Control Beliefs

Hotspace

Control Beliefs

I’ve engaged in a few debates with Christians and read many books – one could always read more – on both sides of the debate. I’m still an atheist and the more I read on both sides the more likely I am to remain so. The more I read the more my beliefs continue to be reinforced. Why is this? Surely there are others out there who are Christian and the more they read – on both sides of the debate - the more their beliefs are reaffirmed.

We’ve all considered that there is no ground-breaking evidence in favour of God or any stunning evidence to be said for the non-existence of God. After all, a God who tries to be hidden is difficult to find. There are arguments on both sides that remain powerful and contentious for believer and non-believer alike. Which side you fall on depends on your worldview, or control beliefs (more of these later), your experiences and maybe even your biology.

When we consider control beliefs we must look at how a person weighs evidence and arguments and lets it pass into his mindset to add to his beliefs. Underneath it all are the two worldviews of theism (read supernaturalism) and materialism. One says only the natural exists and the other says there is room for the supernatural. How we parse new information into our mindset depends on which side of the worldview we fall. Theists look at everything from above whilst atheists and agnostics look at everything from below. I would say that looking at everything from below is the correct way to sieve information through to your mindset. The theist would cry, “Foul, that way you will start an atheist and remain so”. However, these worldviews can both be breached from the side when we consider the far superior control belief of scepticism. Scepticism will allow you to re-evaluate every one of your beliefs. Every belief should be taken out and not allowed back in to your mindset until it has passed through the very stringent filter of scepticism. However, it must be said, that one must be careful not to be too sceptical then the extreme form of being sceptical of one's scepticism might cause some form of neurosis. When we look at the bible with sceptical eyes we see strange things. Sam Harris – probably unknown to himself – has used this control belief with staggering effect. He writes and I paraphrase, “When we look at the Ten Commandments we should think that these would be the most profound words written on any subject, for all times. After all, they are the only words in the whole bible written by God himself. Now, only six have anything to do with morality. The rest show him to be petty, small minded and jealous.

With this control belief we cannot allow the following into our mindset: talking snakes, men surviving in whales, 900 year old men, men who hold their strength in their hair, virgin births and stars that lead people to a particular building. It also allows us to cut through the whole evolution vs. creationism argument. Wouldn’t the One True God record in the bible that man is the result of a process – called evolution – which He set in motion which lasts millions of years and is still ongoing? With this in the bible humanity would find out about evolution using our own (God given?) intellect. Science would only seek to reaffirm the bible and non-believers would be a puzzling few.

This control belief and other philosophical questions allow other searching questions of the theist. In subsequent posts I may go into them. But, that will be enough to start a thread and writing too much in one post will only serve to off-put people who might otherwise read it.

PDN

So if your 'control belief' is that you reject all possibility of the supernatural under any circumstances - how does that differ from simply being closed-minded and dogmatic?

Also, what about those of us who were formerly atheists, who previously rejected all belief in the supernatural, but who came to change our minds?

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

So if your 'control belief' is that you reject all possibility of the supernatural under any circumstances - how does that differ from simply being closed-minded and dogmatic.

The control belief of scepticism allows you to be open to belief and supernaturalism. The control belief of materialism does not allow you to be open to belief and the theist would cry, "Foul". As I have said.

Of course, the scepticism filter must contain within it an evidential test. If the bible avers that possessions are possible then I would want to see one with my own eyes. I have not. And hence it hasn't passed my control belief.

PDN wrote: »

Also, what about those of us who were formerly atheists, who previously rejected all belief in the supernatural, but who came to change our minds?

Also, what about those of us who were formerly Christians, who reject all form of the supernatural and have changed our minds. There are many out there (myself included) who tried to defend the faith only to find that the arguments at my disposal were very lacking and more powerful arguments are to be found elsewhere.

Fanny Cradock

Chipping away at that text, it seems to me that in a long winded fashion, you are simply saying, "I arrived at certain conclusions regarding God, whereas other people arrived at the opposite conclusion. However, I believe that those people are wrong because they aren't properly filtering information through their scepticism."

In other words, it all boils down to your opinion, how you believe formulated it and how other people should follow the same steps.

Hotspace wrote: »

Also, what about those of us who were formerly Christians, who reject all form of the supernatural and have changed our minds. There are many out there (myself included) who tried to defend the faith only to find that the arguments at my disposal were very lacking and more powerful arguments are to be found elsewhere.

Well, given that you are the one extolling the virtues of control belief, I believe that you should explain away that one first. Ducking out of a question by posing a variation of the same question just doesn't seem like good sportsmanship to me.

Hotspace

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Chipping away at that text, it seems to me that in a long winded fashion, you are simply saying, "I arrived at certain conclusions regarding God, whereas other people arrived at the opposite conclusion. However, I believe that those people are wrong because they aren't properly filtering information through their scepticism."

In other words, it all boils down to your opinion, how you believe formulated it and how other people should follow the same steps.

Glad to know I'm making sense. You've interpreted it correctly. Have you seen possessions or miracles with your own eyes? If not you must be sceptical of them. Have you personally seen a UFO? I take it that when you hear of people who've seen them that you remain open to belief yet sceptical. Yet when this same scepticism is aimed at religion it is either blinkered or adjusted so much so as to render it indistinguishable from scepticism.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, given that you are the one extolling the virtues of control belief, I believe that you should explain away that one first. Ducking out of a question by posing a variation of the same question just doesn't seem like good sportsmanship to me.

I rather thought it was a rhetorical question. Besides I've debated down this line before and it has lead nowhere much. I was an atheist but was once a Christian contrasted against I am a Christian but was an atheist will lead us around in circles. But, what I would say is: when someone leaves Christianity because they believe it is based on a falsehood then we should sit-up and listen to them with close intent. After all, they tasted salvation and they must be so sure of their convictions that they are willing to risk an eternal damnation greater that the one set aside for unbelievers who have never believed. These people get to know the inner workings of Christianity and still reject it. Conversely atheists who convert to Christianity do so with very little knowledge of the inner workings of Christianity. Only later do they realise that they are being asked to believe in some very improbable things, contradictions, discrepancies etc. And they must undergo intellectual gerrymandering in order to justify it.

kelly1

Hello Hotspace, we've been down this road before and using a term like "control beliefs" doesn't change the argument.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God but science by its own definition cannot and will not move outside the material universe. This in no way excludes the possibility of spiritual "subtances" existing. And if you're subscribing to Logical Positivism, the fallacy of this position has been demonstrated to be shaky at best by many philosophers.

There are also other forms of evidence besides empirical science. Many people have been profoundly changed by physical miracles and miracles of conversion after a personal encounter with Christ. The stories are endless and it's not wise to dismiss them all without investigating at least some of them.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

Glad to know I'm making sense. You've interpreted it correctly. Have you seen possessions or miracles with your own eyes? If not you must be sceptical of them.

So, if I have seen miracles with my own eyes then it makes sense for me not to be sceptical? Therefore my sceptical control belief should compel me to abandon atheism?

Conversely atheists who convert to Christianity do so with very little knowledge of the inner workings of Christianity. Only later do they realise that they are being asked to believe in some very improbable things, contradictions, discrepancies etc. And they must undergo intellectual gerrymandering in order to justify it.

Not so. The majority of 'Christians' who convert to atheism were Christians purely due to cultural upbringing and accident of birth. For most of them, IMHO, there was never any salvation to be known or to lose.

I, as an atheist who converted to Christianity as a young man, know something of the 'inner workings' of Christianity and I find it to be intellectually stimulating and liberating with no intellectual gerry mandering. I find some things 'improbable' just as I find many things in the natural world improbable (eg the duck billed platypus). I haven't discovered any contradictions or discrepancies in Christianity.

Hotspace

kelly1 wrote: »

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God but science by its own definition cannot and will not move outside the material universe. This in no way excludes the possibility of spiritual "subtances" existing. And if you're subscribing to Logical Positivism, the fallacy of this position has been demonstrated to be shaky at best by many philosophers.

Yes, meta-narratives can always be undermined by a philosophical argument. This is why I’m extolling scepticism.

kelly1 wrote: »

There are also other forms of evidence besides empirical science. Many people have been profoundly changed by physical miracles and miracles of conversion after a personal encounter with Christ. The stories are endless and it's not wise to dismiss them all without investigating at least some of them.

Ok, please point me to a book or internet source that deals with conversion experiences.

Yes, this is what I’ve found in my debates. The best example of a miracle is a conversion miracle. But that in no way lends any weight to Christianity and in many cases undermines its relevance. There are many Christians who de-convert to Islam. Does this provide proof of Islam? There are many Christians who de-convert to atheism; and I suppose this is proof of Christianity because it was the devil that caused them to doubt.

PDN wrote: »

So, if I have seen miracles with my own eyes then it makes sense for me not to be sceptical? Therefore my sceptical control belief should compel me to abandon atheism?

Yes, If you’ve seen miracles with your own eyes then you can allow miracles (disruptions to the natural order – and not just conversion stories) into your mindset. Well, you’ve so far only allowed one thing into your mindset. How can you pass a lack of a belief in God or Gods through a sceptical filter? You must allow positive assertions through it, surely? But congratulations on passing in miracles - onto to possessions and talking snakes etc.

PDN wrote: »

Quote:
Conversely atheists who convert to Christianity do so with very little knowledge of the inner workings of Christianity. Only later do they realise that they are being asked to believe in some very improbable things, contradictions, discrepancies etc. And they must undergo intellectual gerrymandering in order to justify it.
Not so. The majority of 'Christians' who convert to atheism were Christians purely due to cultural upbringing and accident of birth. For most of them, IMHO, there was never any salvation to be known or to lose.

Well, I think your lose terminology is rather muddying the issue. I think you should read Edward T Babinkski. Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists

Also there are many de-conversion testimonies at http://exchristian.net. I think you’ll find that there will be a good share of those indoctrinated and those you were born-again but are now dead-again. Many high class scholars and apologists are now dead-again, I’m talking of people such as Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman and John W. Loftus to name but a few.

PDN wrote: »

I, as an atheist who converted to Christianity as a young man, know something of the 'inner workings' of Christianity and I find it to be intellectually stimulating and liberating with no intellectual gerry mandering. I find some things 'improbable' just as I find many things in the natural world improbable (eg the duck billed platypus). I haven't discovered any contradictions or discrepancies in Christianity.

Well, I just don’t think you’re being intellectually honest here. Or, you fail to engage with the sceptical material. Have you taken the Easter challenge? Or answered some of the contradictions on the sceptics annontated bible. Or read Jesus interrupted or Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

Well, I just don’t think you’re being intellectually honest here. Or, you fail to engage with the sceptical material. Have you taken the Easter challenge? Or answered some of the contradictions on the sceptics annontated bible. Or read Jesus interrupted or Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

So, anyone who doesn't agree with you is therefore intellectually dishonest? Don't you see how blinkered and dogmatic that is?

I've looked at some of the laughably out-of-context buffoonery at the Skeptics Annotated Bible - and answered quite a few of the 'contradictions' rather easily. I would suggest that anyone who finds that convincing has little knowledge of biblical studies, exegesis, hermeneutics, theology or any of the other '"inner workings of Christianity".

As for Ehrman, I've read some of his stuff. He is a bit like the occasional scientist that believes in young earth creation that gets wheeled out by creationists in debates. "But you must listen to this guy, he's one of you! He's a scientist biblical scholar!"

Ehrman overeggs his claims to a degree that I find quite humorous, and there is, of course, the vast majority of his peers who disagree with his conclusions. (The standard atheist response to this is to assert that almost every other biblical scholar is blinkered and intellectually dishonest - a tactic remarkably similar to the one you already tried above).

robindch

PDN wrote: »

As for Ehrman, I've read some of his stuff. He is a bit like the occasional scientist that believes in young earth creation [...] Ehrman overeggs his claims to a degree that I find quite humorous

And comparing Ehrman to a the intellectual dishonesty of a creationist who thinks himself a scientist isn't overegging? :rolleyes:

As Ehrman's claims are something you belittle whenever they come up, perhaps you could list a few that you reckon are particularly silly?

Of what I've read of Ehrman myself, I find him a calm writer with a good grasp of translation, textual analysis and history, and no requirement to produce an interpretation which fits one religious doctrine or another, or the people who pay his salary. Which is perhaps why he seems to inspire such unhappiness in so many religious people.

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

So, anyone who doesn't agree with you is therefore intellectually dishonest? Don't you see how blinkered and dogmatic that is?

Yes, of course I do. Which is why I continue to extol scepticism as a control belief rather than materialism. I am open to belief yet sceptical. I don't want to be accused of being intellectually dishonest.

PDN wrote: »

I've looked at some of the laughably out-of-context buffoonery at the Skeptics Annotated Bible - and answered quite a few of the 'contradictions' rather easily. I would suggest that anyone who finds that convincing has little knowledge of biblical studies, exegesis, hermeneutics, theology or any of the other '"inner workings of Christianity".

Yet Robert M. Price, Hector Avalos and Bart Ehrman with many higher degrees in Theology and related subjects do use the same tools that you describe to arrive at very different conclusions.

The author of the sceptics annotated bible has been fair to post answers to the contradictions from the Christian community. Yet there are very many that go unanswered. Let's concentrate on one:

The condoning of slavery in a book meant to reveal the One True God cannot be put into any context that would make that slavery feel justified. Let's look at some of the passages and their contradictory nature.

Against Slavery

Lev.25:10
Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.
Lev.25:17
Ye shall not therefore oppress one another.

For Slavery

Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money

Moreover, I think the only words in the whole bible actually written by God himself - the Ten Commandments - should have said something about slavery.

PDN wrote: »

As for Ehrman, I've read some of his stuff. He is a bit like the occasional scientist that believes in young earth creation that gets wheeled out by creationists in debates. "But you must listen to this guy, he's one of you! He's a scientist biblical scholar!"

Ehrman overeggs his claims to a degree that I find quite humorous, and there is, of course, the vast majority of his peers who disagree with his conclusions. (The standard atheist response to this is to assert that almost every other biblical scholar is blinkered and intellectually dishonest - a tactic remarkably similar to the one you already tried above).

Ehrman basically presents evidence from many different versions of manuscripts available at the historian's disposal. For instance, the story of Jesus and the prostitute John 8:7 is a total fabrication and is not present in earlier manuscripts. It is simply not possible to refute evidence of this magnitude. One must be forced to conclude that the bible contains discrepancies and contradictions.

kelly1

Hotspace wrote: »

Ok, please point me to a book or internet source that deals with conversion experiences.

Try these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9W4KxDKd3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HLTvhtvFfU
http://revver.com/video/577753/exodus/
http://revver.com/video/577906/exodus-part-2-lower-sized-encode/
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/interview.former.guitarist.of.korn.reflects.on.conversion.freedom.from.drugs/11488.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/southwest/sites/mystory/pages/brian_morris.shtml
http://www.answering-islam.org/Testimonies/index.html
http://www.christianconvert.net/testimony/testimony.html
http://www.conversiondiary.com/2006/12/on-having-proof.html
http://www.conversiondiary.com/2007/10/why-im-catholic.html
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/17568

Hotspace wrote: »

Yes, this is what I’ve found in my debates. The best example of a miracle is a conversion miracle. But that in no way lends any weight to Christianity and in many cases undermines its relevance. There are many Christians who de-convert to Islam. Does this provide proof of Islam? There are many Christians who de-convert to atheism; and I suppose this is proof of Christianity because it was the devil that caused them to doubt.

I must admit to not having read the testimonies of ex-Christians but I can't imagine someone converting having understanding the coherence and beauty of Christianity. As far as I'm concerned the message of Jesus cannot be improved upon.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

Yes, of course I do. Which is why I continue to extol scepticism as a control belief rather than materialism. I am open to belief yet sceptical. I don't want to be accused of being intellectually dishonest.

Then you've failed. Your very tactic of dismissing disagreement with your own viewpoint as intelllectual dishonesty is, in itself, dishonest.

Yet Robert M. Price, Hector Avalos and Bart Ehrman with many higher degrees in Theology and related subjects do use the same tools that you describe to arrive at very different conclusions.

And Robert L. Thomas, Donald A. Carson, Criaig Blomberg, Howard Marshall, F.F.Bruce, Dick France and thousands of others use the tools I describe to reach the conclusions that I arrive at. Now, we can play the game of whose list of biblical scholars is the biggest if you want, but there only be one outcome to that contest. So, we have a situation where you (with any knowledge of the subject at hand?) choose to cite a tiny minority of biblical scholars as authorities whereas I choose to cite a much larger number of authorities and also rely on my own studies in the field. Do you see why I find your arguments less than convincing?

The condoning of slavery in a book meant to reveal the One True God cannot be put into any context that would make that slavery feel justified. Let's look at some of the passages and their contradictory nature.

Against Slavery

Lev.25:10
Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.
Lev.25:17
Ye shall not therefore oppress one another.

For Slavery

Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.
Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money

Moreover, I think the only words in the whole bible actually written by God himself - the Ten Commandments - should have said something about slavery.

I hope you will not be insulted when I say that I couldn't give a rat's ass about your personal opinion about what the Ten Commandments should or shouldn't have said.

Let's deal with the Ephesians quote. Paul was writing to people who lived in the Roman Empire where slavery was an integral part of society. Therefore he advised people how, as Christians, they should respond to the context in which they lived. That in no way supports or advocates slavery. If that is what the Skeptics Annotated Bible thinks is a contradiction then I'm not surprised if no one can be bothered to answer it.

As for Exodus, we've discussed this in numerous threads before. If a slave died as a result of a beating then the master was to be punished. If a slave survived the beating then the master was not to be punished. It was a rough old world back then, and God revealed His nature to the Israelites gradually over a period of time. It's called Progressive Revelation. He didn't give them the Sermon on the Mount as soon as they came out of Egypt - but step-by-step gave them laws and standards that were an improvement on all the surrounding nations.

Ehrman basically presents evidence from many different versions of manuscripts available at the historian's disposal. For instance, the story of Jesus and the prostitute John 8:7 is a total fabrication and is not present in earlier manuscripts. It is simply not possible to refute evidence of this magnitude. One must be forced to conclude that the bible contains discrepancies and contradictions.

Now, now, don't be giving Ehrman credit for stuff that biblical scholars have known and taught for centuries. Biblical students have known for generations that bit of John's Gospel is not included in the earliest manuscripts. This could be for two reasons:
a) It was fabricated.
b) An authentic story about Jesus was added in from another source.
Either way it has no bearing on our discussion as whether one should be a Christian or not. Maybe you need to learn a bit about "the inner workings of Christianity" that you mentioned earlier?

Puck

My "control belief" about there being no God had the crap beaten out of it by the Holy Spirit.

Hotspace

PDN wrote: »

And Robert L. Thomas, Donald A. Carson, Criaig Blomberg, Howard Marshall, F.F.Bruce, Dick France and thousands of others use the tools I describe to reach the conclusions that I arrive at. Now, we can play the game of whose list of biblical scholars is the biggest if you want, but there only be one outcome to that contest. So, we have a situation where you (with any knowledge of the subject at hand?) choose to cite a tiny minority of biblical scholars as authorities whereas I choose to cite a much larger number of authorities and also rely on my own studies in the field. Do you see why I find your arguments less than convincing?

Yes, of course your list is always going to be bigger. I’m just trying to make you see that the tools that you mention are used to arrive at very different conclusions. I rather think that the people that you quote have subscribed to their control belief ‘from above’ (supernaturalism) while the people that I quote have subscribed to a control belief ‘from below’ (materialism). This is exactly why the far superior control belief of scepticism must be used.

I don’t care if 10 million biblical scholars are theists. I’m solely interested in what is true; we don’t do epistemology by plebiscite.

PDN wrote: »

I hope you will not be insulted when I say that I couldn't give a rat's ass about your personal opinion about what the Ten Commandments should or shouldn't have said.

I can just imagine God discussing with his three persons and with his angels. “What do you think? There’s room for one more: Do not work on the Sabbath or Do not have slaves". “Oh”, say the Angels. “It’s a tough one Lord – but I really think if you want to be known as a benevolent God it would be better to put in ‘Slaves’. That way they won’t need to discover for themselves some 5,000 years later that Slavery is really a bad thing. And when you send Jesus”. “Who me”, interjects Jesus, waking up. “Who will encourage the golden rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Then you won’t get so many atheists blabbering on about contradictions with slavery and the golden rule”. “No”, says God. “I don’t care about that. I was exhausted creating the universe (and in six days, might I add), and you – cretin. I think they should honor my effort. “But, lord – oh never mind”.

PDN wrote: »

Let's deal with the Ephesians quote. Paul was writing to people who lived in the Roman Empire where slavery was an integral part of society. Therefore he advised people how, as Christians, they should respond to the context in which they lived. That in no way supports or advocates slavery. If that is what the Skeptics Annotated Bible thinks is a contradiction then I'm not surprised if no one can be bothered to answer it.

As for Exodus, we've discussed this in numerous threads before. If a slave died as a result of a beating then the master was to be punished. If a slave survived the beating then the master was not to be punished. It was a rough old world back then, and…

What my rather fun pretend discourse with God (in his three persons) and his angels shows (in a rather round-about way) is that Occam’s razor can be used to simplify the problem. I can divide complexities to remain with: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you vs. Have slaves, it’s OK or Bash babies against rocks. If you cannot see any contradictions here, then, you are right, I have failed in getting you to admit that there is a contradiction or discrepancy. And I will never be able to get you to admit this. Dan Barker (not a high-level biblical scholar, but a major soul-winner for many years) found the same problems when debating with Christians. So, he asked them. “What kind of proposed contradiction would get you to admit that it is a contradiction”. The answer was quite illuminating: “Jesus was crucified on a Tuesday and a Friday”.

PDN wrote: »

…God revealed His nature to the Israelites gradually over a period of time. It's called Progressive Revelation. He didn't give them the Sermon on the Mount as soon as they came out of Egypt - but step-by-step gave them laws and standards that were an improvement on all the surrounding nations.

Isn’t Progressive Revelation just a fancy way of trying to explain away the contradictory nature of the Old and New Testaments? Sounds like intellectual gerrymandering to me.

PDN wrote: »

Now, now, don't be giving Ehrman credit for stuff that biblical scholars have known and taught for centuries. Biblical students have known for generations that bit of John's Gospel is not included in the earliest manuscripts. This could be for two reasons:
a) It was fabricated.
b) An authentic story about Jesus was added in from another source.

Either way it has no bearing on our discussion as whether one should be a Christian or not. Maybe you need to learn a bit about "the inner workings of Christianity" that you mentioned earlier?

Or, the rather more obvious conclusion: that people changed the bible to meet their own agendas. It is for this very reason that we get this passage in revelation:

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

And still you haven’t taken the Easter challenge or allowed anything else (other than conversion stories) through your sceptical filter.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

Yes, of course your list is always going to be bigger. I’m just trying to make you see that the tools that you mention are used to arrive at very different conclusions.

I don't need anyone to make me see a perfectly obvious fact. People use the same tools to reach different conclusions. That happens in history, geography, astronomy and it should not surprise anyone that it happens in biblical studies as well.

I rather think that the people that you quote have subscribed to their control belief ‘from above’ (supernaturalism) while the people that I quote have subscribed to a control belief ‘from below’ (materialism). This is exactly why the far superior control belief of scepticism must be used.

All of which tells me much more about you and your estimation of yourself than about those biblical scholars. Now we find that anyone who disagrees with you is not only intellectually dishonest but also have subscribed to the wrong control belief.

I, sorry to say, have a much lower opinion of myself. I see myself as holding a particular set of opinions and beliefs which, like anyone else's opinions and beliefs, may or may not be correct.

I don’t care if 10 million biblical scholars are theists. I’m solely interested in what is true; we don’t do epistemology by plebiscite.

No, you care whether they agree with you or not. In which case you will quote the few examples that do so as authorities.

I don't care whether biblical scholars are theists or not. I'm solely interested in whether their arguments line up with the existing evidence and how that squares with my existing knowledge of the field.

I can just imagine God discussing with his three persons and with his angels. “What do you think? There’s room for one more: Do not work on the Sabbath or Do not have slaves". “Oh”, say the Angels. “It’s a tough one Lord – but I really think if you want to be known as a benevolent God it would be better to put in ‘Slaves’. That way they won’t need to discover for themselves some 5,000 years later that Slavery is really a bad thing. And when you send Jesus”. “Who me”, interjects Jesus, waking up. “Who will encourage the golden rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Then you won’t get so many atheists blabbering on about contradictions with slavery and the golden rule”. “No”, says God. “I don’t care about that. I was exhausted creating the universe (and in six days, might I add), and you – cretin. I think they should honor my effort. “But, lord – oh never mind”.

I would suggest you read the Forum Charter. If you want to take the piss then go and do it elsewhere. If you want to discuss things in a sensible manner then we can do so.

What my rather fun pretend discourse with God (in his three persons) and his angels shows (in a rather round-about way) is that Occam’s razor can be used to simplify the problem. I can divide complexities to remain with: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you vs. Have slaves, it’s OK or Bash babies against rocks. If you cannot see any contradictions here, then, you are right, I have failed in getting you to admit that there is a contradiction or discrepancy. And I will never be able to get you to admit this. Dan Barker (not a high-level biblical scholar, but a major soul-winner for many years) found the same problems when debating with Christians. So, he asked them. “What kind of proposed contradiction would get you to admit that it is a contradiction”. The answer was quite illuminating: “Jesus was crucified on a Tuesday and a Friday”.

Occam's Razor can frequently lead us to wrong conclusions. The simple and obvious conclusions are not aways the right ones.

Dan Barker (not a biblical scholar at all as far as I am aware) has at least learned what actually constitutes a contradiction. That makes him smarter than some of the posters we get in this forum.

Isn’t Progressive Revelation just a fancy way of trying to explain away the contradictory nature of the Old and New Testaments? Sounds like intellectual gerrymandering to me.

Which, once again, reveals much about your dogmatic biases.

And still you haven’t taken the Easter challenge or allowed anything else (other than conversion stories) through your sceptical filter.

Why would I waste my time on a poorly constructed 'Challenge' when many of the points have been discussed and refuted elsewhere on many occasions? The 'Easter Challenge' asks Christians to tell "exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born". That is a silly challenge because no-one knows exactly what happened. We are given a few details and apart from them we aren't told exactly what happened.

The link you provide is full of unwarranted assumptions. For example, it says: Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal?

The problem, of course, is that Matthew doesn't say that everybody travelled to Galilee for the first post-resurrection appearance, or that it was that same day, or that they returned to Jerusalem for an evening meal. That comes entirely out of Barker's own head. Why would I waste my time going line by line through a challenge from someone who doesn't seem to know what he's talking about?