Yes, it does. A belief is either the product of valid reasoning applied to premises or evidence (justified belief, sound conclusion) or believed by faith. If you got there using reason, your belief is rational. All other belief sidesteps reason, which is what the roots in irRATIOnal mean.
Ir- is the privative prefix,
-ratio- is reason, and
-nal is the suffix for the adjectival form of the noun reason
View attachment 80774
Leroy, like the author of the OP and the source he quotes (Licona), thinks he has a good argument for believing that a resurrection actually occurred, not a faith-based belief.
But I did. I gave him a roadmap to the answer. I gave him my answer twice, and when he asked for it again, I showed him how to do an RF thread archives search, which he didn't acknowledge seeing, so he probably can't perform a search, can't find the post now, and probably is unaware that it exists. That's all I'll do for him. If he's frustrated, whose fault is that?
I'd gladly show you both my answer to why scripture reads as it does regarding resurrection and the instructions on how to perform a search, but I won't do either for Leroy again, so you'll either have to do that search yourself or remain in suspense with Leroy.
Not to a critical thinker. Jesus is also an "ancient mythical religious figure," although legendary may be more accurate than mythical if the gospel accounts of a first century itinerant Hebrew fundamentalist and reformer have some basis in fact and history.
The problem is that you unwittingly transform ideas and paraphrase them incorrectly the rare instances where you acknowledge seeing something written to you. It's a very common phenomenon on these threads and elsewhere. Someone says Paul may have been psychotic and that morphs into claiming that Paul was psychotic. On a recent thread, I noted that consciousness may well be an epiphenomenon of physical reality and that morphed into a claim of fact. Agnostic atheists tell theists that they do not have a god belief and this morphs into believing that there are no gods.
So sharing answers with you isn't the solution. What doesn't seem to penetrate is that you are considered unteachable. You keep posting as if people should view you as somebody who can process arguments, but you show that you can't. It seems like about 90% of the material goes by you unseen and another 10% is mangled in translation into what then are strawman representations of the actual argument. The solution is not to write more words to you to
That last part was a bonus - a constructive act of good will that might have been valuable to you. Your principal difficulty here is a thread full of posters with the same complaint and your nonreaction to that. It's put you at an impasse with them all. Nobody is willing to do things your way.
Regarding debating, there is no debating here beyond rebutting your same argument with the same rebuttal, which is no more a debate than ping-pong in which returned serves are never defended against is a volley. There's nothing more to do if you won't engage. You'd like me to repeat myself again, but you've also made me unwilling to do that by refusing to do YOUR job in a debate.
Like I keep saying, you need to occasionally ask yourself what's in it for the other guy to continue with you? And this applies to all aspects of life. Why should this employer keep paying me? Why should this woman remain my wife? Why should these people elect me? If you are indifferent to their needs, they are apt to disengage from you as many of us have done with you.
Too bad you reject so much constructive advice out of hand. There's some wisdom in these words. I'm a friend, not a foe, but you distrust me. I also can't hand feed a squirrel in the park unwilling to approach and meet me or let me get close to him. All I can do is leave my offering on the ground and hope he searches for and finds it.
I have no further duty to you. Your job was to pay attention to what was read to you and address it with rebuttal the first time. Your job was to make this a mutually beneficial exercise by engaging in dialectic. Your job was to search for the posts you let pass by unacknowledged and later claimed didn't exist, since you weren't paying attention the two or more times I gave you my hypothesis to account for the scriptural claim of resurrection and witnesses.
Done. Your job was to read it, understand it, and assimilate it. You didn't, and now you are seeing why you should have.
I AM writing to them. Writing to you has been fruitless. Or did you think I expect these words to have any impact on you? I don't. I don't expect you to remember seeing them five minutes from now. I don't expect anything at all about you change no matter what I write, so I need another reason to keep writing, don't I?
Yes. Nobody but you needs to see me post that reply again, and if I did, you still wouldn't see it.
And the word is benefit, not beneficiate, a term from metallurgy. That's for the thread, since I don't expect you to beneficiate from my words if you get my drift.
I'd say that resurrection is equally explanatory - not more - as any naturalistic hypothesis, since they all explain the existence of those scriptures, but has no explanatory power since there is no mechanism known for supernaturalism or reason to believe it is possible, and is thus more ad hoc and less plausible than any naturalistic explanation.
I won't be repeating this. Look at it now. Read it now. Rebut it now if you think you can. Try not to go back into your routine this time.
Never, unless the naturalistic explanation is impossible.
No, it doesn't.
So what?
Already done. Maybe not to you, but that doesn't matter except to you.
Did you mean alleged appearances to others? So what? That fact doesn't support supernaturalism as the explanation for why we read what we do in scripture.
No, he's not. That's wrong twice. He's not assuming a mental illness and there is evidence to suggest that that might be the case. Hallucination and delusion are part and parcel of psychosis. This is not necessarily what happened. The report could be a fabrication by Paul. But it is evidence supporting that possibility.
