tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post1343291440025932206..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Answering apologists' questions, part 1Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61552364421790018782009-12-23T12:09:36.716-06:002009-12-23T12:09:36.716-06:00Thanks for posting the link to this article to my ...Thanks for posting the link to this article to my blog post. I hadn’t read it, but it’s funny. I find the questions “asked” nearly rhetorical in nature. In fact, I just reread an exchange I had with a theist back in 2008, where he asked specifically this question, and when atheists posted answers, he objected it was obviously not intended as a real question, but as rhetorical. It was Craig’s question: “What's the real reason you don't believe in God? How and when do you lose your faith in God?”<br /><br />It’s the sort of question you ask a person when you just don’t like the answer you’re getting. I can’t help people who don’t get answers they want to rhetorical questions. But I can say that if you’re asking questions rhetorically and not wanting answers, then you’re assuming you already know the answer. But what’s interesting with the theists who offer this as rhetorical, is that 10 times out of 10, they’re assumptions are wrong. So, humorously, they ask without wanting to know, and they demonstrate that what they think they know is wrong. The very person who could learn in this situation is, ironically, assuming he has nothing to learn from the people he is asking.<br /><br />“Resurrection expert”? Is that like Big Foot Cryptozoologist? I sometimes ask when I see a divinity degree, if that means the person has graduated to god. There is something special about being an expert on something nobody can confirm ever existed or actually happened.<br /><br />In your reply to Habermas, I’m reminded of the Luke Gospel. It has no named author, but we use Luke. Then we proceed to discuss that book as “Luke’s Gospel,” disregarding that we really don’t know it was authored by a person named Luke. And that becomes “everybody accepts Luke wrote it…” Well, we refer to it as though Luke wrote it, because it’s handy to do so; but that doesn’t mean Luke wrote it. Then when we address that whoever authored Luke wasn’t an eyewitness. And the reply is that he _interviewed_ eyewitnesses. And how do we know this? Well, because this anonymous author said so in the text. Did he also tell us how he knew these people were eyewitnesses? Was there any screening? Seriously, how did Luke weed out real eyewitnesses—if there were any—from the people we all know and love who will assert they experienced/saw anything in order to simply have someone to talk to? Were these the alien abductees of antiquity? How do we know they weren’t? Did the author talk to anyone at all? Or did the author simply assert he did? How do we know his claim is accurate? How do we know, without original texts, if this claim was the same in the original or was added or revised later?<br /><br />For any of these questions we can take a guess. And we can study and take a more educated guess. But we can’t really ever know the answers to these questions because the only means of examining these issues is long gone. We can’t interview anyone. We can’t look at any tomb. We can’t do anything that would be remotely necessary to establish this as “fact.” And that is the problem—when the theist or apologist puts this out as “fact,” tacks on the fallacy from popularity, and then declares challengers to their bald assertions are off their nut. No doubt he has the numbers to pull it off. But it’s dishonest, unreasonable, and dishonorable. I’m fine being considered nuts by a majority who asserts “facts” they simply _cannot_ demonstrate are, in fact, facts.<br /><br />And yes, your breakdown of the resurrection myths is very helpful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90021305635504735822009-07-02T13:10:34.521-05:002009-07-02T13:10:34.521-05:00This is one of my favourite posts ever. Can't ...This is one of my favourite posts ever. Can't wait to read the next one. (I've reposted a portion of it on my blog as well. Needs to be read!)<br /><br />Quick question: Is that bit about Thomas not believing where the term "Doubting Thomas" comes from? I love finding stuff like that out.<br /><br />Ugh. But yet again, this blog makes me terrified of the human race and the stupidity that runs rampant through its members... ::shudder::Jennifer Juniperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13913533558610258500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40882710481121140602009-02-02T11:35:00.000-06:002009-02-02T11:35:00.000-06:00"I arbitrarily decided what kinds of events I don'..."I arbitrarily decided what kinds of events I don't like and what kind of evidence I will accept if it does not line up with naturalism"<BR/><BR/>Sorry, this is nonsense. Claims defined as "extraordinary" don't automatically contradict the idea of naturalism apriori. <BR/><BR/>If you come to my house and claim you're lateness was due to a traffic jam, I'm inclined to take your word for it. Traffic jams are commonplace, and even though there is a slim statistical chance that you are lying for some reason unknown to me, I'm not going to be really motivated to thoroughly investigate whether the traffic jam actually happened. But if you claim an elephant escaped from the zoo, and during its rampage trampled your car, I'm not likely to just go along and buy it. A zoo escape (or even an alien abduction) doesn't contradict naturalism, but it is sufficiently unlikely that if you claim it happened, I'd really like some ironclad evidence beyond your say-so.<BR/><BR/>In the same vein, claims of supernatural "miracles" qualify as extraordinary claims - NOT just because they contradict the known laws of the universe that we've discovered, but also because they are sufficiently outside our everyday experience that we can confidently say that reports of real "miracles" are less likely to be accurate than the person simply lying, being mistaken, or being deliberately fooled by another person. Doesn't mean there's absolutely no chance that something supernatural happened, but the evidence had better be darned good before we buy into it.<BR/><BR/>This is why things like "I saw some guy levitate" simply doesn't get accepted on the person's say-so.<BR/><BR/>There are modern gurus who perform "miracles" in front of throngs of eyewitnesses who are convinced the person in question has real supernatural powers. Very few outside the true believers are convinced by such stuff, as people educated in sleight of hand and subterfuge can state that it's much more likely that the guy is simply doing tricks. <BR/><BR/>Such gurus, as Sam Harris points out, don't even make the nightly news. Yet plop down some similar (decades old) accounts in some hearsay-ridden ancient books, that come out of the pre-scientific, superstitous environment of the first century Roman empire, and billions of modern people think it's a worthwhile project around which to organize their lives.<BR/><BR/>You'll have to pardon me if i find that a bit hard to swallow, with or without a "presumption of naturalism."Kingasaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08458810855208904790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59501388401303372492009-02-01T18:17:00.000-06:002009-02-01T18:17:00.000-06:00I understand what you mean. Habermas can't present...I understand what you mean. Habermas can't present his full argument in 1 short statement.<BR/>If you read how Habermas presents his case he doesn't go for "ironclad historicity" but usually goes with the 5 facts that even skeptics accept.Even most non-Christians scholars (Bart Ehrman and Pinchas Lapide are 2 examples) accept the minimal facts.<BR/>Oh and I'm not really in favor of the the "Extraordinary..."(ECREE) because of how subjective it is.<BR/>Basically it says , "I arbitrarily decided what kinds of events I don't like and what kind of evidence I will accept if it does not line up with naturalism"MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85239221787230424852009-02-01T16:26:00.000-06:002009-02-01T16:26:00.000-06:00Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenc...<I>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't expect all the works of secular historians to be copacetic on all details. But when Christians claim that their God dictated their Bible, and that the book is His Inspired Word, then I do wonder why there are discrepancies.</I><BR/><BR/>To which I would add, "<I>and,</I> if you're going to insist that we'll suffer for all of eternity if we don't believe it..." Neither Livy nor Polybius ever threatened anyone (as far as I know) with eternal damnation.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3291607742697948542009-02-01T16:19:00.000-06:002009-02-01T16:19:00.000-06:00If you are looking for names and citations and stu...<I>If you are looking for names and citations and studies I suggest you buy the books and look there.<BR/>You completely misunderstood his argument.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you've completely misunderstood this whole discussion. Remember that I was responding to <I>apologists' questions for atheists.</I> So this is a case of these guys coming to us. If Habermas wants me to consider all of his apparently vast scholarly work on the subject, then he should present a better question than one whose premise is rooted in a number of assertions he doesn't back up. Where does he show the proof that "75%" of scholars agree the Resurrection happened? Who are these scholars? Are they real academics, or just fellow fundamentalist apologists like himself? If he wants to present a series of claims as part of a question for atheists, he needs to be the one to bring all of his facts to the table first. It isn't my job to chase after his facts. If I get asked a question by an apologist, I will answer the question asked. It's a bit foolish to say, "Oh, I'll ask you a question, but before you answer it, read all my books too."<BR/><BR/><I>Do historians say that Hannibal never crosses the Alps because Polybius contradicts Livy on the event? heck no. that is why it is stupid for you to appeal to discrepancies in the gospels. It is nothing but special pleading.</I><BR/><BR/>Look up what the special pleading fallacy is first, before accusing someone of it. If anyone is trying for special pleading, it's the Christians, who want to claim ironclad historicity for Biblical claims on extremely flimsy evidence at best. And as for Livy and Polybius, neither of those men's writings have had 2000 years of followers proclaiming them the inerrant word of God, nor do either of them claim Hannibal performed unheard of supernatural feats like rising from the dead and becoming ruler of the universe. <I>Extraordinary</I> claims require <I>extraordinary</I> evidence. I don't expect all the works of secular historians to be copacetic on all details. But when Christians claim that their God dictated their Bible, and that the book is His Inspired Word, then I <I>do</I> wonder why there are discrepancies.<BR/><BR/>Though the "if you had an open mind" bait doesn't work with me (sorry), I'm happy to consider any recommendations for further reading.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55066074924125940402009-01-31T21:40:00.000-06:002009-01-31T21:40:00.000-06:00@MartinOh heck no.Habermas has written sevral book...@Martin<BR/>Oh heck no.<BR/>Habermas has written sevral books and peer-reviewed publications on the historical Jesus. If you are looking for names and citations and studies I suggest you buy the books and look there.<BR/>You completely misunderstood his argument.<BR/>Also take a look at how we study history because its obvious you do not understand the discipline.<BR/>(Do historians say that Hannibal never crosses the Alps because Polybius contradicts Livy on the event? heck no. that is why it is stupid for you to appeal to discrepancies in the gospels. It is nothing but special pleading).<BR/>If you really are open minded I suggest you read one of his books. N.T. Wright has some good stuuff too.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33373819272632942062009-01-30T19:24:00.000-06:002009-01-30T19:24:00.000-06:00Ryan, if you're going to attempt to correct me, it...Ryan, if you're going to attempt to correct me, it would help if you learned to read first.<BR/><BR/>You whine: <I>And the fact you start your post by denying that Jesus ever lived is the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard.</I><BR/><BR/>I actually wrote: <I>We have no bulletproof extra-Biblical evidence that the Jesus of the Bible existed at all, let alone that he performed any of the feats attributed to him by the Gospels. <B>Now, I happen to think that the character of Jesus was, in all likelihood, inspired by a real person.</B></I><BR/><BR/>I put the part in boldface because you were obviously not intelligent enough to notice it yourself.<BR/><BR/>So, since you clearly can't even read too good, is there any reason at all to take the rest of your infantile spasm of rage seriously?<BR/><BR/>If you'd care to produce any of this "prima facie" evidence you claim makes Jesus' existence "almost certain," then be my guest. But even having ironclad evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels was a real person would not, in and of itself, constitute evidence of any of the supernatural or divine claims surrounding him. You know that, right?<BR/><BR/>In any case, throwing an adolescent shit-fit over my article and calling it "recycled atheist garbage" does not constitute a refutation of it. If I've gotten my facts wrong, explain where and how, in detail. I expect you cannot, and a hysterical tirade is, in fact, all you've got. <BR/><BR/>If Habermas asked to debate me, I might consider it. But I cannot see the point of it. Debates do not establish facts. <I>Evidence</I> does. I know Christians like debates, because, as Kingasaurus pointed out, debates are all about performance, bluster, and getting a laugh from the audience. Christians are good at that, and debates give them the illusion they've got facts on their side by virtue of enjoying the applause of a congenial audience. <BR/><BR/>Since you're obviously a huge Habermas fan, though, why not do this: alert Habermas to this blog post, and if my points are as lousy as all that, he should have no problem demolishing them in reply, either here or on his own blog or both. Something like that would certainly be more likely to impress me and the other readers here, than a pissed-off rant from a petulant fundie scorned.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75506731346813530252009-01-30T08:27:00.000-06:002009-01-30T08:27:00.000-06:00Strange how Muslims and Jews agree with the atheis...<I>Strange how Muslims and Jews agree with the atheists and find his case uncompelling. Wonder why that is?</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, well, they don't have the Holy Spirit to tell them what abominable sinners they are and that they can't trust the workings of their own minds - which have, of course, been commandeered by Satan.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64760044456450013632009-01-30T07:26:00.000-06:002009-01-30T07:26:00.000-06:00Stop me if you've heard this before, but we have a...Stop me if you've heard this before, but we have an apologetic interloper named Ryan who prefers in-person debates. Shocking. <BR/><BR/>There is, of course, a reason why religious apologists generally (and creationists in particular, BTW) always want in-person debates. It allows them to use theatrics, personality, hand waving and obfuscation to "win" the debate, rather than doing so on the merits of the argument - assuming they actually stick to the topic, that is. <BR/><BR/>Written arguments/responses are much preferred for anyone really interested in generating more light than heat. It allows you to parse exactly what the other person has said in detail, followed by the ability to research a well-considered answer without being interrupted or steered away from the topic.<BR/><BR/>The Sam Harris-Andrew Sullivan online debate is an excellent example of how written debates are better, despite the fact that Harris is usually a decent debater in person. The format kept Sullivan from wriggling off the hook in certain areas, where the same situation in person would have yielded less fruitful discussion and more yelling and interruption.<BR/><BR/>Habermas has "answers" to atheist arguments, but they're crappy answers that only convince people who are already in the tank and who have clearly shown a distaste for considering any non-miraculous explanations for the "events" in question. Strange how Muslims and Jews agree with the atheists and find his case uncompelling. Wonder why that is?Kingasaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08458810855208904790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43137565990958578732009-01-30T01:55:00.000-06:002009-01-30T01:55:00.000-06:00There's nothing like slamming down some stupid at ...There's nothing like slamming down some stupid at 3 am in the morning.Danielle Magnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03682569266018233275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30383488498986578642009-01-29T12:13:00.000-06:002009-01-29T12:13:00.000-06:00"Atheism is not a "worldview." It is merely the di..."Atheism is not a "worldview." It is merely the disbelief in gods.)"<BR/><BR/>I disagree, since the disbelief in gods implies in a much more objective (and cool, IMO)worldview.Paulo Henriquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07427570569201703414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73701690664432654872009-01-29T08:24:00.000-06:002009-01-29T08:24:00.000-06:00I've watched extended-length footage of Habermas t...<I>I've watched extended-length footage of Habermas taking on Antony Flew before a live studio audience. Habermas decimated Flew. He would do the same to you.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Right - he "decimated" poor Antony Flew, who hasn't had a coherent thought in years. Big man.<BR/><BR/>It really wouldn't matter who the opponent was. You could pit Ken Ham against a panel of Nobel Prize winners; it wouldn't make one bit of difference to you. You'd still conclude that your guy "decimated" them - because that's what you need to believe.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23170685112130411302009-01-29T05:58:00.000-06:002009-01-29T05:58:00.000-06:00Heh, great post.I read the other questions and I s...Heh, great post.<BR/><BR/>I read the other questions and I stand amazed. Particularly by the second question from the philosopher. This is someone who's supposed to be schooled in logic and yet he doesn't seem to notice that in the second paragraph he's begging the question.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06035662742839240847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37512506102910822712009-01-29T02:28:00.000-06:002009-01-29T02:28:00.000-06:00Yeah... you are SO clever in your own little world...Yeah... you are SO clever in your own little world, on your own little blog in cyberspace, where you have hours upon hours to type and re-type answers to these questions. Why don't you get some balls and debate Mr. Habermas, a foremost Christian scholar, in-person? And then we shall see who the victor is! <BR/><BR/>I've watched extended-length footage of Habermas taking on Antony Flew before a live studio audience. Habermas decimated Flew. He would do the same to you. <BR/><BR/>Habermas has written many books. Some of them answer each and every point you've posted here (and frankly, your points are just recycled atheist garbage that keeps getting regurgitated on various corners of the internet ad-naseum). Why don't you form some original opinions instead of re-using the same old, tired points that people came up with while you were still in diapers?<BR/><BR/>And the fact you start your post by denying that Jesus ever lived is the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard. While I'll concede that Jesus' resurrection is an unknown variable, his existence is almost certain, even if only based on prima facie evidence. To assert otherwise is simply illogical and makes me believe you have been living in a cave for the majority of your adult life.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12775213615977168126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70854622039749604262009-01-26T10:14:00.000-06:002009-01-26T10:14:00.000-06:00I just amazes me how the most important "historica...I just amazes me how the most important "historical event" of Christianity is plagued with so much contradiction in the inerrant Bible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-42055804598801773222009-01-23T10:58:00.000-06:002009-01-23T10:58:00.000-06:00Tommy - "BrainFromArous, that even applies to many...Tommy - "BrainFromArous, that even applies to many works of ancient historians. It is readily acknowledged today that they wrote from bias viewpoints, purposely trying to make a particular ruler for example be a model of virtue or a degenerate. Fictional dialogue would be ascribed to a person simply because it must be assumed that an emperor or a general would give a rousing speech before a battle, and so forth. And yet the Apologist denies the same thing when it comes to the Gospels. Every other historical work can be found to contain errors or outright lies, but the Gospels, nope, they have to be 100% correct."<BR/><BR/>Nuh-uh. Don't you know that the default position is that the historians are accurate? (/sarcasm)<BR/><BR/>http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/independent-confirmation-is-not.html<BR/><BR/>which leads to here (better links, IIRC): http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=258556<BR/><BR/>So: "You simply cannot be serious. Be consistent then with all textual evidence and see where that gets you. Become a historian and then you'll know why they treat textual evidence as prima facie true unless discomfirmed. THEY MUST DO THIS! THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE!"Badger3khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04008838430274720250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43379021964109522622009-01-22T14:18:00.000-06:002009-01-22T14:18:00.000-06:00DagoRed,Love the allegory! With that carcass, eve...DagoRed,<BR/><BR/>Love the allegory! With that carcass, even the trees weep.<BR/><BR/>Actually, in my discussions with him I considered that he might be a troll posing as a theist, just to get a rise. But given the time he has put into it, and the numbers of other individuals like him, I have to assume he is being honest, or at least honest as he sees it.Ai Denghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141023502945802293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14954806802103429292009-01-22T11:59:00.000-06:002009-01-22T11:59:00.000-06:00Cipher wrote: why...bother arguing with Rho. They ...Cipher wrote: <I>why...bother arguing with Rho. They don't get it; they're never going to get it - and they think the same of us. We're speaking entirely different languages.</I><BR/><BR/>You are so right, and I hope I have learned my lesson since my last row with Rho over gay-marriage. Fundies like Rho are like coming across dead animals in the woods. The mere sight is so sad, I feel compelled to poke them with a stick a bit. In some vane hope, I guess I expect they will just "wake up" and scamper off to live out a normal life. But, alas, they simply lie there, lifeless and dead (from the neck up), just like when I found them.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14168969281371246061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-41464722226651349902009-01-22T09:52:00.000-06:002009-01-22T09:52:00.000-06:00HA! I laughed my ass off at the dude who called hi...HA! I laughed my ass off at the dude who called himself a resurrection expert! What a tool!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04103446055814911491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-41452345660740070352009-01-21T19:33:00.000-06:002009-01-21T19:33:00.000-06:00Yes, he is a colossal tool.I refuse to have theolo...Yes, he is a colossal tool.<BR/><BR/>I refuse to have theology dictated to me by a man with that haircut.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35715327329218810172009-01-21T18:04:00.000-06:002009-01-21T18:04:00.000-06:00I just checked the website...There was an "Ask Lee...I just checked the website...<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>There was an "Ask Lee" blog, but no posts and no indication that it is even used.<BR/><BR/>But you can get his newsletter, where he'll tell you what to think, and a store, where you can send him money and make him even richer.<BR/><BR/>There are video clips where he is answering "questions" from people, but I could only stomach one of them, his answer to "Misquoting Jesus", where he launches a huge ad-hominem attack against Bart Ehrman and his book, without addressing any of the points raised in the book. One vitriol spilled command to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".<BR/><BR/>What a tool.<BR/><BR/>// one sincere seeming person recommended that I give this guy a listen, because he is "good". I saw no evidence of that.maddogdeltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17657824720032887242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34778797978119628772009-01-21T16:56:00.000-06:002009-01-21T16:56:00.000-06:00BrainFromArous said...Two things about Habermas......<I>BrainFromArous said...<BR/>Two things about Habermas...<BR/><BR/>1) Another thing "virtually every historian concedes" is that the Gospels were written, copied, distributed and used as evangelical tools.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, I think <I>these</I> guys are evangelical tools! ;)Kevin Vintherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13971896292431255258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23932333404904054332009-01-21T11:21:00.000-06:002009-01-21T11:21:00.000-06:00Another thing "virtually every historian concedes"...<EM>Another thing "virtually every historian concedes" is that the Gospels were written, copied, distributed and used as evangelical tools. <BR/><BR/>They cannot be relied upon as impartial historical records and were never meant to be that.</EM><BR/><BR/>BrainFromArous, that even applies to many works of ancient historians. It is readily acknowledged today that they wrote from bias viewpoints, purposely trying to make a particular ruler for example be a model of virtue or a degenerate. Fictional dialogue would be ascribed to a person simply because it must be assumed that an emperor or a general would give a rousing speech before a battle, and so forth. And yet the Apologist denies the same thing when it comes to the Gospels. Every other historical work can be found to contain errors or outright lies, but the Gospels, nope, they have to be 100% correct.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-782349979417781532009-01-21T10:02:00.000-06:002009-01-21T10:02:00.000-06:00Wonderful column, I really enjoyed it.Regarding th...Wonderful column, I really enjoyed it.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the so called "resurrection expert", it appears he fancies himself an expert in something that actually happened. It's as if a "Star Trek expert" somehow deluded himself that the Starship Enterprise really exists. One can be an "expert" on fictional events, but the bizarreness of religionists is that they have, mostly through peer pressure, convinced themselves that the myths and fables of their ancient books aren't fiction. It's a very weird psychological phenomenon, one which I find endlessly fascinating.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, I always get a chuckle when someone condemns me to hell for being an atheist, because they invariably fail to understand the simple fact that for a threat to be effective the person at whom the threat is directed has to believe it to be real. Otherwise it has all the power of a six year old child threatening his parents that the monster in the closet is gonna get them.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04887549604568882302noreply@blogger.com