MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Esquilax]

Well, that is what I got out of it because otherwise, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever how someone came to get their belief...

Sure it does; you can come to correct beliefs for irrational reasons, and that would mean it would be irrational for anyone else to accept those beliefs sans evidence, even if they turned out to be true.

Additionally, how you come to your beliefs is still a part of what makes you you. As I specifically explained, in the post you're quoting, those who are indoctrinated tend to be more satisfied with simplistic answers given authoritatively.

It's actually kinda bothersome that you assert that it doesn't matter how someone comes to their beliefs, as a response to a post explaining how it does matter.

hell, someone could be indoctrinated with truth...so if they were indoctrinated with truth, then all of that other crap doesn't really matter, now does it?

You can have correct beliefs for bad reasons. If someone believed in the existence of the Platypus because their parents told them one existed, and this was before we had any evidence of such a thing, then even though they're technically correct, they had no good reason to think that, and other people would not be justified in accepting the claim as true.

The reasons why you hold certain beliefs matter. If they didn't, you wouldn't have spent the past few weeks arguing for intelligent design and the resurrection of Jesus; you understand that the reasons for beliefs matter, or else you wouldn't spend so much time explaining yours.

If Jesus ACTUALLY rose from the dead, and someone is indoctrinated with the belief that Jesus actually rose from the dead...then what would be the problem?

Because there would be no method by which that indoctrinated person could distinguish that true belief from any false belief. That seems like a pretty big problem.

Keeping trying, Esquil...eventually I will let you win an argument against me...eventually.

This is your problem, you're operating under the mistaken belief that you get to decide who wins any given argument or debate. You don't; your position on an argument you're involved in is obviously biased. Of course you think you're in the right and demonstrating it; if you didn't then you wouldn't be holding that position, now would you? But you don't get to spin the fact that you've managed to convince yourself of an idea you already believed into some broader win.

Notice I'm not doing that, because unlike you I understand that my position on this is both obvious- if I'm still holding the position in question- and irrelevant to the actual reality. Actually, your constant appeals to "winning" are very telling; when a rational person argues, he does it from a position where his mind can be changed, if the opposing argument is better. You seem to be focused on something else; the factual accuracy of your position doesn't seem to matter as much to you as winning does. It's like you've chosen your dog, right or wrong, and this is just a game to you.

But truth isn't something you win at, it's something you mold your positions to fit. You need to start leaving the conclusions as to the efficacy of your argument to other, non-biased parties.

The ones who, for some reason, have done nothing but disagree with you.