Unconvinced vs. Convinced Against

[Seasanctuary]

Often, we skeptics tell Christians that we're not convinced the Gospels (or Bible in general) are true. We say that sort of thing would take some extraordinary evidence. We point out that there's even some reasonableness to the position that Jesus didn't exist at all, or at least that the Gospels were largely fabricated.

For the purpose of this thread, let's do without the "unconvinced" side of things and explain either:

* things that make you "convinced against" the Gospels (or Bible in general) being substantially accurate, or
* things that are especially bothersome to you, if it's given that the Gospels (and Bible) are in fact substantially accurate.

For instance, I read a global flood in Genesis and have it from the geological experts that no such flood occurred. This constitutes one reason I'm "convinced against" the Bible's correctness.
However, if the Bible is given as correct then it would be especially bothersome to me that God abandons people I consider to have value to Hell.

Now, since this is in the Naturalism forum, let's keep this as a discussion among infidels identifying our personal, positive beefs against Christianity as an exercise in self-discovery. I'd prefer you keep it to a short list of things you feel most strongly about and not some huge "Skeptics Annotated Bible" style list of all the things you've ever heard bad about Christianity. Since this isn't the Apologetics forum, there's no need to argue for these things as if to a Christian. Just explain yourself. I'll put together more of my own after a while.

- Sea

A note to Christians - If you do see anything in here you'd like to talk about, feel free to make a thread in Apologetics or better yet ask the poster in a PM if they'd mind putting together an Apologetics-oriented OP on the subject.

[SteveF]

Often, we skeptics tell Christians that we're not convinced the Gospels (or Bible in general) are true. We say that sort of thing would take some extraordinary evidence. We point out that there's even some reasonableness to the position that Jesus didn't exist at all, or at least that the Gospels were largely fabricated.

For the purpose of this thread, let's do without the "unconvinced" side of things and explain either:

* things that make you "convinced against" the Gospels (or Bible in general) being substantially accurate, or
* things that are especially bothersome to you, if it's given that the Gospels (and Bible) are in fact substantially accurate.

For instance, I read a global flood in Genesis and have it from the geological experts that no such flood occurred. This constitutes one reason I'm "convinced against" the Bible's correctness.
However, if the Bible is given as correct then it would be especially bothersome to me that God abandons people I consider to have value to Hell.

Now, since this is in the Naturalism forum, let's keep this as a discussion among infidels identifying our personal, positive beefs against Christianity as an exercise in self-discovery. I'd prefer you keep it to a short list of things you feel most strongly about and not some huge "Skeptics Annotated Bible" style list of all the things you've ever heard bad about Christianity. Since this isn't the Apologetics forum, there's no need to argue for these things as if to a Christian. Just explain yourself. I'll put together more of my own after a while.

- Sea

A note to Christians - If you do see anything in here you'd like to talk about, feel free to make a thread in Apologetics or better yet ask the poster in a PM if they'd mind putting together an Apologetics-oriented OP on the subject.

I am unconvinced by a number Biblical claims when they overlap with testable scientific evidence (such as the flood). I am less certain in my beliefs about other aspects of the Bible, particularly historical aspects and the evidence frequently cited here for the ressurrection. This is for two reasons a) I don't know enough about the subject and b) I find some of these arguments intruiging at the least.

My own reasons for not being religious don't especially stem from weighty analysis (logic, philosophy etc) of Biblical issues however. I tend to approach the issue from a matter of feeling and intuition, which is possibly a little ironic for a Naturalist. This probably explains why I'm rather a weak atheist.

[Kulindrichnus]

For the purpose of this thread, let's do without the "unconvinced" side of things and explain either:

* things that make you "convinced against" the Gospels (or Bible in general) being substantially accurate, or
* things that are especially bothersome to you, if it's given that the Gospels (and Bible) are in fact substantially accurate.



This is not the way I approach the supernatural. The fact that Christianity is the dominant superstition of the western world does not elevate the logical value of its claims above those of any other supernatural absurdity; so why single them out for special attention?

If I was to consider myself 'convinced against' the claims of the Bible in the sense that I felt obliged to formulate a systematic set of arguments against them, there would be any number of things about which I should have to develop similar counter arguments; the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or UFOs, or faries, or David Icke's Reptilian Agenda, and so on and on and on. I don't have the time.

Somebody once said that the claims of Christianity were so absurd as to warrant no refutation. That seems to me to be both the most correct and most practical line.

K

[bandecoot]

Often, we skeptics tell Christians that we're not convinced the Gospels (or Bible in general) are true. We say that sort of thing would take some extraordinary evidence. We point out that there's even some reasonableness to the position that Jesus didn't exist at all, or at least that the Gospels were largely fabricated.

For the purpose of this thread, let's do without the "unconvinced" side of things and explain either:

* things that make you "convinced against" the Gospels (or Bible in general) being substantially accurate, or
* things that are especially bothersome to you, if it's given that the Gospels (and Bible) are in fact substantially accurate.

For instance, I read a global flood in Genesis and have it from the geological experts that no such flood occurred. This constitutes one reason I'm "convinced against" the Bible's correctness.
However, if the Bible is given as correct then it would be especially bothersome to me that God abandons people I consider to have value to Hell.

Now, since this is in the Naturalism forum, let's keep this as a discussion among infidels identifying our personal, positive beefs against Christianity as an exercise in self-discovery. I'd prefer you keep it to a short list of things you feel most strongly about and not some huge "Skeptics Annotated Bible" style list of all the things you've ever heard bad about Christianity. Since this isn't the Apologetics forum, there's no need to argue for these things as if to a Christian. Just explain yourself. I'll put together more of my own after a while.

- Sea

A note to Christians - If you do see anything in here you'd like to talk about, feel free to make a thread in Apologetics or better yet ask the poster in a PM if they'd mind putting together an Apologetics-oriented OP on the subject.



The Verse that helped my understanding of the inaccuracy of the New Testement was acts 22 verses 20 through 25.

The story of Paul and the Roman commander. In which a legion commander admits to a total stranger that he paid for his Citizenship.

Romans were a little touchy about citizenship. They went to war once over some of their allies falsely claiming citizenship. It's called the Social War.

There were a few ways to get Roman citizenship, serving in the Legions for 15 years, Being a freed slave, Being weathy and winning an election in a Latin Rights Town, Being born of 2 Roman parents was the most popular of course.

In order to buy citizenship one would have to bribe a Censor. Which is unlikley to happen.

What really flabbergasted me was that the writer of acts has a legion commander, probably a Tribune of the Soldiers thus of at least the Equestrian class, admits to a TOTAL stranger something that would have put him up on a cross in a trice. That just would never happen.

[XaositectCrayon]

what makes me convinced it's not right?

the very idea that it was written in earlier stages by people in power. Otherwise it seems like a book of wisdom where truth never dissapears, just buried in bullocks...

[EvoUK]

I personally have a very poor opinion of the bible- both the silly claims contained within (why does God (Jesus) have to effectively commit suicide in order to pay a debt to himself, owed him by his own creation for falling into a trap that He created? Please. :ahem: ), and the actual writing of the book itself.

Of course I'd heard of the bible, and heard many random quotes here and there, but having never read the Bible, I always assumed it must be more substantial than those quotes I always heard, there most be something of some substance there for so many people to believe it.

My thoughts as I read it ran like this: This is the Bible? This?! People can't believe this, can they??? They can't. Surely they can't, it's too stupid, too ridiculous. It's so obviously mythology, and it's not even particularly good mythology, the writing I found to be for the most part dull and pedestrian. (And I'd heard it claimed that just reading the bible the sheer literary genius alone was sufficient to prove that it was not the work of man. Well, I suppose parts of it could have been the work of children. Please.) But people do believe it, they do.

I had never, and I mean never been so disappointed in humanity in my entire life. I wanted to cry, I was so disappointed to find out how gullible and uneducated and ignorant so many people really are. I was and am shocked that this book, which is quite obviously a load of crap is the basis for the world's most popular religion and that people actually take this seriously.

Somehow, not having read the Bible, I had been giving it much more credit, much more benefit of the doubt than it deserved, and had thought that it must in some way be a very great book, a very great piece of literature at the very least.

*sigh*

But, look at it this way- I think all claims initially deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's that fine line between 100% scepticism, and 100% credulity, right?

But, the bible - and the legions of followers - have had ample opportunity to make their case, don't you think? That is, we (sceptics) gave it the benefit of the doubt, checked everything out, decided it was bunk, and moved on.

If the theists have some new claim that hasn't been investigated yet, then by all means, it deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Anybody seen a *new* theistic claim lately?

Anyone?

[Matthew]

Sea,

You are right to make this distinction between a lack of belief and disbelief. I lack belief that the New Testament, especially the Gospels, are accurate because I have seen what I consider to be enough holes in the Evangelical arguments that I have read in the popular literature over the past few years to rationally conclude that Evangelicals simply don't have a case. But my disbelief is based on more than just flawed apologetics. My disbelief is based on what I consider to be cases of biblical errancy, obvious signs of post-70 C.E. dating, what strike me as anachronisms in the text, as well as my belief that practically everything in the gospels fits the social categories of the honor-shame society in which it originated, and therefore needn't have a supernatural/divine explanation. Let me elaborate here on this last one...

For instance, a couple of the social-science commentaries I have on the synoptics and John explain that the many of supernatural "sightings" be it the Transfiguration, seeing the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus, seeing angels at the tomb, seeing Jesus alive after his death, are explained as visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-conciousness. The commentaries explain that these kind of visionary experiences were very common and frequent in honor-shame societies, and such visionary experiences were considered normal in antiquity. This suggest to me that visionary experiences have a natural cause, regardless of whether it involves a single person or a group of people, because they're common and frequent and I have no more reason to believe that the visionary experiences in the Christian faith are any more real than the visionary experiences recorded throughout antiquity. They all seem to fit within a certain social category and therefore I believe that there were just natural psychodynamic causes responsible for these visionary experiences. To believe that the visionary experiences recorded in the gosels really involved supernatural causation and yet all the other visionary experiencs in the ancient world were naturally caused seems to me to be special pleading.

My biggest reason for disbelief, however, is the fact that I consider the existence of the Christian god to be impossible. I believe that a few of Yahweh's attributes stand in contradiction to another. For instance, I believe that it's impossible for any god such as Yahweh to be both a morally necessary being and a volitional being. I likewise consider it impossible for any god such as Yahweh to be both omniscient and volitional. I don't believe any being can be a morally necessary being (meaning it's impossible to do anything less than that of the supreme moral good and you cannot even have the desire to do so) can have any free will (in which case, it's certainly possible to do wrong or an act of less supreme good but you simply choose not to).

I hope this helps!

Cheers,

Matthew

[Cliodna Emerges]

Often, we skeptics tell Christians that we're not convinced the Gospels (or Bible in general) are true. We say that sort of thing would take some extraordinary evidence. We point out that there's even some reasonableness to the position that Jesus didn't exist at all, or at least that the Gospels were largely fabricated.

For the purpose of this thread, let's do without the "unconvinced" side of things and explain either:

* things that make you "convinced against" the Gospels (or Bible in general) being substantially accurate, or
* things that are especially bothersome to you, if it's given that the Gospels (and Bible) are in fact substantially accurate.

For instance, I read a global flood in Genesis and have it from the geological experts that no such flood occurred. This constitutes one reason I'm "convinced against" the Bible's correctness.
However, if the Bible is given as correct then it would be especially bothersome to me that God abandons people I consider to have value to Hell.

Now, since this is in the Naturalism forum, let's keep this as a discussion among infidels identifying our personal, positive beefs against Christianity as an exercise in self-discovery. I'd prefer you keep it to a short list of things you feel most strongly about and not some huge "Skeptics Annotated Bible" style list of all the things you've ever heard bad about Christianity. Since this isn't the Apologetics forum, there's no need to argue for these things as if to a Christian. Just explain yourself. I'll put together more of my own after a while.

- Sea

A note to Christians - If you do see anything in here you'd like to talk about, feel free to make a thread in Apologetics or better yet ask the poster in a PM if they'd mind putting together an Apologetics-oriented OP on the subject.

I lean toward 'convinced against' for a combination of the reasons already mentioned, i.e. scientific evidence, all-loving god/eternal damnation, manipulation of text by those in power, etc. My reason may sound irrational to some, but my primary dismissal of Yahweh stems from the myriad of Life/Death/Rebirth myths that have existed from the beginning of recorded history. Based on that, to me it seems that there is some validity to the 'collective unconscious', that these life lessons are written on our souls, and that is why it leaps forth to some as 'truth'. Basically, the only credence I give the Bible is based as an archetypal study.

[zorathruster]

The most damning evidence against biblical claims is the contradictory nature of the God presented in the Bible. If the God is "omnipotent" and "omnipresent" - the first story that has him wondering what happened to Adam and Eve while he walks through the garden "wondering" where they are totally rejects the idea he knows all things or what the future holds. Erstwise, he wouldn't be wondering.

The contradictory definition of God prevents him from being possible and therefore atheism in regards to the Christian God is the only resolution.

[mentored1]

Well met Sea - excellent thread. BTW, you have a peculiar nuance to how you word things: do you do that in person or just in type? :teeth:



* things that make you "convinced against" the Gospels (or Bible in general) being substantially accurate, or
* things that are especially bothersome to you, if it's given that the Gospels (and Bible) are in fact substantially accurate.


It's quite simple for me. I asked a long while ago in a house far away, in the throes of Biblical fundamentalism, whether or not the Bible could be or contain mythology from other cultures - myths which I read and loved.

After a prolonged period of study and contemplation it was obvious that the Bible could very well be or at least contain significant portions of reworked mythologies mingled with cultural history and legends. All the archetypes and themes that affect the human psyche are central pillars in the Bible.

Of course once it is accepted that there is, at least, a possibility that the Bible is an elaborate mythic tradition there is, at least, the possibility that it is not literally true (or doesn't need to be literal to be true).

Though why Bible believing Christians automatically associate mythology with lie is beyond me. Myths can contain truths without being literal - the idea of truth itself is a pleasant fiction...

Take care

[Jayhawker Soule]

For the purpose of this thread, let's do without the "unconvinced" side of things and explain either:

* things that make you "convinced against" the Gospels (or Bible in general) being substantially accurate, or
* things that are especially bothersome to you, if it's given that the Gospels (and Bible) are in fact substantially accurate.I reject appeals to the Supernatural as wholly unwarranted.

[Seasanctuary]

I reject appeals to the Supernatural as wholly unwarranted.

Are you saying we shouldn't appeal to something supernatural even if happens to be true?

Or are you saying nothing supernatural could be true?

(The first is about subjective methodology. The second about objective truth.)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you saying we shouldn't appeal to something supernatural even if happens to be true?

Or are you saying nothing supernatural could be true?
To the extent that the word 'convinced' has any validiy, I am convinced against the existential possibility of the supernatural.

[Seasanctuary]

To the extent that the word 'convinced' has any validiy, I am convinced against the existential possibility of the supernatural.

That's rather extreme. But thanks.

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's rather extreme. But thanks.Actually, I take it as [Ontological] Naturalism 101.

To the extent that the word 'convinced' has any validiy, I am likewise convinced against the existential possibility of the Daoine Sidhe. Is this also "rather extreme"?

[Soundsurfr]

This is not the way I approach the supernatural. The fact that Christianity is the dominant superstition of the western world does not elevate the logical value of its claims above those of any other supernatural absurdity; so why single them out for special attention?

If I was to consider myself 'convinced against' the claims of the Bible in the sense that I felt obliged to formulate a systematic set of arguments against them, there would be any number of things about which I should have to develop similar counter arguments; the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or UFOs, or faries, or David Icke's Reptilian Agenda, and so on and on and on. I don't have the time.

Somebody once said that the claims of Christianity were so absurd as to warrant no refutation. That seems to me to be both the most correct and most practical line.

K

This tends to mirror my own opinion, despite the fact that I was brought up Christian. Eventually, so much of it falls apart logically that I cannot keep track any longer - especially the primary, fundamental concepts of God having to exact punishment for human behavior - exacting it from his "son" as opposed to the actual perpetrators, etc. etc. I could go on and on. Then, when placed in the context of the world's myriad of myths and beliefs, it simply becomes another human construct, and one of the more bizarre ones at that.

[Ishmael]

Often, we skeptics tell Christians that we're not convinced the Gospels (or Bible in general) are true. We say that sort of thing would take some extraordinary evidence. We point out that there's even some reasonableness to the position that Jesus didn't exist at all, or at least that the Gospels were largely fabricated.

For the purpose of this thread, let's do without the "unconvinced" side of things and explain either:

* things that make you "convinced against" the Gospels (or Bible in general) being substantially accurate, or
* things that are especially bothersome to you, if it's given that the Gospels (and Bible) are in fact substantially accurate.

For instance, I read a global flood in Genesis and have it from the geological experts that no such flood occurred. This constitutes one reason I'm "convinced against" the Bible's correctness.
However, if the Bible is given as correct then it would be especially bothersome to me that God abandons people I consider to have value to Hell.

Now, since this is in the Naturalism forum, let's keep this as a discussion among infidels identifying our personal, positive beefs against Christianity as an exercise in self-discovery. I'd prefer you keep it to a short list of things you feel most strongly about and not some huge "Skeptics Annotated Bible" style list of all the things you've ever heard bad about Christianity. Since this isn't the Apologetics forum, there's no need to argue for these things as if to a Christian. Just explain yourself. I'll put together more of my own after a while.

- Sea

A note to Christians - If you do see anything in here you'd like to talk about, feel free to make a thread in Apologetics or better yet ask the poster in a PM if they'd mind putting together an Apologetics-oriented OP on the subject.
Interesting thread.

I give an existential answer: My final thought as a Christian was "I can't take my daughter to see The Passion, even though the story of The Passion is the foundation of my religious beliefs." At that time I had become and exitentialist of the Christian variety (thanks for Fear and Trembling), not because I thought it was trendy to label myself, but because I really did come to believe that whatever meaning, whatever freedom, whatever happiness or sadness was mine. I had experienced Iraq in one way, and another minister had experienced is in another way. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0849918235/sr=8-1/qid=1140039299/ref=sr_1_1/104-6818086-7797506?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

Along those lines:
* things that make you "convinced against" the Gospels (or Bible in general) being substantially accurate, or
I am convinced that the Bible is myth because the Bible places an emphasis on miracles. I have never experienced a miracle of the kind that the Bible clearly and honestly presents to us for belief. In my opinion, the way that the Bible represents the human experience of the miraculous does not square with the actualy experiences of life.

* things that are especially bothersome to you, if it's given that the Gospels (and Bible) are in fact substantially accurate.
It would be especially bothersome if the Bible were substantially accurate because I would then experience life as some kind of malicious "bait and switch" where all of my experiences has not much to do with reality. A real disaster for me.

I agree that Christianity should not be taken to be a unique mythological worldview but I would hardly agree that Christianity can be dismissed as unimportant to form an opinion of substance about in the Western world. Christianity, like it or not, brings substantial meaning to our lives if we are Westerners, because we still experience it as an echo of a echo of Christendom.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am convinced that the Bible is myth because the Bible places an emphasis on miracles.
Leaving aside the baseless assertion of honesty, to be "convinced that the Bible is myth because the Bible places an emphasis on miracles" makes since only to the degree that you are convinced against miracles, i.e., convinced against the existential possibility of Supernatural intervention.

I have never experienced a miracle of the kind that the Bible clearly and honestly presents to us for belief.
There are many things you've never experienced.

[Champagne]

There are many things- the whole problem of evil thing is a big one for me for the existence of the Christian/Jewish God.

But Yahweh in particular is a bloodthirsty tribal god - I am especially appalled at his requiring animal suffering and death for atonement of sins via sacrifices. Yahweh, allegedly being all mighty and perfect, needing innocent blood to appease him? What for?

First, why would animal blood do the trick? Is there something magical about it that it appeases God?

Second, what kind of good God requires you to kill an innocent living being in order to get your own sins remitted? (of course I am vegetarian and an animal rights person, so I am particularly sickened by this)

Third, why should God give a rip what humans do anyway? Why does he need our obedience and/or love so much that he creates elaborate laws and requires sacrifices for sins? Why does he care so much about humans that he sends his only son to die for us so we can be saved, and yet if we don't believe he did, he will throw us into hell for eternity?

Then of course there's the whole Yahweh ordering mass annihilation in the OT of innocent women, children and animals, etc etc

[Ishmael]

Leaving aside the baseless assertion of honesty, to be "convinced that the Bible is myth because the Bible places an emphasis on miracles" makes since only to the degree that you are convinced against miracles, i.e., convinced against the existential possibility of Supernatural intervention.

Why is the assertion of honesty baseless? It seems to me that the Bible is incredibly honest while an utterly false picture of the world. Miracles can be proven false by present and historical experience alone while the possibility of "supernatural intervention" at some time in the future cannot be.



There are many things you've never experienced.

I used to be afraid of the word "baseless" when used by a fellow skeptic.

[Seasanctuary]

Actually, I take it as [Ontological] Naturalism 101.

To the extent that the word 'convinced' has any validiy, I am likewise convinced against the existential possibility of the Daoine Sidhe. Is this also "rather extreme"?

Yes it is. I see no reason why the Sidhe would not be possible. I don't think they actually exist, but to say their existence is essentially impossible is overreaching.

[Bagger_Vance]

For me the Problem of Evil and the Doctrine of Hell were the things that distanced me from the Church. Then it just snowballed. The God of the bible is contradictory and some of the stories are just so absurd that if they weren't in the bible even christians would laugh and indeed they do laugh when they hear of the same types of absurdities in Scientology, Islam, Hinduism, Greek Paganism, etc. As the one dude said just because Christianity is elevated in our society above the other myths doesn't make it any more valid just because more people believe it.

[Jayhawker Soule]

To the extent that the word 'convinced' has any validiy, I am likewise convinced against the existential possibility of the Daoine Sidhe. Is this also "rather extreme"?Yes it is. I see no reason why the Sidhe would not be possible. I don't think they actually exist, but to say their existence is essentially impossible is overreaching.Which is why I did not say that their existence is "essentially impossible".
"Existential possibility" is understood here as meaning both (1) logical possibility--the absence of logical contradiction, and (2) the availability of specifiable, describable, and necessary ontological conditions which must obtain for a thing to be or to become actual. Existential possibilities are those which we can justifiably expect to be actualities now or in the future (or which were actualities in the past), and logical possibilities are a larger class of possibilities containing those which we can envision without logical contradiction, some of which also are or may be actualities, but others of which we either never expect to occur or the actuality of which we cannot confirm in any way. Claims about the natural world are both existential possibilities and logical possibilities. Some possibilities, however, can never be anchored to experienced reality via intersubjective, verifiable, empirical data and are thus merely logical. Although they have existential import, they remain logical possibilities only, in which one may believe but for which one has insufficient, maybe even no, evidence or justification. The supernatural is such a possibility because conclusive verification of its reality is beyond human capability; there is no method by which to do this.

Existential possibility is easy to specify with respect to empirically verifiable propositions. For example, in order for a winged horse to be existentially possible, the concept of a winged horse must be logically consistent, i.e., thinkable without contradiction, which it is, and the gene necessary for wings must be present in the equine genome, which it is not. Therefore, a winged horse is existentially impossible, although not logically so. The ontological conditions are physical, but they do not in fact obtain. On the other hand, a chicken with teeth is a genuine existential possibility since the concept is logically consistent and chickens do in fact have a gene for teeth which merely remains unexpressed.

< --- snip --- >

Saying that the supernatural is a logical possibility, then, is not saying very much. It is logically possible that I can go to the window, jump out, and fly to the next building. But there are no conclusive reasons to believe that I can do this and many good reasons to believe that I cannot. An existential claim to which one wishes to commit epistemically must be more than a mere logical possibility. If one is concerned with the justification of belief in terms of truth and falsity rather than with pragmatic justification, such commitment must be accompanied by some positive evidence which points to the truth of supernatural belief. There must be empirical evidence for any claim with existential import, and any area of human thought, including religion, in which existential claims are made is subject to the criteria by which existential claims are tested. Consequently, claims about the supernatural are logically possible, but their status as existential possibilities remains problematic.

- see Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (2000) (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html)


And when viewed in the context of the ubiquitous success of methodological naturalism and the ongoing failure of Supernaturalists to offer verifiable evidence substantiating their claims, the existential possibility of the Supernatural is increasingly unworthy of consideration. As the above paper later notes:
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." ... Relationships of logical necessity need not reflect any state of affairs in the world, whereas expansions of empirically verifiable knowledge always do. The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible..

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why is the assertion of honesty baseless? It seems to me that the Bible is incredibly honest while an utterly false picture of the world.
"Baseless" was, no doubt, a poor choice of words since it was clearly based on how 'it seems to you'. I should have said "unfounded".


Miracles can be proven false by present and historical experience alone ...
No, they can not.

[Ishmael]

"Baseless" was, no doubt, a poor choice of words since it was clearly based on how 'it seems to you'. I should have said "unfounded".

What is unfounded?



No, they can not.
Yes, miracles can be reasonably assumed (proven) to not happen in the way that the Bible treats them. In the way the modern regilionists treat them, perhaps you are 1/2 correct.

One redundance of intersubjective verification that miracles do not happen is simply that each day I don't see any miracles. That is approximately 13505 days with no miracles and zerio days with miracles. I can assume that no miracles will happen in the future because of my past experience. This is proof, even though it doesn't fit nicely into you 20th century priciple of falsifiability.

BTW: Isn't redundance of verification the basis of the acceptance of evolutionary theory?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, miracles can be reasonably assumed (proven) ...
As long as we know that when you use the word 'proven' we can substitute 'assumed'. :ahem:

[Ishmael]

As long as we know that when you use the word 'proven' we can substitute 'assumed'. :ahem:
I guess this means you aren't going to speak to the challenge I made to your "lack of empiricism" criticism...

I do not mean "proof" every time I say "assume"... And here I thought that contempt for other's ideas was a strictly religious attitude...

An assumption of future reliability of observations is not the same as making an assumption with no prior history or context; one that is based on feelings, etc. The kind of assumption that is verifiably "proven" is one that takes into consideration a redundancy of prior observations. Falsifiability is not necessary.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, miracles can be reasonably assumed (proven) ...
As long as we know that when you use the word 'proven' we can substitute 'assumed'.
I do not mean "proof" every time I say "assume"... OK

[Zeluvia]

I actually was thinking the other day "What is my real issue with Christianity and Islam?" and you know, it has very little to do with the Bible or the Koran.

It has more to do with the way the "faith" is being manifested in society, and with the different ways it is evolving.

I find arguements about this or that passage of the Bible or the Koran to be moot, because it is old ground that has been covered so much and to me it is like examining one tree when the entire forest is on fire.

I think the reason I disbelieve Christianity is because of the way many Christians act, more than what the book says. The same goes for Muslims. Despite what they say, and what the books say, their actions appear immature, egotistic, neurotic, irrational, emotional, and immoral.

Now of course you can find atheists that are immature, egotistic, neurotic, irrational, emotional and immoral, but we aren't the ones claiming a higher power gives us the RIGHT to behave like mentally ill children.