On religion

[northernladuk]

Wishful thinking is hoping something will happen. Faith is trust in an individual. It's all there in the dictionary if you care to take a look.

And once they bring the term 'faith' in you are on a hiding to nowhere. You can get even the most ardent religious types to agree with any physical argument about a god but once they talk about faith it is so ambiguous it is impossible to argue with. It isn't something you can quantify or argue. Believe me, as an almost anti-religious type living with a catholic teacher I have tried many times but once the word 'faith' comes up I am screwed.

[MyUserName]

Wishful thinking is hoping something will happen. Faith is trust in an individual. It's all there in the dictionary if you care to take a look.

Sure:

wishful thinking - definition of wishful thinking by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Identification of one's wishes or desires with reality.

Sounds like religion to me tbh and not really like your definition, perhaps you should have looked in a dictionary?

However, my question was specific to it's context - and like a muppet I forgot to quote the bit about confirmation bias. I am interested in any answers you have to my questions?

[NotAllThere]

...
Assuming Jesus was real (there is no historical evidence for it)...

Complete and utter tosh. The majority scholarly historical view is that there is a real historical figure behind the stories of Jesus, as written between 70 and 120 CE, and mentioned in the letters of Paul ~50AD. No-one seriously doubts it - except the usual fools and conspiracy theorists who'll believe and write anything.

I suggest you ditch your handbook of arguments for atheists, and get something rather more up-to-date and accurate.

Try:
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus-God and Man by Wolfhart Pannenberg
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

... I am interested in any answers you have to my questions?

I frankly doubt it.

[MyUserName]

Complete and utter tosh. The majority scholarly historical view is that there is a real historical figure behind the stories of Jesus, as written between 70 and 120 CE, and mentioned in the letters of Paul ~50AD. No-one seriously doubts it - except the usual fools and conspiracy theorists who'll believe and write anything.

Ah right. Well if you are going to resort to calling me names then I guess you must be right. I am sorry you were wrong about the definition of wishful thinking but there is no reason to lose your temper.

I suggest you ditch your handbook of arguments for atheists, and get something rather more up-to-date and accurate.

Yawn.

Try:
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus-God and Man by Wolfhart Pannenberg
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

I will have a look, perhaps I was mistaken. It can happen, you know!

I frankly doubt it.

I think it is more likely that you are getting frustrated at being unable to answer them. Believe me, if God is real I want to know about it!
There are several open issues further up the page if you would like to have a go. Could you explain how it is possible to know that Jesus was telling the truth about the source of his powers?

[speling bee]

Just realised that the implication here is that Agents were in existence prior to god....

This explains the complete lack of morals I suppose

They were the Void.

[d000hg]

Ah right. Well if you are going to resort to calling me names then I guess you must be right. I am sorry you were wrong about the definition of wishful thinking but there is no reason to lose your temper.

It's hardly surprising people get irritated when you state as a fact something which is demonstrably wrong, thereby showing that you're wasting the time of anyone who takes the time to answer you.

You're plainly, irrefutably in the wrong, please don't start making snide comments about the other person getting emotional to deflect from being caught out.

[MyUserName]

Complete and utter tosh. The majority scholarly historical view is that there is a real historical figure behind the stories of Jesus, as written between 70 and 120 CE, and mentioned in the letters of Paul ~50AD. No-one seriously doubts it - except the usual fools and conspiracy theorists who'll believe and write anything.

Hmmm ... a quick google seems to undermine your point:

Have a look at the examination of the sources here:

There seem to be no primary ones at all? I am reluctant to include the gospels as no one knows who wrote them and they heavily contradict each other.

[MyUserName]

It's hardly surprising people get irritated when you state as a fact something which is demonstrably wrong, thereby showing that you're wasting the time of anyone who takes the time to answer you.

Anyone can be wrong, anyone can make a mistake - there is no need to jump down my throat and start calling me names. I will bet even you have been wrong once or twice.

Incidently, have a look here where it shows I am right. It all seems to be hearsay and reported accounts.

[d000hg]

Anyone can be wrong, anyone can make a mistake - there is no need to jump down my throat and start calling me names. I will bet even you have been wrong once or twice.

I din't call you names. There's a difference between being wrong, and deliberately stating as fact something you haven't even bothered to research first.


And if you're going to use those metrics, you will have to class pretty much all of ancient history as totally unreliable. Because there are more people writing about Jesus, and more copies of what they wrote, closer to the events they write about, than pretty much any other historical figure or event of those times.

[NotAllThere]

It's an irregular noun. I have faith. You have wishful thinking. He is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.