The evolution of an atheist.

We've gone all around that one before and you don't feel that any answer I give is sufficient. If you have a point to make just go ahead and make it.

Beyond, "I think therefore I am" we can't be sure of anything. It is a search for truth but there is very little or nothing that we can be absoultely sure of. Christianity, and the world view it represents rings true for me and the longer that I try to live within that world view, and experience it, the more it rings true for me.

I don’t know what you are using for a reference but I have the book Don’t Know Much About Mythology by Kenneth C Davis, which is a totally secular book. According to Davis the story is that Osiris was brought back to life long enough to make love to Isis so that she became pregnant with Horus.
The resurrection stories of that era were actually based on Osirus not Horus. Of course the stories were always stories of gods and not of someone who was human, so there really isn’t much of a parallel anyway. According to the mythology Horus spent his existence at war with his Uncle Seth. Trying to draw too many parallels here is a stretch.The Jews, (not all of them) of course believed in resurrection but only at the end of time. The idea that a messiah would be resurrected in time before everyone else was not on their radar. You have a lot of "knows" in there that are your beliefs. The only model we have for a resurrected body is Jesus. If you take the gospels as factual as I do, then the resurrected Jesus was something that the disciples didn't expect and something that was different from normal human experience. About the only other thing we can know about new creation is that there is an end to suffering and Jesus is Lord.

There is no such thing as objective reality. All our views are subjective.

Clever. Here I thought we were having a discussion while you think that you're scoring points in some kind of debate.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

OK I get your point. I responded I should have said of course that none of our views are objective.It was poorly written, but within the context of what I was responding to you probably could have discerned the meaning.However you do have a point and I apologise.

That may be your definition but the dictionary seems to disagree. I would contend that there is no reliable evidence either way. What happens to the self after physical death is beyond physical knowledge. I agree it is faith but I also believe it to be a resonable faith, knowing that we won't be in agreement on that. But so would the atheistic POV be laughed out of court. There isn't that kind of evidence for either case. They work with what can be measured, tested and observed physically, and they do it well. But so what? All anyone can say is that when someone dies there is nothing left that can be measured, tested or observed. If there is a soul, consciousness, or self that carries on in another dimension then it is beyond our ability to examine.

Thanks for the discussion Bikerman. I think the point of the discussion was how we came to our respective beliefs and I think we've done that.I'll tell you what. In the next life we'll revisit this discussion and see who was closer to the truth. Cheers

That makes you just the kinda guy He's looking for.Sorry.... couldn't resist.