'm not up on my Skepticswebring lingo. I expressed my opinion and you are free to disagree. I find the evidence and professional consensus on Jesus to be all but irrefutable. Whether you communicate your response sincerely, honestly, or otherwise is up to you.

I didn't say that all atheists are only emotional. But you did say that there is no reasonable basis for being a theist.

I didn't use deragatory remarks. But daemon has referred to me as a fundamentalist (which I am not) and a "LA Laywer" (who doesn't let facts get in the way), and you continue to call me a "troll."

I didn't say there were no rational arguments for atheists. But Bob K said there weren't any for Christians.

I can see you have developed a disliking for me, but instead of pretending I'm nothing but a "troll"and whining why not show me to be irrational by replying to my response on the earliest sayings of Jesus or demonstrating John's dependence on the Gospel of Mark or responding to my post on historicity and John?

Actually, I am trying to get back to you on John, but I have been sidetracked by other concerns for the moment -- like waiting for books to come by interlibrary loan. On the contrary Layman, I DO like you, I think you are young and headstrong and a lot like I was say, twenty years ago. Probably you're taking me too seriously. Things always sound a lot nastier in print -- even emoticons look more sarcastic.

But there are rational reasons for disbelieving the historicity of Jesus. Earl Doherty does. He may be wrong, but he is not irrational. Neither am I. Neither are the thousands of pagans and others who have disagreed with your most fundamental tenets.
Your strong feelings on the matter do not make us irrational for believing the question is complex, doubtful and not clearly resolvable.

Which post contains the earliest sayings of Jesus? I can't find that thread. Is that in
the Homeric Epics thread?

Michael