Sarpedon

The inability of archaeologists to find the body of a specific person who died 2000 years ago does not in any way make me believe that person is still alive. They haven't found Aknaten yet, does that mean he's still alive? This might be called specious reasoning, but I would call it no reasoning at all.

Rhea

Well said, Braces. That is a very important concept. Interesting!

Gregg

I wonder if Christian has considered that, if he was born and raised in a Muslim country, he might have explained his emotional experiences in Islamic terms.

Gregg

wildernesse

Rhea,

Re: Your original question.

I can say that I don't know what it would take to convince me that my beliefs were wrong. I doubt it would be one "Damascus Road" experience--but probably discussion and thought about why my personal experiences are based in the biology of the mind and not in religion.

I don't ask this question of atheists much--I don't know that they could answer it adequately either for their side.

However, I do think that supernatural belief is part of the human experience--historically and maybe even biologically. I see no reason to cut myself off from these experiences as I feel that they are natural for me as a human. Other people may not need/want to make that move.

I do think that braces-for-impact is setting up a false dichotmy between bible and evolution. One does not have to have one or the other--as much as literalists would like for us all to think. I also wonder why anyone cares so much whether I have evidence for my beliefs or not. I don't ask you to believe me. No one has yet shown me how I am impeding human progress and the quality of your life by my belief.

--tibac

Rhea

I think you can probably guess at the answer to that?

Many people who share the label of your beliefs (even though not necessarily the substance) do indeed "ask us to believe". Some would force us to behave as if we believed.

You know this, right? (asked in a friendly tone, because I assume you know what pressures Christians bring to bear on Atheists, and that you were speaking intellectually)

I agree that Braces is at risk of a false dichotomy in one part of his post, but the other part is very thought provoking, IMO. The scientific method is DEFINED as forcing a re-evaluation of position when new evidence is found. And there _is_ something risky about debating atheism on that basis. We _must_ be open to new evidence. And the Christian is _told_ NOT to be open to new evidence. I found that to be insightful.

lpetrich

Nobody would beat anyone in the Islamic Paradise, though Hell is another story.

This is a reference to where the Koran states that it is OK for a man to beat a disobedient wife, as long as he does not use too thick a stick to beat her with.

Those divine ho's, the houris, will become extra wives. Yes, some Muslims call a martyr's death a "wedding".

The boys would have the complexions of pearls.

lpetrich

A variant of the "you know the story" defense of Paul's silence about many of the details of the Gospels -- including details that would have been convenient for him. For more, see The Jesus Puzzle, which questions the existence of a historical Jesus Christ for this and some other reasons.

And given how many other important anniversaries have been very explicitly remembered, why become so lackadaisical?

lpetrich

But I was asking about a precise date, like some day of Passover during the seventh year of the reign of Pontius Pilate.

lpetrich

What's supposed to be so terrible about arguments from silence?

Gregg

Carl Sagan never had a problem with spirituality. He felt it was perfectly natural. Just not supernatural.

Gregg