Posted on 05/02/2002 6:48:03 AM PDT by handk
Is this what passes for logic in religionist circles?
So does the Bible. Actual evidence: the foundation of the tower of Babel, the walls and ruins of the city of Jericho, the non-jewish writings that support biblical places, events and persons.
There is evidence available for anyone who wishes to weigh and decide - or trivialize and ignore. You choose.
So does the Bible. Actual evidence: the foundation of the tower of Babel, the walls and ruins of the city of Jericho, the non-jewish writings that support biblical places, events and persons.
There is evidence available for anyone who wishes to weigh and decide - or trivialize and ignore. You choose.
Well, you can pick up a lot of fiction books, crime novels, for instance, that go into great detail describing real cities, buildings, cultural events, etc. But never the less the characters are fictitious or at least involved in fictitious activities. Finding that the environment describe in the fiction really exist doesn't prove that all crime novels are true stories.
Why indeed would a religion in the process of being created not allude to contemporaneous places, people, and events. All religious tomes are like that. Even Athena worshippers used existing places and things in their descriptions of her.
Is Athena proven as real because of this?
First let me say that I appreciate the intellectual honesty of your acknowledgment of your uncertainty regarding knowledge beyond that which you may currently possess. That type of honesty is often scarce around here. Man, that takes guts. I admire that.
...but so far I haven't seen any compelling evidence that suggests one.
In other words, what you are saying is that there may be a universal purpose but you just haven't seen what you regard as compelling evidence for one.
Ok, fair enough. My next statements will probably offend you, but they are not offered in that spirit nor are they intended for that purpose.
I venture to say that the evidence is all around you. There is enough of it that any certain characterization of the world which asserts that there is not enough evidence to be certain is also unjustified. There is enough to hold us accountable. Assuming that you don't believe in God, I venture to say that the only reason that you do not find the evidence for Him compelling, when you get right down to it, is because of your prior commitment to yourself autonomously as the final arbiter of truth independently from anything the Creator might have to say about the matter. Isn't that true?
You might say, "well I don't believe in your God or any god". I understand that, but that denial also evidences my assertion that when it comes to truth, your allegiance is totally and finally only to yourself apart from anything God might have to say about the subject. In other words, from my perspective, you exclude the possibility of God and anything God might have to say about what is true simply because of your apriori desire to remain independent from God. That prior commitment to your independence from God is what causes you admit or reject whatever evidence comes before you. You epistemologically filter all evidence through your allegiance to yourself so that you will admit no fact that threatens your independence from God.
Cordially,
If there is enough evidence to convince you that Athena is real, I say you should believe in her. Don't you?
Besides, RadioAstronomer was strongly suggesting - no, explicitly stating - that there was no evidence to support anything in the Bible. I was just pointing out some of the evidence he chose to ignore, not providing a comprehensive list that proves the Bible. Again, if you look at the evidence and it still doesn't convince you (or him), fine. At least your conclusions would be reached intellectually and honestly.
First let me say that I appreciate the intellectual honesty of your acknowledgment of your uncertainty regarding knowledge beyond that which you may currently possess. That type of honesty is often scarce around here. Man, that takes guts. I admire that.
So religionists hold dual standards -- Atheist's are intellectually dishonest for their "certainty", agnostics are "honest" for their uncertainty, and religionists are "honest" for their certainty. Huh?
Why indeed would a religion in the process of being created not allude to contemporaneous places, people, and events. All religious tomes are like that. Even Athena worshippers used existing places and things in their descriptions of her.
Be careful what you're admitting there, jlogajan:-) You are admitting that the accounts are relatively contemporaneous and relatively accurate regarding places, people and events. The sceptics used to intone the constsant mantra that Biblical accounts were not contemporanous or accurate regarding people, places and things. For decades they said that Biblical accounts were nothing but fables, myths and legends with no basis in fact or history.
Now if you can show that ancient Biblical writers sat around and wrote fiction in the modern entertainment sense that we think of when we think of Agatha Cristie, movie scripts or other types of fiction, have at it.
Cordially,
Re-read my post. I didn't say that agnostics are 'honest' for their uncertainty. Agnostics, to the extent that they make characterizations about the world to the effect that there is not enough evidence to be certain, are essentially being self contradictory in that they are certain of their uncertainty; they are certain that there is not enough evidence to be certain. But of course there is no way that they can possibly be certain of that.
And by the way, I don't think all 'religionists' are honest for their certainty. If the law of non-contradiction is valid, then some religionists are most certainly wrong in their certainty.
Cordially,
Actually, I didn't. I said, by analogy, that even if they were, it wouldn't prove anything about any other claim in the book.
You play with words.
All idiots.
Come again? I couldn't quite make out what you're saying "Ostrich Boy" (oh, sorry, Oztrich Boy, or did you get the spelling wrong because you're dumbed down?). Head stuck in the sand? Pull your head out of the sand and maybe I can make out what you're saying.
As any lawyer would inform you, you're arguing the "left side" of the issue, and you're wholly "off-point."
That's because you are spritually blind. "None are so blind as those that cannot see."
You act as if someone is trying to hide this theory from you and your children.
Please, by all means, have your kids learn all about creationism -- in the proper place -- Sunday school.
Now leave the rest of us out of it.
Well, "Motherhood IS a career", thank God I wasn't born to a cold, paganistic, empty-soul carcass like you. I pity your children. I have no pity for you though, you've sealed your fate with a double-riveted steel door.
None other than high priest Richard Dawkins says that we live in a universe in which there is "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
"Richard Dawkins" does not equal "evolution". The fact that he excludes purpose is not the same as evolution doing so.
Yet another example of a hauty arrogant religionist bashing someone with common sense. Just because someone isn't Christian doesn't make them a bad parent. Just because someone wants their children to have a good education in the science classroom does not make them an "empty-soul carcass". BTW, what fate has she sealed?
What a pathetic personal attack.
Nor is it a "religion" that requires "faith".
How about a million to prove creation?
There are no scientifically provable facts to support the theory of evolution. There is no proof of any kind that supports evolution. The theory of evolution is based upon a sea of lies, distortions, misinformation, and out-right deception.
For the past 100 years, the theory of evolution has been pushed, sustained, and held up for "useful idiots" like you for the sole purpose and agenda of "plausible denial." Plausible denial that you are a child of God. Plausible denial so that you can comfortably live a life of delusional hedonism, guilt-free.
Proof of creationism? Look in the mirror, smell a rose, watch a sunset, eat a good meal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.