Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Quietus and Aenlic: You may wish to ask yourselves exactly what has caused you to taunt Pindar in such a way. He is a very careful debater and has certainly done nothing to warrant such behavior, if indeed it can be warranted.

In my personal opinion, I think that Quietus and Aenlic have displayed exactly the sort of glib impudence which ends up giving all Liberals a bad name.

---

I have to dig this since I've used nothing but memory. Just partial quotes: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=50127&page=6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus (old post)

What compelled you to believe there is 'god' in the first place (that is if you wish to elucidate).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

Nothing has compelled me to believe in God.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus (old post)

Ok, let me rephrase: at what point in your life did you start believing in 'god'? (doesn't have to be specific at all).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

Does it matter?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus (old post)

To me yes. Because I have a follow up question: What caused you to be a believer at that point in time? (again, you do not have to answer this)~:)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

You insist on personalizing I see. Alright. At what age: 19. Cause: revelation

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus (old post)

Pindar, absolute not! ~:) You said nothing has compelled you to believe in god (so I rephrased my questions). Well, I say, that at one point in time you were a 'nonbeliever' (learning is brain development and vice versa). At one point in time, you became a 'believer' ( because you learned something). Hence something compelled you to believe. And in this case, it is the 'revelation'.

I don't believe in holy texts because they are all written by man. That's why I dismiss the notion of metaphysics, because if it can only be real if you assume that holy texts are valid in the first place.

---

....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

Yes, holy writ operates off of revelation. Revelation is asymmetric. This means it is a one way affair: God has complete access to man, but man cannot breach the Gates of Heaven by his own power.

---

....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

I don't know what ephenomenon means.

As I said, maybe.

As I also mentioned: there is no standard for examining one side of the dynamic: God, and given experience is relational this seems a problem. There doesn't seem to be a verification schema for the subject either, meaning: 1), if say a brain wave analysis was given at the time of a revelation and some spike registered, how does one guarantee that the spike equals a Divine communique? 2) if the experience is "metaphysically contained" then no physical register would occur. For example, in the Book of Acts, Stephen while standing before the Sanhedrin declares he can see God sitting on His throne with the Lord standing to His right. Now the Sanhedrin, who would moments later have him killed, could see nothing. This would suggest something 'not normal' occurred, if it occurred. If revelation is an opening of the soul to a higher order then standard empirical appeal is not helpful.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big John (old post)

also, if you can share, what information did your revelation convey to you? or at least what sort of information?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar (old post)

No, I don't think so. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet. Matt. 7:6

Not that there is anything wrong with being swine mind you. ~:grouphug:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin Rules (old post)

Well, the discussion is more or less at an end if you can't give us that. It is indeed the lynchpin of your entire belief in God and the basis of all the arguments you have presented here; if it is out of bounds, we can't reach any further conclusions regarding your ideas. It's your prerogative, of course, and I am not asking you to reveal it. Perhaps we should return the discussion to the Religion/Cult topic?

---

Where's the inaccuracy Del Arroyo?

Quietus: Nothing which you have posted here has any relevance to this topic. You only show your own weakness of spirit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

You only show your own weakness of spirit.

---

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

:inquisitive:

---

*insert casting magika joke here*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

*insert casting magika joke here*

---

:laugh4:


his resistance to magika is so low! cast magic missle!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

I have to dig this since I've used nothing but memory. Just partial quotes: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=50127&page=6

---

This does not relate to the topic. Neither does it show me saying: "you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way..." Either your memory was poor or you did not understand. Given what you posted and the series of partial quotes my guess is you did not understand. For example your use of God sending signals that are "one way". Note my original post and what it was in response to:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

"You have a multitude of 'holy texts' written by man from god yet the 'metaphysical world' is out of scientific reach?

Man is physical, so is Science. Man can get messages from 'god' but to science it is impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Yes, holy writ operates off of revelation. Revelation is asymmetric. This means it is a one way affair: God has complete access to man, but man cannot breach the Gates of Heaven by his own power.

---

---

Now, unless one wishes to argue science can and does breach the metaphysical barrier this seems a rather obvious point.

I provided a good number of posts in the thread you cited which should have been (and I think remain) useful. This was the last posted by me to yourself:

Quote:

---

There is a reference in Brothers Karamazov where Russian students are considered unique in that they combine absolute arrogance with total ignorance. The example is then given: if an Astronomer handed a map of the solar system to a Russian student, the student would return the map with corrections on it.

You have continued to engage on a subject matter that you are clearly unfamiliar. Your comments on basic logic are incoherent. References to truth, superlatives, or universal agreement are not relevant. It isn't prudent to spar on subject matter you have never studied. It isn't prudent to refuse to recognize the meaning of a word in the face of direct evidence. Both approaches suggest an attitude that prohibits productive discussion which is unfortunate. I can do nothing further for you. I must leave you to your dogma. Alas.

---

I continue to insist you would be better served if you actually studied logic before making pronouncements about the discipline. It appears by your posts since that time, this has not occurred. It also appears you would rather pursue private agendas since none of your posts to me relate to the focus of the thread. This also is unfortunate.

does anyone here read the Free Inquiry magazine?

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...=fi&page=index
there are links to some of the articles here for people interrested in this Humanist magazine...

back-issues are somewhat difficult to find...


and here is one more link about Humanism as a life stance which wasn't posted earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_%28life_stance%29

Arguments for and against the existence of God:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Ethical Culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture

Quote:

---

There are no positions within the larger Western Tradition that define God as contingent as the notion would be an absurdity.

---

For God to be, God must be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

For God to be, God must be?

---

No. Contingent means dependent. A contingent being is one that owe's its existence to another being. Pindar is pointing out that the concept of an Almighty God that in fact owes his existence to another being is absurd.

That line of reasoning struck me as being somewhat excessively stuck on the existence of "beings" (I would presume the term does not cover, say, rocks) you know. It seems vaguely narcissistic if not outright solipsistic to me to think that the existence of the universe were inherently dependent on there always existing "beings" in it to take note of the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

How so ? If you remove assumptions of divinity from the book - as for example a Christian interested in not letting his or her confessional affiliation get in the way of analysis might, and Atheists and Agnostics do more or less by default - it's 'just' a writing of considerable historical and social significance. But then, so is Das Kapital.

---

Now apply his statement to this analysis. If a writing of considerable historical and social significance is not to be taken seriousily - why study it?

Quote:

---

No. Contingent means dependent. A contingent being is one that owe's its existence to another being. Pindar is pointing out that the concept of an Almighty God that in fact owes his existence to another being is absurd.

---

Actually looking at what Pindar's post was adressed to...

that'd be why I haven't seen 'contingent' used like that before.:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now apply his statement to this analysis. If a writing of considerable historical and social significance is not to be taken seriousily - why study it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics --

---

I do not see him denying its significance in itself or claiming it should not be taken seriously as a whole, here meaning its impact on people and so on.

All he is denying is it being God's Own Truth (:sweatdrop: ) as a primary historical source or the end-all be-all guide to How Thou Shalt Live Thy Life.

Studying the Bible - or rather its multitudous different versions, translations and interpretations - would strike me as rather useful for understanding all those often rather arcane and esoteric fights (that all too often got settled with armies, or at least tried to) that have happened over it. It was also a cornerstone of the worldview of very many people for a long time, which obviously makes it useful for trying to decipher how people back then thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I do not see him denying its significance in itself or claiming it should not be taken seriously as a whole, here meaning its impact on people and so on.

All he is denying is it being God's Own Truth (:sweatdrop: ) as a primary historical source or the end-all be-all guide to How Thou Shalt Live Thy Life.

Studying the Bible - or rather its multitudous different versions, translations and interpretations - would strike me as rather useful for understanding all those often rather arcane and esoteric fights (that all too often got settled with armies, or at least tried to) that have happened over it. It was also a cornerstone of the worldview of very many people for a long time, which obviously makes it useful for trying to decipher how people back then thought.

---

This makes logical sense - however that is not the same as his statement of

The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...

Which does not. If one is to use it as an important piece for academic study one is taking the text seriousily for its historical impact on society. In itself the Bible is a source of historical information - some which is indeed accurate once the story is broken down to what is history, and what is methaphorical story telling for the moral and ehtical point of the religious text. In fact several historians have researched some of the historical tells of the Bible and have found a few to be accurate in the locations of events, and yes even outcomes of some of those events. If one removes the "diety" function from some of the historical text in the Bible - one can gain a picture of life during those times - that in itself is of some historical significance. As a universal guide to ethics the Holy Bible has been used by societies for many thousands of years. One can claim that they do not follow the text, but to discount the text because of a philisophy disagreement with it - does not consitute a logical denouncing of said text as a serious piece to be studied.

If one is attemptin to deny the impact of the holy bible on society - one is attempting to discount history. Which would make his statement rather illogical in itself from that viewpoint.

In fact I found your logical reasoning in response to my statement supporting my postion that his initial statement in itself was not logical. Your statement agrees with the premise that their is significant historical information in the Bible, and that should always be taken seriousily when studing history.

For some reason I'm suspecting we have a little different idea as of what exactly "taking seriously" means here. Maybe I'm just giving too much benefit of doubt, but I interpret the never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics to mean more that it should not be taken at face value and as is.

As for the historical events recorded for example in the Old Testament, heck, many of them have been corroborated by for example Assyrian and Babylonian records of the same happenstances by what I've heard. Although unsurprisingly the Mesopotamians' view tends to be a tad more down to earth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

For some reason I'm suspecting we have a little different idea as of what exactly "taking seriously" means here. Maybe I'm just giving too much benefit of doubt, but I interpret the never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics to mean more that it should not be taken at face value and as is.

---

Yep I am thinking so also. To me in the context that he used the sentence is that the Bible should not be taken serious as a historical work. That I find illogical.

Quote:

---

As for the historical events recorded for example in the Old Testament, heck, many of them have been corroborated by for example Assyrian and Babylonian records of the same happenstances by what I've heard. Although unsurprisingly the Mesopotamians' view tends to be a tad more down to earth...

---

Yes indeed that is why I found is statement illogical - many facts have corroboration from other records and research. Now should one take the moral lessons literally or methaphorical seriousily would be a logical arguement, but to deny the Bible as a historical reference in itself seems illogical given the evidence to date.

To me serious implies not only the religious aspects of the Bible - one that some could remove themselves from by not taking it serious, but the historical references should be taken serious with a juidance eye toward the religious aspects of the text to seperate the historical fact from the Religious dogma.

You know, this seems to be turning into tiresomely nitpicky and semantical interpretation of the content of a somewhat vague sentence used by a third party. And I know I can't sustain the interest for that sort of word-mincing. Wouldn't it work rather better if we just waited until Claudius clarifies what he specifically meant ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

You know, this seems to be turning into tiresomely nitpicky and semantical interpretation of the content of a somewhat vague sentence used by a third party. And I know I can't sustain the interest for that sort of word-mincing. Wouldn't it work rather better if we just waited until Claudius clarifies what he specifically meant ?

---

Probably - since that was my initial point with the statement that the sentence did not make sense logically.

It'd certainly be a more... logical... solution than guesswork.
:sweatdrop:
...I'll shut up now.

I won't.

postcount +1:2thumbsup:

Not really...

Anyway, suppose that, for some religion, it makes a claim that: If God exists then there is X. Would lack of X not show that God, as they concieve it, does not exist? That, for all practical purposes, is the position of most atheists. For, it shows that the God you are talking about does not exist, and I suppose that most atheists aren't really concerned w/ creating their own version of what "God" is, which would be like making any definition for some word that they made up and testing its reality. It very well could be that zark, and infinite other conceptions of deities, cannot be disproven, because we may not know of them, but once I have denied your God, I have gone far enough and I don't think it's worth my time considering zark, zank, timmy, and the flying spaghetti monster. In short, some unkown deity X which I still ought to believe in, would consume all of my time, and unless the trob deity shows that he will punish me for not considering -- I suppose as a form of worship -- zank, zark, timmy, et al, I won't concern myself, and I will live a life that is not all spent in consideration of the infinite forms X (not the same X as above, but some deity) may have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Anyway, suppose that, for some religion, it makes a claim that: If God exists then there is X. Would lack of X not show that God, as they concieve it, does not exist? That, for all practical purposes, is the position of most atheists. For, it shows that the God you are talking about does not exist, and I suppose that most atheists aren't really concerned w/ creating their own version of what "God" is, which would be like making any definition for some word that they made up and testing its reality. It very well could be that zark, and infinite other conceptions of deities, cannot be disproven, because we may not know of them, but once I have denied your God, I have gone far enough and I don't think it's worth my time considering zark, zank, timmy, and the flying spaghetti monster. In short, some unkown deity X which I still ought to believe in, would consume all of my time, and unless the trob deity shows that he will punish me for not considering -- I suppose as a form of worship -- zank, zark, timmy, et al, I won't concern myself, and I will live a life that is not all spent in consideration of the infinite forms X (not the same X as above, but some deity) may have.

---

"absence of proof is not proof of absence."

however, your point, i think, is that to a rational mind absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. imo, Pindar's argument (more or less the cosmological argument, i think) is premised on a subjective truth, revelation. this is because the reductio ad absurdum need not lead to "God", per se, just some uncaused entity. i don't see why this uncaused entity couldn't just as easily be the "universe" (physical reality). an uncaused universe should be no more absurd than an uncaused supreme being.

because of this, faithfuls often assert that the way to determine the nature of the great uncaused is revelation, which is entirely incommunicable to the non-faithful, apparently. however, to experience revelation, one must have faith. for someone without faith looking for evidence of a supreme being or even a valid reason to try to assume faith, this presents an obvious catch-22.

edit: this is not to say faith/revelation are invalid, but that they are useless with respect to this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

"absence of proof is not proof of absence."

however, your point, i think, is that to a rational mind absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

---

This would not be rational though it may be a common enough error.

Quote:

---

imo, Pindar's argument (more or less the cosmological argument, i think) is premised on a subjective truth, revelation. this is because the reductio ad absurdum need not lead to "God", per se, just some uncaused entity. i don't see why this uncaused entity couldn't just as easily be the "universe" (physical reality). an uncaused universe should be no more absurd than an uncaused supreme being.

---

Hello Big John, (you're far too big)

The argument I used as a simple proof to help Sasaki is basically the cosmological argument. It doesn't appeal to revelation. If one posits the universe as the uncaused cause there are a few problems: one, the universe itself is a concept referring to stuff both here and out there. It is not itself a concrete thing, but a label for a collection of things: planets, stars, Deep Space 9 etc. It therefore runs into the fallacy of reification. Two, to admit the universe is necessary being means it cannot thereby be contingent being as the two are mutually exclusive. This runs into the problem that a host of things that compose the universe seem quite contingent: people for example (maybe not Captain Sisko however).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

"absence of proof is not proof of absence."

---

This looks like a form of argumentum ad ignorantiam, a favourite fallacy for proponents of intelligent design, i.e. something must be true because it cannot be disproven.

howdy, Pindar (you are not too pindarious, yet). kudos for the DS9 reference.
--although would captian sisko be necessary if the wormhole aliens are themselves contingent?

i have questions:

1. is the physical universe necessarily so ambiguous that to refer to it as a "concrete thing" commits a fallacy of reification? is this a semantic argument? a collection of 5 apples can be called a "bunch", but is a "bunch" an entity? if i call this collection uncaused, and refer to the "supreme bunch", is this an ambiguous abstraction masquerading as the concrete? what if i just say bunch = the 5 apples and substitute... the "supreme 5 apples"?

2. how is a necessary universe being composed of contingent entities any more of a problem than a necessary creator creating contingent entities?


edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

This looks like a form of argumentum ad ignorantiam, a favourite fallacy for proponents of intelligent design, i.e. something must be true because it cannot be disproven.

---

i am not saying that X is true because there is no proof that X is false, just that X is not necessarily false simply because there is no proof that X is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

You know, this seems to be turning into tiresomely nitpicky and semantical interpretation of the content of a somewhat vague sentence used by a third party. And I know I can't sustain the interest for that sort of word-mincing. Wouldn't it work rather better if we just waited until Claudius clarifies what he specifically meant ?

---

goodness me, I guess I have some explaining to do regarding this point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by claudius the god

The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now apply his statement to this analysis. If a writing of considerable historical and social significance is not to be taken seriousily - why study it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I do not see him denying its significance in itself or claiming it should not be taken seriously as a whole, here meaning its impact on people and so on.

All he is denying is it being God's Own Truth (:sweatdrop: ) as a primary historical source or the end-all be-all guide to How Thou Shalt Live Thy Life.

Studying the Bible - or rather its multitudous different versions, translations and interpretations - would strike me as rather useful for understanding all those often rather arcane and esoteric fights (that all too often got settled with armies, or at least tried to) that have happened over it. It was also a cornerstone of the worldview of very many people for a long time, which obviously makes it useful for trying to decipher how people back then thought.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

This makes logical sense - however that is not the same as his statement of

The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...

Which does not. If one is to use it as an important piece for academic study one is taking the text seriousily for its historical impact on society. In itself the Bible is a source of historical information - some which is indeed accurate once the story is broken down to what is history, and what is methaphorical story telling for the moral and ehtical point of the religious text. In fact several historians have researched some of the historical tells of the Bible and have found a few to be accurate in the locations of events, and yes even outcomes of some of those events. If one removes the "diety" function from some of the historical text in the Bible - one can gain a picture of life during those times - that in itself is of some historical significance. As a universal guide to ethics the Holy Bible has been used by societies for many thousands of years. One can claim that they do not follow the text, but to discount the text because of a philisophy disagreement with it - does not consitute a logical denouncing of said text as a serious piece to be studied.

If one is attemptin to deny the impact of the holy bible on society - one is attempting to discount history. Which would make his statement rather illogical in itself from that viewpoint.

In fact I found your logical reasoning in response to my statement supporting my postion that his initial statement in itself was not logical. Your statement agrees with the premise that their is significant historical information in the Bible, and that should always be taken seriousily when studing history.

---

...etc...

okay, The Holy Bible has been edited and ommited and manipulated and mistranslated so much that it can't be taken too seriously as a piece of serious History. if anything, it is a good text to examine in the light of history and with other texts (such as the apochiphrya (spelling?)) in order to examine how history can be manipulated.

The Holy Bible deserves a fair bit of academic criticism... and it should not be taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics... if someone wanted to study the types of Laws and societies of the ancient near-east, then the Holy Bible may offer some clues, but today in many parts of the world, many of the moral lessons are inappropriate and uncivilized or simply contrary to how many societies have developed...

there have also been numerous problems in accuracy during the processes of translating one version into others... this also makes the text less authentic...

when I was talking about 'bad stuff' in the Bible, I'm talking both about the manipulation of history and several stories or moral lessons or whatever in the Bible that are promoted as ethical, but many today would consider highly UNethical...

as a text (many versions actually) which has been used in shaping western civilization and beyond for almost two millenia, it is incredibly important in the development of ideas, religions, intellectual movements, art, and so on... it also has plenty of social significance. But as a guide to Ethics or as a piece of History, it deserves considerable academic study and criticism

"why study it?" you ask... for numerous reasons... but not as accurate History itself, nor as a universal guide to Ethics today...

The text itself is historically important to many people, but to view Genesis or Noah's ark/the flood or the divinity of Jesus as historical fact is nonsense. nor should the Bible be taken as 'God's own truth'...

I am not attempting to deny the impact of the Holy Bible on society at all...

That's what I was assuming too, I guess.
And I think it's "apocrypha" BTW.

Oh, no! I've been called a Liberal! That made my day. :laugh4:

Does this mean I have to stop being a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment? What about my stance that all government is bad government and thus the smaller the government the better? Don't "liberals" believe in big government? Of course, I am an anarchist and a socialist, so maybe that makes me a liberal? Or is it my anti-religion/anti-superstition/pro-humanism/pro-rational stance which makes me a liberal? Maybe I'm just confused... or, perhaps someone else is. :wink:

I wasn't picking on Pindar per se, I posted the foil covered cubicle pic in a perhaps misguided attempt to lighten the atmosphere in the thread before it became unnecessarily vitriolic. Then, of course, Pindar's darkness quote deserved something even sillier. Pindar can take it. He's a reasonably rational person, even if he is a Mormon. grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

goodness me, I guess I have some explaining to do regarding this point:

The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...

---

So you agree with my statement that your statement here does not make Logical sense?

Do you realize that in your attempt to explain the logic behind such a statement you have contradicted yourself throughout your post?

Answer these two questions without consideration of what document or text one is speaking about.

Is not a document worthy of discussion, review, criticism, and study make the document important?
Does that not indeed make the document a serious piece for study?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So you agree with my statement that your statement here does not make Logical sense?

---

no i do not agree... however I admit that I should have elaborated further the first time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Do you realize that in your attempt to explain the logic behind such a statement you have contradicted yourself throughout your post?

Answer these two questions without consideration of what document or text one is speaking about.

Is not a document worthy of discussion, review, criticism, and study make the document important?
Does that not indeed make the document a serious piece for study?

---

I said: (boldness added for emphasis)
"The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism..."

so I've already said that it is important for academic study. BUT it should NOT be taken seriously as an accurate historical text. It can be taken seriously on other questions such as the manipulation, abuse and misuse of History.

There is considerable historical information in the text, but the events described should never be taken as absolute fact as many do...


If you were writing a proffesional history of events of the first century CE in the Ancient Near-East, would you take the texts of the New Testament as FACT?
Would you describe Jesus as divine or the son of 'God'?
Would you use the Gospels of Judas or Thomas or James or Peter or Mary Magdelene or any of the other non-canonical Gospels as historical references for events?

I'm done with going over my previous statement, I'm not going to waste my time going back over it again if I can help it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

i am not saying that X is true because there is no proof that X is false, just that X is not necessarily false simply because there is no proof that X is true.

---

with no proof and no evidence either way - only absense of both, there are two possibilities: either deities exist or they do not... what is so wrong about the theory/belief/assumption/reasoning that they do not exist? there's no real evidence to contradict this theory, so what's the problem with it? - it's just one theory out of two possible realities... the other theory being that deities do exist

there's no logical point at all in making the assumption that deities do exist if there isn't any real evidence to base it on in the first place...

it is possible that deities exist or existed in some form somewhere somewhen, but the same can be said about the tooth-fairy and the flying spaghetti monster... that's no reason to assume they do exist or did exist some time in the past...

when the basic argument about the existence of God goes in the direction the theists want it to, it is often one nonsensical argument and conclusion after another... Sin, worship, sacrifice, repent, heaven, hell, prayer, etc, scripture, etc, dogma, etc, indoctrination, etc...

the theist argument is designed to get the 'target' to believe one illogical thing after another, starting with the existence of God/s without any evidence...

Well, they had to tell all those happy pagans something to get over the bafflement over why something called a soul needed saving in the first place you know...