*************
M*W: I'm curious as to why christians restrict their own access to extra-biblical reading material? Many times most of us have posted bibliographies or websites as references, but how many times have christians actually looked up the references or made an effort to read them? They don't as a rule, and it becomes impossible to have a discussion with them about issues they refuse to know about much less crack a book other than their bible.

As atheists, we read their bible, and we are more familiar with it than even they are. What is it that they fear about learning?

All religionists and atheists please reply.

*************
M*W: I'm curious as to why christians restrict their own access to extra-biblical reading material? Many times most of us have posted bibliographies or websites as references, but how many times have christians actually looked up the references or made an effort to read them? They don't as a rule, and it becomes impossible to have a discussion with them about issues they refuse to know about much less crack a book other than their bible.

As atheists, we read their bible, and we are more familiar with it than even they are. What is it that they fear about learning?

All religionists and atheists please reply.

they are afraid to learn that they could be wrong. Imagine following your life a God and than learning through logic...that he does not exist? what will be of you? left of you when last minutes of life come?

I've wondered about that sometimes too. I'm hardly a scholar in the ways of religions, but I like to think that I am open to learning from different sources. Quite a few theists that I've come across online and in person don't seem to be as open. Maybe it's just a mindset that some people have, like when you see pundits on television denounce a film, song, show, or book without actually watching, reading, or listening to it.

Even theists who do read secular/atheist proposals arnt going to be swayed by them particularly anyway.
I believe its called cognitive dissonance (learnt that word recently) whereby your prior beliefs or biases will cause you mentally blot out what doesnt fit into your world view.
Almost everyone bar none is guilty of this, part of the human condition.
The good thing is whether youre consciously aware of it or not, the new contradictory information has been soaked up and if a critical mass is reached will force a person to change their beliefs. This is never done mid-argument though, enough time has to pass so that the individual can convince him/herself that they have changed their own mind.
Im quite sure ive done this myself too.

*************
M*W: I'm curious as to why christians restrict their own access to extra-biblical reading material? Many times most of us have posted bibliographies or websites as references, but how many times have christians actually looked up the references or made an effort to read them? They don't as a rule, and it becomes impossible to have a discussion with them about issues they refuse to know about much less crack a book other than their bible.

As atheists, we read their bible, and we are more familiar with it than even they are. What is it that they fear about learning?

All religionists and atheists please reply.

Depends on the Christian whether they actually open a book. Evangelicals are far less likely to do so, for example. However, even when they do, it's not likely to change much. Helio is very much on the mark concerning cognitive dissonance. Many people refuse to question the validity of their "security blanket," and, as such, are incapable of comprehending anything that threatens to invalidate their beliefs. I sincerely hope that my errors in that field are minimized, but even with a great deal of introspective examination, it can be hard to tell.

they are afraid to learn that they could be wrong. Imagine following your life following a God and than learning through logic...that he does not exist? what will beome of you? left of you when last minutes of life come?this is exactly what M*W did, and 99% of all atheist.
at the end, you just cease to exist, what's to be afraid of.

I've wondered about that sometimes too. I'm hardly a scholar in the ways of religions, but I like to think that I am open to learning from different sources. Quite a few theists that I've come across online and in person don't seem to be as open. Maybe it's just a mindset that some people have, like when you see pundits on television denounce a film, song, show, or book without actually watching, reading, or listening to it.it all boils dont to under-educated ignorance.

Even theists who do read secular/atheist proposals arn't going to be swayed by them particularly anyway.
I believe its called cognitive dissonance (learnt that word recently) whereby your prior beliefs or biases will cause you mentally blot out what doesnt fit into your world view.
Almost everyone bar none is guilty of this, part of the human condition.then we would never have any atheists would we. but admittedly atheist do struggle against the indoctrination they recieved. brainwashing is much harder to remove, from you mind, than something you've learnt via your own free will.
The good thing is whether youre consciously aware of it or not, the new contradictory information has been soaked up and if a critical mass is reached will force a person to change their beliefs. This is never done mid-argument though, enough time has to pass so that the individual can convince him/herself that they have changed their own mind.exactly, you realise you've been lied too, and through study conclude the real truth. and when you hit that point, it's wonderful.

this is exactly what M*W did, and 99% of all atheist.
at the end, you just cease to exist, what's to be afraid of.



Because the end is the another beginning. No I dont cease to exist. And yes I am afraid that I might be wrong, not of death itself.

might you educate me, fill in the gaps of the supposedly mine under-educated ignorance. ?dont understand the question, it was in reply to boss foxx.
under-educated ignorance is just that if people dont take the time to learn about a subject, they will always remain ignorant of it.

Because the end is the another beginning. No I dont cease to exist. And yes I am afraid that I might be wrong, not of death itself.if believing you have another beginning, or that you dont cease to exist, and that makes you happy, thats fine.
I just gave my opinion, as an atheist, I have no belief in an afterlife.

dont understand the question, it was in reply to boss foxx.
under-educated ignorance is just that if people dont take the time to learn about a subject, they will always remain ignorant of it.

I erased the message, bc I realized it...yet you replied to it...:bugeye:

One of Christianity's worse ideals is that of FAITH.

To me, faith is a grave sin, but for christianity it is essential for its survival.

The faithful mentality doesnt seek out other angles or evidence, and therefore limits its reading only to whatever supports itself.

H.P. Lovecraft wrote:

"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences. With such an honest and inflexible openness to evidence, they could not fail to receive any real truth which might be manifesting itself around them. The fact that religionists do not follow this honourable course, but cheat at their game by invoking juvenile quasi-hypnosis, is enough to destroy their pretensions in my eyes, even if their absurdity were not manifest in every other direction."

I probably read alot more non Biblical materal than you do Med Woman, and the same can be said of millions of Christians I'm sure.

this is exactly what M*W did, and 99% of all atheist.
at the end, you just cease to exist, what's to be afraid of.

it all boils dont to under-educated ignorance.
I dont think you can really just put it down to lack of education, alot of christians ive met and have know are incredibly well educated and seemingly intelligent. I think its more about the attractiveness of an idea and how it effects you as opposed to any inherent ignorance.


exactly, you realise you've been lied too, and through study conclude the real truth. and when you hit that point, it's wonderful.

Ahh careful though, thats how you fall into the trap in the first place! :p
As soon as youre positive that youre in possesion of the real, absolute, undeniable truth youre practically self-indoctrinating.

I'm curious as to why christians restrict their own access to extra-biblical reading material?

What evidence do you have for implying/making that assertion?

I mean, are talking about only a few Christians that you know, or are you trying to imply that all Christians restrict their reading material?

Baron Max

They regard it as heresy, deceitful words written by the great deceiver:rolleyes: ho hum.

Most christians are not interested in learning anything about their religion apart from what is interpreted by their ministers and here I'm talking of Evangelicals and suchlike 'born again' types of christianity, but at least they have bible study and try to learn interpreting for themselves.

In Cyprus the Greeks are Orthodox Christians and most of them never even read their bible, their faith is based on nothing more than tradition and 'belief' and the fact that they were baptised as babies. They know their rituals, like when to cross themselves, stand up and sit down during a particular sermon, but don't ask them to explain why they do it. The biggest hypocrites are the people that cross themselves every time they drive by a church, on their way to con some poor sucker in the execution of their daily business.

You do not have to believe in god to be a christian, it is just a word which believe means to help your neighbour and do deent things for people.

Baron Max: What evidence do you have for implying/making that assertion?

I mean, are talking about only a few Christians that you know, or are you trying to imply that all Christians restrict their reading material?

*************
M*W: I made that assertion based on the christians who post on this forum. (Not all maybe, but some). Their posts seem as if they have never read anything other than the bible. It seems to me that they are limited in the ability to discuss certain aspects or issues of christianity, and I think it is due to the lack of extrabiblical research.

As far as those christians I know in the real world, I avoid them, because they are so strongly trying to save my soul that they become annoying.
The christians I know in the real world don't read anything other than the bible or bible-related literature so they can confirm what they already believe. That was the point of my question.

Med Woman, where do you live, behind a Bible warehouse or something?

IAC: I probably read alot more non Biblical materal than you do Med Woman, and the same can be said of millions of Christians I'm sure.

*************
M*W: I doubt that. I've posted numerous bibliographies of well-documented extra-biblical research I have read and commented on here on sciforums. However, now that you've said you probably read more non-biblical material than I have, I'd like to see your bibliographies.

There's hundreds if not thousands of them.

Put it this way Med Woman, I read books and articles about four hours a day, and it's not Biblically based material.

*************
M*W: I'm curious as to why christians restrict their own access to extra-biblical reading material? Many times most of us have posted bibliographies or websites as references, but how many times have christians actually looked up the references or made an effort to read them? They don't as a rule, and it becomes impossible to have a discussion with them about issues they refuse to know about much less crack a book other than their bible.

As atheists, we read their bible, and we are more familiar with it than even they are. What is it that they fear about learning?

All religionists and atheists please reply.

I've also wondered why most christians don't even read books written by their own scholars such a St. Augustin. No idea though.

St. Augustin, I think he's the Roman Catholic who came to England and slaughtered the Christians who were already there, and destroyed their ancient records.

IAC: Put it this way Med Woman, I read books and articles about four hours a day, and it's not Biblically based material.

*************
M*W: Fine. I want to see your vast bibliographies, or at least a thorough sampling of them. Everytime I've been asked for such a list, I've provided it. I expect you to back up your claim that your read hundreds of thousands of non-biblical material. What kind of non-biblical reading material do you read? I want to see the list.

Are you kidding me?

IAC: Are you kidding me?

*************
M*W: No, I am NOT kidding. Show your vast reading list.

Let's do it this way Med Woman, you go google all the extra-Biblical information which I've cited in many of my posts, and then maybe you'll run across from where I got the info. If you think I'm going to sit here and type in every book and article which I've read through recent years, you're nuts.

Not even the top 10?

We are not talking fiction novels here IAC. Nor documents from work, or the such, but philosophical works, either by theist or atheists!

Medicine Woman -

You obviously had a response planned before asking the question, so why bother asking it?

There are quite a few mentions of some of the volumes which I have read in my posts, go check them, and why don't you people present all the volumes which have brought you to your levels of intellectual acumen?

This thread is absurd. America is eighty percent Christian. Are you saying eighty percent of the population reads nothing but the bible?

I thought her intent was to discuss things like historical-based critiques of Christianity and such, rather than "Frankenstein" and "Nineteen Eighty-Four".

IAC: Let's do it this way Med Woman, you go google all the extra-Biblical information which I've cited in many of my posts, and then maybe you'll run across from where I got the info. If you think I'm going to sit here and type in every book and article which I've read through recent years, you're nuts.

*************
M*W: That's because you don't read. You're a liar. If you can't make a simple bibliography, you don't have one. I knew you would end up dodging this. Typical christian. Typical ignorant christian.

MAW: This thread is absurd. America is eighty percent Christian. Are you saying eighty percent of the population reads nothing but the bible?

*************
M*W: Could you provide your source for 80% of the American population is christian?

Just out of curiosity, what does Sunday schooling entail?

Just out of curiosity, what does Sunday schooling entail?

Singing.

Singing.

:rolleyes:
one more:

is there a class taught in religious ethics in schools in the US?

stories with morals, from religious sources?

In American universities or in American highschools, SamCDKey?

In universities, yes. In highschools, no (which aren't religious).

There have been internal conflicts with every religion (involving war sometimes) since the beginning of religion. Someone always says: "No, that's bullshit. I starting my own religion, or sect of this relgion." And thus for every interpretation of the Bible which exists (millions upon millions) there is another minister's opinion, and another sect. This sect may be highly conservate, or highly extreme (suicide bombing, fasting for months, etc.).

In history, we know that for thousands of years the Catholic Church was literally a joke. It was solely in existence to give the priests, bishops, and popes more and more power and money. The pope and the emperor were fighting for overall rule of the empire for years. What a joke.

The point is, everyone has a different interpretation of the scriptures, and a different opinion or judgment on how to apply what is taught in the scriptures. So the result is millions of sects of religions which all think they are 100% true, when this is highly unlikely.

In American universities or in American highschools, SamCDKey?

In universities, yes. In highschools, no (which aren't religious).

In high schools.

If they are not taught ethics from a religious standpoint, are they taught it from a secular standpoint?

(PS My school for example taught a class in moral science using stories based on characters from all religions)

IAC: Let's do it this way Med Woman, you go google all the extra-Biblical information which I've cited in many of my posts, and then maybe you'll run across from where I got the info. If you think I'm going to sit here and type in every book and article which I've read through recent years, you're nuts.

*************
M*W: I did just that, and this is what I found in all your vast hundreds of thousands of extra-biblical research:

After the Flood, by William Cooper (accounts of dragons in the last 2000 years found all over the world and in "official government records.")

The Genesis Flood, by Henry M. Morris (no description)0

Cities in the Sea, by Nick Fleming, 1971. (megalithic ruins)

Starlight and Time, by Russell Humphries (gravitational time dilation during creation)

Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, by Charles Hapgood (ice age shorelines)

Bones of Contention, by Gary Cuozzo (a dentist who wrote that homo erectus and Neanderthals were humans)

The Children of the Sun, by Perry (no description).

Barely a handful, and NONE of these works involved biblical research by biblical scholars and archeologists.

My point stands. You do no extra-biblical reading or research. You claim to be a geologist, a graduate from Dartmouth College, and the works you've cited above all deal with your professional work. This is not what I was talking about, and you know it. You thought you could dodge this one, but you didn't. You might be a geologist, but you are no scholar in christianity.

Where are your hundreds of thousands of extra-biblical research?

In high schools.

If they are not taught ethics from a religious standpoint, are they taught it from a secular standpoint?

(PS My school for example taught a class in moral science using stories based on characters from all religions)

Parents have the responsibility to teach ethics.

Medicine Woman:

He is a graduate from Dartmouth. I've called them up and checked.

Parents have the responsibility to teach ethics.

One hopes the parents are equipped to do so, it is, however, a social responsibility to ensure ethical citizens.

PJ: Medicine Woman:

He is a graduate from Dartmouth. I've called them up and checked.

*************
M*W: I don't doubt his professional knowledge, I doubt his scholarly research in christianity.

One hopes the parents are equipped to do so, it is, however, a social responsibility to ensure ethical citizens.

What is ethical though?

*************
M*W: Could you provide your source for 80% of the American population is christian?'
Heres one:
Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html
another, but this one is mostly about religion in general:
Americans remain a people of great faith: 95 percent believe in God and just 11 percent have no religious affiliation, according to a survey released yesterday by Baylor University.http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060911-103338-8995r.htm
And this from a table on demographics in the USA in the ever popular Wikipedia:
Total Christian 79.8%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

SamCDKey:

Public highschools rarely, if ever, have a philosophy class, let alone one devoted purely to ethics.

Maybe one in ten private schools might have philosophy in highschool.

Religious private schools - mostly Catholic and such - generally do have moral education classes, where they discuss ethics from a religious and philosophical standpoint.

All colleges and universities that aren't specialized have philosophy and ethics classes.

The polls above are good examples of the incomplete results you can get from using small sample sizes, which don't effectively filter out accidental trends and biases (for instance, time of day or day of the poll call can have a greater likelihood of reaching a particular demographic over another).

The ABCNews.com poll sampled 1,022 adults. The Washington Times poll sampled 1,721 adults.

To be sure, the number of religiously deluded adults in the United States is high, particularly those that follow the various Christian cults or simply self-identify as "Christian." However, the data are far more interesting when larger sample sizes are used and more effective questions are utilized in the methodology. I recommend anyone truly interested in such demographics to look at the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) conducted in 2001 by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

The ARIS study sampled 50,281 housholds, replicating a 1999 study conducted by the Graduate Center. These two studies showed some interesting trends.


the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001
the greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001
although the number of adults who classify themselves in non-Christian religious groups has increased from about 5.8 million to about 7.7 million, the proportion of non-Christians has increased only by a very small amount - from 3.3 % to about 3.7 %


The number of people afflicted with the Christian mind virus in the United States is still abnormally large, and a many of hypotheses have been put forth to explain this. The most likely, to me, is the fact that we have a tradition of religious freedom which gives economic and governmental incentives and breaks for religious organizations. These organizations generally prosper quite well and are full-fledge corporations (tax-free) whose "CEOs" live lavish lifestyles and whose marketing directors are even willing to go so far as to have McDonalds and Starbucks as vendors in their mega-mall, mega-churches as a means to encourage people to attend.

Another hypothesis for the existence of so many different christian cults in the U.S. is that they cater to a need to socialize.

ARIS (2001). American Religious Identification Survey (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm). The Graduate Center for the City University of New York.

Hey Skin, if the Christian "mind virus" has swept America, what's the disease called which has swept the Middle East?

And what is a "mind virus," do you have a reference for that?

The polls above are good examples of the incomplete results you can get from using small sample sizes, which don't effectively filter out accidental trends and biases (for instance, time of day or day of the poll call can have a greater likelihood of reaching a particular demographic over another).

The ABCNews.com poll sampled 1,022 adults. The Washington Times poll sampled 1,721 adults.
I recommend anyone truly interested in such demographics to look at the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) conducted in 2001 by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

The ARIS study sampled 50,281 housholds, replicating a 1999 study conducted by the Graduate Center. These two studies showed some interesting trends.

[LIST]
the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001

Dude, small sample sizes or no, the figure I quoted was 80 percent. The figure you quoted from your more accurate survey was 77 percent, which rounds to 80%. Big difference there.

The trends were the important parts of my post. No one disputes that religious nutters are a large portion of the U.S. population. Its a fact painfully aware to the world. It makes us the laughing stock of the global community.

Hey Skin, if the Christian "mind virus" has swept America, what's the disease called which has swept the Middle East?

And what is a "mind virus," do you have a reference for that?your suffering with the very disease (called religion, sub named xianity, in the middle east sub named islam) you wont understand you've had it, until your cured. that is the nature of the beast.
a mind virus is religious blind faith/delusion.

So that includes Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism (which is a faith, the faith that there is no God), and all the other religions, which is therefore almost everybody, so Skin, if you leave the faith of Atheism, what do you go to next?

SkinWalker:

The trends were the important parts of my post. No one disputes that religious nutters are a large portion of the U.S. population. Its a fact painfully aware to the world. It makes us the laughing stock of the global community.

I am aware of no nation that laughs at the United States for being religious, considering that religious people are in the majority (even if perhaps not zealously) in most countries, and in world population, only 3 percent are Atheistic, and 14 percent non-religious.

Religion, being popular, is not truly a world-wide ridiculed affiliation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Demographics

lol! atheism a Faith, lol! again, you people are so funny. roflmao!
take a look in the dictionary, you might get a surprise.
we can have faith in a thing, yes but that does not make it a "Faith" per se.
lol! lol! lol! you people are so funny.

Wow, geeser, get a nerve hit? It takes wondrous faith to "know that there is no God," Atheism is the king of necessitated faith!!!!!

In fact, I'll venture to say that professing Atheists, who say that they know that there is no God, are liars, as they cannot possibly know that God doesn't exist, and they know that.

In fact, I'll venture to say that professing Atheists, who say that they know that there is no God, are liars, as they cannot possibly know that God doesn't exist, and they know that.no atheist actually says there is no god, what they do say is it is unreasonable to believe there is a god, it would be infantile to say there is no god, as you could never be a 100% sure, we could not look under all the nooks and crannies in the universe, but you can be 99.9%, just as I could never for sure know there wasn't a big giant bumble bee living on the dark side of the moon.
it is therefore unreasonable to belief gods exist.

no atheist actually says there is no god, what they do say is it is unreasonable to believe there is a god, it would be infantile to say there is no god, as you could never be a 100% sure, ....

Ye're describing an agnostic, not an atheist.

Baron Max

Ye're describing an agnostic, not an atheist.

Baron Max

No an agnostic believes nothing, an atheist doesn't believe in god(s). No knowing.

I read extra-biblical sources, chemistry, geology, history, astronomy, culture, psychology usually textbooks. I find the best sources believe in god, it is far more usefull understanding then just accepting!

Ye're describing an agnostic, not an atheist.

Baron Max
no I have'nt check the sticky http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.




If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

thus the burden of proof must fall on the shoulders of the person claiming a thing exists.

I believe its called cognitive dissonance (learnt that word recently) whereby your prior beliefs or biases will cause you mentally blot out what doesnt fit into your world view.

Unfortunately, an atheists utter contempt for religion can also blind them to even the remote possibilty that the Bible can be true.

*************
M*W: Let me rephrase the question:

"Why do christians not read the research of biblical scholars and archeologists?"

Many claim they read extra-biblical materials, but they are unable to discuss or comment on any parallel research. What are they afraid of? (The truth?)!

That's so silly Med Woman.

Unfortunately, an atheists utter contempt for religion can also blind them to even the remote possibilty that the Bible can be true.

Parts of it, or the whole thing literally true?

Which "parts of it," James R, do you think are true?

Unfortunately, an atheists utter contempt for religion can also blind them to even the remote possibilty that the Bible can be true.


Perhaps it's their disdain for the nature of god in the bible that disturbs them.
As a "god believer", I know it disturbs me.

Many gods and goddesses have been created by mankind to represent the supreme being and Yahweh is one of the most contadictory and cruel. Some good qualities, but too much of a dark sinister nature for me to embrace. I chose the Goddess Aset (the goddess of wisdom in ancient egypt). Many good qualities and teachings minus the heinous evil acts committed by some other gods.

Hey James R, where'd you go?

Which "parts of it," the Bible, are true to you?

what's your definition of true?

So where did you get the idea that King David is an historical figure, hmmmmm?

See, bitching and moaning as usual.

So where did you get the idea that King David is an historical figure, hmmmmm?

*************
M*W: I, personally, do not believe he was an historical figure. I believe he was a mythological and metaphoral character of the zodiac. (Not that I believe in astrotheology as anything other than the original religion). However, I still read what biblical scholars and archeologists have to say in their research which is contrary to what the bible says about him. I'll form my final opinion when I feel I have gone as far as I can go with the credible research of the scholars.

First you say he existed, now you say you don't know, please get your story straight.

First you say he existed, now you say you don't know, please get your story straight.

*************
M*W: I quoted from a biblical scholar who believed he existed. Just because I don't believe he did, I still have respect for the research of credible scholars. Therefore, I cite references... something you know nothing about.

Where is your reference that Solomon and David were supposedly ancestors of Moses?

Dig up your own shit man!! That's how most of us learn!!

*************
The christians I know in the real world don't read anything other than the bible or bible-related literature so they can confirm what they already believe.

Many of the Christians I know in the real world hold advanced degrees in a variety of disciplines, including physics, philosophy, history, mathematics, biology, psychology, and economics.

On the other hand, I know plenty of atheists and agnostics in the real world who are semiliterate, crack whores, and/or petty internet trolls.

Well done Nutter.

Many of the Christians I know in the real world hold advanced degrees in a variety of disciplines, including physics, philosophy, history, mathematics, biology, psychology, and economics.

On the other hand, I know plenty of atheists and agnostics in the real world who are semiliterate, crack whores, and/or petty internet trolls.

As smart as these learned christians may be.Can any of them provide EMPIRICAL evidence the bible is the word of god?? No, just more preaching and relying on blind faith. Blind faith that is tearing the world apart as the rest of us are caught between two groups of abrahamic nutheads ready to square off .

I am a Christian, and I speak for myself here.

"why Christians restrict their own access to extra-biblical reading material?"

I used to read "extra-biblical" material with great interest. Then I wandered from the faith for about 7 years (or something like that). Then, I returned. And I have reached a point where it does not interest me to read extra-biblical material. I will explain it like this - I have reached a point where my heart has eclipsed my mind. A non-believer will likely say that I am brainwashed. That term is as good as any. I spend my time seeking revelation from God, from the Word of God. I am at a point where the opinions of man do not matter on certain subjects. I will attempt to explain something, but find it difficult to find adequate words because it is often something that I have experienced that makes me believe a certain thing. If the person I am talking to has not had the same experiences, it is hard communicate the idea. It’s like trying to explain how chocolate tastes to someone that has never had it. So, I see little point in reading other material at this point in life – because the information is …empty of meaning. Perhaps many Christians are this way.

"how many times have Christians actually looked up the references or made an effort to read them? "

The above addresses this question.

"What is it that they fear about learning?"

I do not fear learning. In fact, I crave it. But it is not knowledge that you can not give references for or easily put into words - or at least I can't. I find it easier to express myself in art.

I understand that this way of thinking (or being) makes dialogue between what we call believers and non-believers difficult. I think many Christians are not in touch with this concept. We sometimes feel something so strongly, yet are unable to make others understand. Have you ever seen a foreigner that does not speak the language well become frustrated because he cannot communicate? It’s sometimes like that. I think this is why Jesus taught in parables – it makes it easier to wrap your mind around a concept that sometimes…transcends what we concider to be logic. Hopefully, this helps answer some of your questions.

If I were to paraphrase the poster above, I'd say that those that believe are satisfied with their beliefs and not interested in challenging them. Most believers don't even critically review intra-biblical sources, so extra-biblical primary sources are not even considered.

Satisfaction comes from the answers they get from religious leaders and mentors and little motivation exists to look further.

The poster above likens his "knowledge" to the attempt in explaining the taste of chocolate to a person who's never tried it, but the correct analogy is the chocolate lover who has never tried or experienced vanilla, cherry, tutti-fruiti, caramel, strawberry, etc. That person knows and loves chocolate, but will never be able to compare chocolate to other flavors. Perhaps it doesn't compare at all. Perhaps his devotion to chocolate was in no danger. The chocolate lover remains ignorant all the same.

Ultimately, analogies like these fail, so I'll pursue it no further. Religious adherence isn't an affinity to sweets. Christianity isn't chocolate.

Religion is, however, a big business. And like all businesses, it behooves those in charge of marketing to create a brand -particularly one that others will quickly identify with. Christianity is a brand. And people rarely employ empiricism and reason with regard to brand loyalty. They're told its more effective than the leading brand; that it offers more for less; that results are better -the advertising is top-notch and the pressure to keep buying great.

The product is alleged to be "salvation," "ever-lasting life" and so on.

Let me be clear: I've not simply made analogy to big-business. Religion *is* big-business in every way.

Good post skinwalker. I see no points on which I disagree. But I would like to respond to a few things. Skinwalker said, "…Satisfaction comes from the answers they get from religious leaders and mentors and little motivation exists to look further…."

What you said here is true. But this type of satisfaction would be like the way you feel after a drink of water. You have had something to drink and are no longer thirsty. But in time, you will be. It is my opinion that some religious leaders exploit this, and manage their ministry in a way that encourages the believer to drink from the religious leader's hand/cup - it keeps 'em coming back for more (so you can get more of their money). This relates to what you were saying about religion being big business. But this is improper Christianity. As Christ said to the woman at the well, "drink of me and you will thirst no more". This goes beyond satisfaction. It speaks of the type of answers that result in fulfillment. This is why we have that saying that sounds so silly to some - Jesus is the answer. No preacher or mentor can provide that. Such a thing must come by revelation - God revealing Himself to you personally (not through another - a preacher or mentor). I don't mean to ramble, or preach. I am trying to answer Medicine*Woman's questions and help her understand the issues.

Also, Skinwalker said, "...Christianity isn't chocolate...". I understand your point there. And I will add to that by saying that the kingdom of God is NOT a mustard seed…it is like one.

As smart as these learned christians may be.Can any of them provide EMPIRICAL evidence the bible is the word of god??


Please explain how one would go about providing empirical evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

If the evidence existed, it could be shown. If, however, the bible was invented and a magical, non-existent being were attributed to it, obviously no evidence will be forth-coming.

If the evidence existed, it could be shown. If, however, the bible was invented and a magical, non-existent being were attributed to it, obviously no evidence will be forth-coming.


What is the criteria that must be fulfilled for a piece of evidence to qualify in this context?

Most Christians are well read, and can seperate the spiritual and enlightened from the religious.

These are two very different things.

Christianity is in the heart, and a very personal relationship between ones self, and ones maker,

Religion is a man made doctrine, only providing a place for others of the same belief to show their faith.

Religion is Church business each having a structured church policy or belief that the patrons follow or agree upon. A Church is a building made of rocks and or boards.

Spiritualism, enlightenment, or the inner spirit has nothing to do with organized man made church rules and beliefs.

The essence of what we are is a personal unique thing inside each one of us.

Having said that, then for one to say that most Christians dont, or wont look at other evidence or material is pretty narrow or niave?

It could be they are so enlightened that biblical cannon is enough?

The bible is a wonderful moral outline saving one many pitfalls in life, for some people this is self evident, and enough!

It would be admirable to say the least to have a faith so strong that this is all that is needed to sustain one through the passage of their existance in time.

Most of us could only dream of such a child like unconditional faith.

If the question then becomes one of empirical evidence then one must realize that evidence is only required by those who dont believe, or understand.

A parallel to this could be explained as: The law isnt written for those that keep it, its for those that do not.

Is then the bible for those that dont believe or understand? The truth is a "well" man needs no doctor, so to speak!

Interesting comparision to look at and ponder anyway.

As one becomes well read and somewhat seasoned in these matters then enlightenment will answer many of our unanswered questions in life.

However, true enlightenment is almost, if not always, found through the hardship!

Stereotyping a "Christian"?

Crows are blackbirds, but not all blackbirds are crows!

;)

Magnus

Please explain how one would go about providing empirical evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

Here's the definition....Empirical:a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

So therefore in this case, either direct visible observation (not just detected by one's intuition or dreams),or repeatable verifiable communications with people who have passed on to the afterlife.

1)Spiritualism, enlightenment, or the inner spirit has nothing to do with organized man made church rules and beliefs.


2)The bible is a wonderful moral outline saving one many pitfalls in life, for some people this is self evident, and enough!


3)If the question then becomes one of empirical evidence then one must realize that evidence is only required by those who dont believe, or understand.




On point 1) ..I agree.

2)While I see some good parables and passages that seem spiritual in nature,large sections of the bible contain horrific actions attributed to God. He is shown to be a god of war,a cursing,jealous,vengefull god full of hate many times(especially the OT).

3) Don't agree. The "don't understand " is a cop-out. It's the usual "out of context", or "we don't have the right to question Yahwehs' plan or methods",even when many christians read these disturbing parts of the bible they seem to conveniantly try to brush it away.

What is the criteria that must be fulfilled for a piece of evidence to qualify in this context?

The same as the requirements for evidence of any other positive claim. I fail to see what the difficulty is. Are you not familiar with the requirements of evidence in scientific discovery? Do the words reproducible and verifiable mean anything to you? Does the concept of hypothetico-deductive methodology mean anything?

Or is this just a word game whereas the christian attempts to point out such evidence cannot be expected from a work of literature so old? If so, you're wasting your time since epigraphy has long been used in archaeology to test the veracity of claims. But then, the claim here is that the bible was divinely written. So the evidence would lie elsewhere. We might then deduce what characteristics aren't in the bible if it were divinely inspired, eh? Perhaps that would be a way to start the game.

What characteristics would the bible *not* have if it were the true word of god?

I'm guessing inconsistencies and falsehoods (either intentional or unintentional). I'm guessing accuracy in place names with respect to geography and chronology -and this accuracy should be 100% given that the book is alleged to be written by a god.

There are other characteristics that should/should not be present. Perhaps others could chime in and name a few and then we could start a new thread on "Was the bible divinely inspired by god?"

Most Christians are well read, and can seperate the spiritual and enlightened from the religious.

I disagree and should like to see data supporting this point before moving on to your remaining points. I don't think the Tim Lahaye books can be considered well-read, by the way. But by well-read do you mean in general or do you mean in spiritual/religious works. If the latter, do you mean that christians are also well-read in the works of authors that have spiritual/religious beliefs that are other than christian (i.e. Buddhist, Islamic, and Secular Humanist works)?

Finally, what data allows you to make the statement "Christians are well read?" Is there a PEW study or a Barna Group poll that I'm unaware of? Could you share this reference?

I understand. I use to have enough time to read a wide variety of material that is out there. I liked the books like “Enoch” that where part of the scrolls recovered in the Qumran findings called the "DEAD SEA SCROLLS".

Why the powers to be decided that some books were okay for our present day canon we call the modern bible, and some were not is beyond me.

It may have presented a very different picture of the Earth, and man in the time of Genesis.

It is well known many leaders and rulers, as well as the religious clerical powers to be over a long period manipulated these works.

“Back to my comment on the Book of “Enoch”;

I think you can find a copy of this book and others if you type in a inquiry in your search engine.

It is shown in the bible men such as Moses who question God and his decisions.

Like Moses asking why God waited till he was an old man to ask him to deliver his people from Egypt.

I think its okay to question. We were given our own intelligents and should discern all information.

The reference material for this should come from authentic sources, not books from people making their own conclusions.

Reading other people’s comments are a good way to get another point of view, but in my opinion if you want to know about something go to the source.

If you are studying Christianity then get the actual books and records, then conclude truth for yourself based on known records, or all that is know of them.

Try to find copies of the other books and scrolls found, as well as other records from known civilizations like the Assyrian text and such.

I have a program that will translate Hebrew and the Greek text from there original writings to English.

I get something very different from many passages than those who translated our modern bible.

It doesn’t change the message of the scripture in the end, but how it is concluded can be very different at many turns in study.

My final comment would be that it is easy to over complicate all of this.

It’s a pretty clear and simplistic message in my opinion.

That of course is all any of us have is our own opinion and how we conclude our understanding of materials and subject matter we may study and ponder.

Once it was a Empirical fact that the earth was flat, now it is round.

Take care

The Christians that I know are very familiar with historical documents and archeological finds ect., as well as other spiritual and religious doctrines.

There isn’t just one correct answer that satisfies all controversy! Just as there are many roads into the city, not just one takes you there.

To study the primary known source findings authenticated as authentic, such as the books found in The Dead Sea Scrolls.

"Example", to study things like the Flood in other records such as the Assyrian records ect..

This is what I meant about being fairly well read on what is known of the source findings authenticated concerning the modern Christian bible, their beliefs, and culture.

There are still those that are sharp enough to make argument about any subject. Some just like to see their name in writing.

I would like to say that for me when you pick the petals off the flower to find out why its beautiful you find a dead plant.

A passive observation!

Magnus

As smart as these learned christians may be.Can any of them provide EMPIRICAL evidence the bible is the word of god??


Why would one do that???

Why would one do that???

Simple.
So, that people who have the nerve to preach hellfire(like Billy /Franklin Graham) and that it's the "only true religion", can convince the rest of us that the bible is the word of god (which it isn't of course).
Otherwise they can all shut their big yaps!:p

If the evidence existed, it could be shown. If, however, the bible was invented and a magical, non-existent being were attributed to it, obviously no evidence will be forth-coming.

"Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility...

In general, a witness is competent if he meets four requirements:

1. He must, with understanding, take the oath or a substitute. Evid. Code §§ 710, 701; Fed. Rules Evid. 603.

2. He must have personal knowledge about the subject of his testimony. In other words, the witness must have perceived something with his senses that is relevant to the case. Evid. Code § 702; Fed. Rules Evid. 602.

3. He must remember what he perceived.

4. He must be able to communicate what he perceived. Evid. Code § 701(a)(1)."

Source: A SUMMARY OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:
THE ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR SURVIVAL IN THE COURTROOM
By Vincent DiCarlo

"Dear brothers and sisters, I solemnly assure you that the Good News of salvation which I preach is not based on mere human reasoning or logic...For my message came by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ himself. No one else taught me...

I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me...

I (the Apostle Paul) say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost...

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not...

Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not...

(I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not)...

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began...

That by two immutable things (His Word and Promise), in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us..."

"Testimonial evidence is the most basic form of evidence and the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility...

In science, mere testimony is the absolute worst form of evidence, particularly if there are no independent verifiers. This is because people are obviously subject to personal biases, agendas, political purpose, pre-conceived conclusions to which they refuse to acknowledge any additional data, embellishments, misunderstood or misperceived observations, etc, etc., etc....

Dismissed.

Source: A SUMMARY OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:
THE ESSENTIAL TOOLS FOR SURVIVAL IN THE COURTROOM
By Vincent DiCarlo


Well, as you mention courtrooms - it's worth pointing out that the testimony of one person is meaningless..

{Judge} Did you abuse kids

{M.J} No *does a swivel while holding nutsack*

{Judge} You're free to go.

See how silly that is?

In science, mere testimony is the absolute worst form of evidence, particularly if there are no independent verifiers. This is because people are obviously subject to personal biases, agendas, political purpose, pre-conceived conclusions to which they refuse to acknowledge any additional data, embellishments, misunderstood or misperceived observations, etc, etc., etc....

Dismissed.

"In science" huh?

Well, the discerning reader would understand I am not 'talking' "in science", I am 'talking' The Word of God Incarnate...IN CHRIST... YHWH (who is Spirit) and Man (Made in God's Image) in relationship--the interaction between essences of that which truly defines us (whether God or Man)... i.e. that which is Spiritual.

"Science" is powerless--too 'weak' if you will--to measure/make sense of things in this realm (the spiritual). Indeed, it is simply inadequate/incapable for/of such a task.

Always use the right tool for the right job. Regardless, your logical faux pas comes at a cost:

"You're fired."

I don't know if you noticed or not, but this is a science message board. If you don't like it, take your superstition and magical thoughts elsewhere.

In other words, most of those that post at Sciforums are here because of science. We expect to explain the universe in scientific terms. That includes looking at all data and not just that which conforms to a pre-conceived conclusion. This directly addresses the OP's point.

I'm not saying that leave because you are a religious proponent or adherent. I'm saying don't post here if you cannot tolerate the scientific perspective. If the only perspective you're willing to tolerate is your own, exclusive superstition's, you have no place here.

The deleted posts are because they have been off-topic. If you've an issue with a deleted post, do not post it again. PM me or discuss it in the Site Feedback section.

Content Deleted. Off-topic.

I don't know if you noticed or not, but this is a science message board. If you don't like it, take your superstition and magical thoughts elsewhere...

...I'm not saying that leave because you are a religious proponent or adherent. I'm saying don't post here if you cannot tolerate the scientific perspective.

I certainly can--and do--tolerate the scientific perspective...I'm afraid it's you who cannot tolerate another view put forth with equal if not greater conviction...as you say:

"If you don't like it, take your superstition and magical thoughts elsewhere..."

and this:

"If the only perspective you're willing to tolerate is your own, exclusive superstition's, you have no place here."

Logically, scientifically, anyway you slice it, it's you "who cannot tolerate another view."

Then, clearly, you are missing what I am saying. You are free to post your opinion and I welcome it (with regard to the given topic -metadiscussion may be moderated). However, in your post (#98), you indicated that the "discerning reader" understands that you are relying solely on superstition and magical explanations rather than seek verification and independent sources to support your mythology, which you accept, blindly, as complete truth.

I use the rules of evidence as used in science since this is simply the best, most effective way to arrive at objective truth. If what you seek is confirmation for your personal beliefs and pre-conceived conclusions, then, of course, scientific methods aren't helpful. Unverified anecdote is the friend of the woo-woo and the superstitious.

Your quoting my statement: if you don't like it, take your superstition and magical thoughts elsewhere, is out of context, though perhaps not intentionally. My intent was to point out if you don't like others in this forum holding you to evidence as intended in science, then you might be comfortable elsewhere. This is a science forum first; the religion subforum, therefore, is a place where we look at religion from a sociological, anthropological, psychological, etc. perspective. Unfortunately, we're overrun by religious adherents that seem to have a mission to face down the big, bad atheists and their science.

Interestingly, you accuse me of lacking tolerance for your "view," and I agree. I have no tolerance for positive claims of nonsense. Hence, my refutations. I also have low tolerance for off-topic chit-chat in threads and metadiscussion about moderation in-thread (that belongs in PMs and the Site Feedback forum). Indeed, I have low tolerance for interfering with moderation. This, however, has no bearing on my "tolerance" for the views of others and I do not delete or moderate posts simply because I disagree with someone else's point of view. I believe that might be the implication you've made and it deserves clarification.

This is a science forum first; the religion subforum, therefore, is a place where we look at religion from a sociological, anthropological, psychological, etc. perspective. Unfortunately, we're overrun by religious adherents that seem to have a mission to face down the big, bad atheists and their science.


actually the person most qualified in a field is a practitioner - anyone else, at the best will only have theoretical knowledge - a practitioner has practical knowledge and also value based knowledge - and I would argue that the problem is that this subforum is over run by atheists who have a mission to discredit anything established in the field of theistic knowledge - the evidence is that the forum has three atheistic mods, which is just like having three fanatical christian mods on a forum specifically discussing evolution.

Christians believe in evolution per se.

actually the person most qualified in a field is a practitioner - anyone else, at the best will only have theoretical knowledge -

Interesting. So, by that logic, the police detective should be unable to effectively investigate a rapist and murderer unless he is a practitioner? What of the astrologer? Tarot card reader? The psychic? The alien abductee? What of the man who claims he speaks with leprechauns from Atlantis every Tuesday and Thursday -does his psychologist have anything worthy to say of his condition. Your nonsense doesn't follow, my friend.

a practitioner has practical knowledge and also value based knowledge -

Sure. If the "field" is a legitimate field. If, however, it is a field of make believe, superstition and magical thought, it is the psychologist, sociologist, and anthropologist that have objective authority. I don't, of course expect you to agree. The woo-woo rarely agrees with the objectivity and rationalism of the skeptic.

and I would argue that the problem is that this subforum is over run by atheists who have a mission to discredit anything established in the field of theistic knowledge - the evidence is that the forum has three atheistic mods, which is just like having three fanatical christian mods on a forum specifically discussing evolution.

I wasn't aware that your membership was indentured servitude. Are you not free to leave or stay and post as you wish?

Then, clearly, you are missing what I am saying. You are free to post your opinion and I welcome it (with regard to the given topic -metadiscussion may be moderated). However, in your post (#98), you indicated that the "discerning reader" understands that you are relying solely on superstition and magical explanations rather than seek verification and independent sources to support your mythology, which you accept, blindly, as complete truth.

I never "indicated" I am "relying solely on superstition and magical explanations rather than seek verification and independent sources to support your mythology"...that's you fumbling for words in an attempt to grapple with the intangible/what you don't understand but in your arrogance think that you do...learn to properly identify what it is you are refering to rather than sounding so ignorant...stooping to name calling... hoping to discredit/undermine/diminish the impact of what, in fact, was said. Such a smokescreen is easily "dismissed" by a mere breath.

I use the rules of evidence as used in science since this is simply the best, most effective way to arrive at objective truth. If what you seek is confirmation for your personal beliefs and pre-conceived conclusions, then, of course, scientific methods aren't helpful. Unverified anecdote is the friend of the woo-woo and the superstitious.

Wonderful...the rules of evidence as used in science don't work with things spiritual. If I was seeking confirmation of my personal beliefs this is the last place I'd go for that...tell me you're being facetious.

Your quoting my statement: if you don't like it, take your superstition and magical thoughts elsewhere, is out of context, though perhaps not intentionally. My intent was to point out if you don't like others in this forum holding you to evidence as intended in science, then you might be comfortable elsewhere. This is a science forum first; the religion subforum, therefore, is a place where we look at religion from a sociological, anthropological, psychological, etc. perspective. Unfortunately, we're overrun by religious adherents that seem to have a mission to face down the big, bad atheists and their science.

I told you that this is a religion thread. You can try and look at spirituality from any scientific angle you want...it won't turn up a thing...now you either want truth or you don't. To ascertain 'truth' as pertains to the tangible go ahead and test with your rube goldberg gadgets to your hearts content, but---Objective truth is first and foremost spiritual...you've been told your tools/doltish methods don't work/apply in this realm, if, in spite of that you still insist on using the wrong tool to investigate/learn (and I use those terms loosely/generously) of/about spirituality well, simply put, you are being stubborn and dishonest--and not the least bit objective. I mentioned before, you need to play by our rules if you want to really learn...what are you afraid of? That you're really not standing on top of the heap? (you actually are, but nevertheless, there happens to be a higher realm than the physical, sorry.)

Interestingly, you accuse me of lacking tolerance for your "view," and I agree. I have no tolerance for positive claims of nonsense. Hence, my refutations. I also have low tolerance for off-topic chit-chat in threads and metadiscussion about moderation in-thread (that belongs in PMs and the Site Feedback forum). Indeed, I have low tolerance for interfering with moderation. This, however, has no bearing on my "tolerance" for the views of others and I do not delete or moderate posts simply because I disagree with someone else's point of view. I believe that might be the implication you've made and it deserves clarification.

Accusations are by definition unproven. Your lack of tolerance and your prejudice is manifestly self evident and your confession is nothing more than a superfluous/gratuitous self-serving statement of the obvious.

Labeling as "nonsense" etc. what you don't understand--and this because of your self imposed ignorance--does nothing but undermine your so called "clarification."

"Refutations?" You call your smokescreen of labels, etc. "refutations?" As another moderator has said: "Hilarious". They're non-existant. You haven't the knowledge nor the wherewithal to refute the things spoken of by the Word of God.

Finally, you deleted those posts for your own reasons--you have to look yourself in the mirror every day.

First, I deleted your off-topic posts. Period. They still exist for the other mods/admins of this forum to see.

Second, you said, "I am not 'talking' "in science", I am 'talking' The Word of God Incarnate...IN CHRIST... YHWH (who is Spirit)." This is the supernatural/superstitious/magical mumbo jumbo. If it isn't, I eagerly await your evidence to the contrary.

Finally, the rest of your post seemed replete with pejoratives and general whining of the affronted believer. Was there a specific point you were attempting to make in all that?

skinwalker
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually the person most qualified in a field is a practitioner - anyone else, at the best will only have theoretical knowledge -
”
Interesting. So, by that logic, the police detective should be unable to effectively investigate a rapist and murderer unless he is a practitioner?
given that a rapist's specialization is -well- rape and a detectives specialization is investigating rapists, I don't think so

What of the astrologer?
to establish what is astrology, yes

Tarot card reader?
to establish what tarot card reading is, yes

The psychic? The alien abductee? What of the man who claims he speaks with leprechauns from Atlantis every Tuesday and Thursday
in short, to investigate the claims of a person and what of their credibility, you would have to approach them - empiricism is constantly re-adjusting itself because the idea of "I know because I already know" opens the gates for errors

-does his psychologist have anything worthy to say of his condition.
if he is a practicing psychologist, he would be able to make credible claims in the field of psychology

Your nonsense doesn't follow, my friend.
then why don't people go to car mechanics to get their head read?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
a practitioner has practical knowledge and also value based knowledge -
”
Sure. If the "field" is a legitimate field.
legitimate according to who or what (let me guess, empiricism right?)

If, however, it is a field of make believe, superstition and magical thought, it is the psychologist, sociologist, and anthropologist that have objective authority.
in theism however you have the claim of direct perception of god's nature by saintly persons, hence such "professionals" can be rejected

I don't, of course expect you to agree. The woo-woo rarely agrees with the objectivity and rationalism of the skeptic.
and you are not a woo woo 'er because your university professor told you weren't one while you were in your formative years?
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and I would argue that the problem is that this subforum is over run by atheists who have a mission to discredit anything established in the field of theistic knowledge - the evidence is that the forum has three atheistic mods, which is just like having three fanatical christian mods on a forum specifically discussing evolution.
”
I wasn't aware that your membership was indentured servitude. Are you not free to leave or stay and post as you wish?
every one has freedom, just as you are free to resign as mod
:p

First, I deleted your off-topic posts. Period. They still exist for the other mods/admins of this forum to see.

Threads veer off topic all the time. You deleted my replies to your posts directed at me, essentially censoring those rebuttals...

Second, you said, "I am not 'talking' "in science", I am 'talking' The Word of God Incarnate...IN CHRIST... YHWH (who is Spirit)." This is the supernatural/superstitious/magical mumbo jumbo. If it isn't, I eagerly await your evidence to the contrary.

Again, your label "supernatural/superstitious/magical mumbo jumbo" is nothing more than a pathetic groping after words...a pitiful attempt to articulate/discredit what you don't understand and have no knowledge of.

Finally, the rest of your post seemed replete with pejoratives and general whining of the affronted believer. Was there a specific point you were attempting to make in all that?

Yeah, there was a point... re-read the post...either learn about things spiritual by adopting the appropriate mindset (humility) or continue your phake phoney phraudulent phacade, posing as one possessing an inquiring mind.

Again, your label "supernatural/superstitious/magical mumbo jumbo" is nothing more than a pathetic groping after words...a pitiful attempt to articulate/discredit what you don't understand and have no knowledge of.

And your evidence to the contrary is....?

And your evidence to the contrary is....?

You begin by denying yourself i.e. suspend your imagined right to arbitrate what is and isn't reasonable...next, adopt the mindset of a child...then sit yourself down at the feet of Christ... listening, observing, learning while studying the Gospel of John--with all humility...if you follow those simple instructions carefully to the letter then you will be my evidence to the contrary.

Good night now.

You begin by denying yourself i.e. suspend your imagined right to arbitrate what is and isn't reasonable...next, adopt the mindset of a child...then sit yourself down at the feet of Christ...

Little boy raises hand quickly and asks? Who is Christ? Were does he come from? how do you know he existed? have you any evidence of Christ's existence?

You begin by denying yourself i.e. suspend your imagined right to arbitrate what is and isn't reasonable...next, adopt the mindset of a child...then sit yourself down at the feet of Christ... listening, observing, learning while studying the Gospel of John--with all humility...if you follow those simple instructions carefully to the letter then you will be my evidence to the contrary.

Good night now.

Yes, but my question was regarding evidence, not superstition.

Obviously, I don't think that theist can tell the difference, between evidence and their superstition. Their superstition is based on "faith"

*************
M*W: Let me rephrase the question:

"Why do christians not read the research of biblical scholars and archeologists?"

Many claim they read extra-biblical materials, but they are unable to discuss or comment on any parallel research. What are they afraid of? (The truth?)!

iv made a lot of research to find out about christianity and other religions many people believe christ came to earth to bring a religion...he came to earth to bring the kingdom of god and salvation to mankind...religions are the invention of man god is not religious...please visit this website
wyattmuseum.com
if you dont believe in god can you please explain from where you come from and what is your purpose on the earth and after people die what you think happens?

*************
M*W: I'm curious as to why christians restrict their own access to extra-biblical reading material? Many times most of us have posted bibliographies or websites as references, but how many times have christians actually looked up the references or made an effort to read them? They don't as a rule, and it becomes impossible to have a discussion with them about issues they refuse to know about much less crack a book other than their bible.

As atheists, we read their bible, and we are more familiar with it than even they are. What is it that they fear about learning?

All religionists and atheists please reply.

I call it willful ignorance.

if you dont believe in god can you please explain from where you come from and what is your purpose on the earth and after people die what you think happens?

If you done extensive research as you claim, ever pick up a book on evolution? That pretty much explains where we come from, the earth itself, we evolved.

The purpose on earth? is to live and multiply just like any other species.

After people dies what happens? WTF does the word "death" mean to you? Does a butterfly go to heaven when it dies, a dog, a rat, a virus? Simply when you die you seize to exist. This is the only existence, you will not exist in another nether reality, your brain dies, and your consciousness goes with it! Evidence of my assertions! Is mere observation of the natural world around me, every living entity on this earth, lives, procreates, and parishes, why should we be any different? It's cause we have a consciousness and the fear of the unknown, "death" and what happens to that consciousness that created the heavens, hells, and gods. These concepts were mainly created out of fear of the unknown. Ancient men, did not accept death, they wanted to continue life.

The concept is created by the human desire to survive an ordeal that is little understood. The loss of your consciousness, after death.

iv made a lot of research ...please visit this website
wyattmuseum.com

Obviously, your "research" can have many colorful adjectives, "extensive isn't one of them, however. Not if you are recommending we visit the thankfully deceased Ron Wyatt's website. For those that don't know, Ron Wyatt was a male nurse that one day called himself an archaeologist and claimed to have found all the miraculous sites of christian mythology like evidence for the parting of the Red Sea, the mountain where Moses received his tablets, Noah's ark (there are so many religious kooks that claim that one, each with a different site, its silly), etc. None of which have a shred of evidence; each of which was entirely made up.

But as more archaeological information is obtained, much of it confirms the Bible, and none of it contradicts the Bible, so you're screwed Skin.

But as more archaeological information is obtained, much of it confirms the Bible, and none of it contradicts the Bible, so you're screwed Skin.

Perhaps you should put your money where you mouth is and start a thread on the archaeological evidence for biblical mythology. Show me how screwed I am. Predictably, the only evidence you'll be able to show is of cultures and place names, and even many of these are out of chronological context when reality is compared with biblical myth.

Moderation Note: Off-topic and baiting banter deleted

Uh, Skin, is not this discussion related to the topic of the thread?

Please move metadiscussion about threads, moderation, and such to PMs or SiteFeedback. -SkinWalker

But as more archaeological information is obtained, much of it confirms the Bible, and none of it contradicts the Bible, so you're screwed Skin.

Not only do theist limit their material of extra-biblical sources, but they are ignorant of archaeological fraud done to support their bible!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6770329/

But as more archaeological information is obtained, much of it confirms the Bible, and none of it contradicts the Bible, so you're screwed Skin.

*************
M*W: It's time to get your head out of the sand. There have been absolutely NO artifacts found to confirm that Jesus, Moses, David, Solomon existed nor did the women who surrounded them. Even modern-day findings are being proven to be hoaxes like the James Ossuary, the Cave of JtB, etc. The only artifacts that can be dated and proven are those of the Egyptian pharaohs by the many names/titles that each of them held.

You make idle claims to prove your god exists, but that is only proving it to yourself. It does nothing for the rest of us. In fact, you don't even search for evidence of your own god, because you blindly believe he exists! Do some reading, my friend, and get back to the forum with some substantiated evidence for your claims. Your posts are down-right silly.

Are you not familiar with the requirements of evidence in scientific discovery? Do the words reproducible and verifiable mean anything to you? Does the concept of hypothetico-deductive methodology mean anything?


Does the underdetermination of theory mean anything to you? Hypothetico-deductive methodology is a fanciful bit of metaphysical speculation, nothing more.

But Med Woman, you foolishly say that Solomon and David lived before Moses, on what basis do you say that, and what are the dates which you think they lived in that order which you imaginatively present?

But Med Woman, you foolishly say that Solomon and David lived before Moses, on what basis do you say that, and what are the dates which you think they lived in that order which you imaginatively present?

*************
M*W: As I've told you previously, I'm not going to re-research that data for you. You can look it up yourself by researching the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs. Until you can read something scholarly on the subject, you should keep your ignorant pie hole shut.

Does the underdetermination of theory mean anything to you? Hypothetico-deductive methodology is a fanciful bit of metaphysical speculation, nothing more.

Well done, Nutter

*************
M*W: What is truth can be proved by science...


That is a very unstable epistemological stance. The shifting sands of "scientific" opinion undulate unceasingly.

Hypothetico-deductive methodology is a fanciful bit of metaphysical speculation, nothing more.

In other words, a threat to the church leaders who wish their congregations to follow along blindly in ignorance with all the wonderfull things that religous dogma has given us :rolleyes:

In other words, a threat to the church leaders who wish their congregations to follow along blindly in ignorance with their wallets and will to give just about every penny the shysters preachers can get from them! ;)

There are some shyster preachers, but the rest are helping to preach the Gospel in all the world, which will soon have been achieved.

which will soon have been achieved

Digyourheadoutofyourass! It's been 1000's of year preaching this garbage, what has been atained? Wars, killing of inocent women "witches", crusades, inquisitions, the murder/tourcher/killiings of American natives, Africans, and on, n on, n on, what has christianity brought to the world but DISASTER!! :mad:

That's Roman Catholicism.

They too call themselves christian. Would you like too see the disasters other so called christians have commited?

Sure.

I gather from your response that "Roman Catholicism" is not christianity. Just to clear up the issue once and for all, who are the "real" (tm) christians?

The true body of Christ, the church, is composed of those who are born again, of course, some say they are, when they're really not, so you can never know the true extent of the church.

Catholicism teaches a bunch of add ons, which are anathema according to Revelation, but there undoubtedly are many born again people under the Roman Catholic hierarchy, who remain there for various reasons.

That's very interesting but not what I asked. Try again.

Then what did you ask?

The true body of Christ, the church, is composed of those who are born again, of course, some say they are, when they're really not, so you can never know the true extent of the church.

*************
M*W: I thought the "church" was supposed to be steadfast and prevail beyond the gates of hell.

Sounds to me that you're judging your own kind. Didn't your god say "judge not, lest you be judged?"

It also appears that you are not completely trustworthy and sure about the cohesiveness of your own religion when you said "you never know the true extent of the church." You reek of doubt. That's a good sign. Maybe there's hope for you after all.

Catholicism teaches a bunch of add ons, which are anathema according to Revelation, but there undoubtedly are many born again people under the Roman Catholic hierarchy, who remain there for various reasons.

*************
M*W: Your knowledge of your own faith is pitiful. Catholicism didn't "add on" anything! It was the first christian religion. (Not that I'm standing up for it). In a sense, you are right. There were "add ons," even as late as 400 AD, the early church fathers were still trying to invent catholicism. (They didn't even call it christianity back then). One of those "add ons" was inventing Jesus as divine. At the time he was supposed to have died on the cross, he wasn't divine. That was a later "add on." The trinity was a later "add on." His resurrection was a later "add on." Doesn't matter, none of it. It's all myth, but if you're going to talk about it on this forum, you need to get it right.

Med Woman, you are so far out there that you're beyond the horizon.

Med Woman, you are so far out there that you're beyond the horizon.

*************
M*W: Then, there is nothing left to say, is there? I may be beyond the "horizon," but you are not even close.

Ouch.

There you go! the example that LG always uses, The failed high school dropout our one and only Iceage! He doesn't even know the freaking history of his religion, nor what is to be catholic, nor how many denominations of christiniaty exist! His is the only interpretation that is the right one, like all 34000 different sects of christianity claim to be the right one!:rolleyes:

*************
M*W: I'm curious as to why christians restrict their own access to extra-biblical reading material? Many times most of us have posted bibliographies or websites as references, but how many times have christians actually looked up the references or made an effort to read them? They don't as a rule, and it becomes impossible to have a discussion with them about issues they refuse to know about much less crack a book other than their bible.

As atheists, we read their bible, and we are more familiar with it than even they are. What is it that they fear about learning?

All religionists and atheists please reply.

We christians read materials of other authorship but we scrutinize if they are valid and reliable. The doctrines we follow should and always be biblical, though most commandments we received are spiritual in nature.

Why then do christians not scrutinize their biblical texts, weighing them against archaeological evidence and the laws of physics?

Never mind. I replaced "credulous" with the word "christians" above and answered my own question. Christians have a conclusion to which they seek only data that supports their conclusion. I've read many posts of christians in this very board and they're all-too-ready to ignore science with the easy dismissal that their god is outside the scope of science. But you'll see the same christians ready to jump on any scientific knowledge or idea that even seems to support their conclusion. The ones that don't aren't even considered, out-right dismissed, or not understood.

We have seen how M.W has become since reading extra-biblical sources,lol. (joking M.W.)

"Why do christians limit their reading material of extra-biblical sources?"

Easy: we don't.

We have seen how M.W has become since reading extra-biblical sources,lol. (joking M.W.)

*************
M*W: Well at least I can read my friend. That is the only way to find the truth. After all, don't you guys have the gift of 'discernment?' I sure as hell did.

Yes Med Woman, your gift of discernment certainly is history.

Why then do christians not scrutinize their biblical texts, weighing them against archaeological evidence and the laws of physics?

Never mind. I replaced "credulous" with the word "christians" above and answered my own question. Christians have a conclusion to which they seek only data that supports their conclusion. I've read many posts of christians in this very board and they're all-too-ready to ignore science with the easy dismissal that their god is outside the scope of science. But you'll see the same christians ready to jump on any scientific knowledge or idea that even seems to support their conclusion. The ones that don't aren't even considered, out-right dismissed, or not understood.

We scrutinize our Bible. Who told you we don't? They are ridiculous. First thing we give important scrutiny is the Bible itself.

I've read many posts of christians in this very board ... to quote from your word, and how do you know they are christians? In fact, understand if you can...

Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: Philippians 1:15

And who are they? none other than the false christians....

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Timothy 3:7

I didn't read all 150 posts so if this has already been said, oh well...
I do read other things but I quickly put them down if they are not edifying. Mindless drivel does not edify my spirit. Sure I read more junk when I was younger, but now I don't.

I have an insatiable hunger for His Word and everything connected to it.

I don't need to try crack to know it's not good for me.:)

I didn't read all 150 posts so if this has already been said, oh well...
I do read other things but I quickly put them down if they are not edifying. Mindless drivel does not edify my spirit. Sure I read more junk when I was younger, but now I don't.

One can only assume you refer to anything that might actually advance your education. You've certainly shown mountains of evidence in that regard.

I have an insatiable hunger for His Word and everything connected to it.

I don't need to try crack to know it's not good for me.:)

Yet, you look out your window and are still not convinced the world is flat?

Wow... and atheists call Christians ignorant. You've automatically assumed that all Christians only read the Bible and just the Bible.

I'm Christian, and I've more than done my research... I've read all the books off all religions. I've explored the God Delusion and the such. All of which only helped confirm my faith.

Even Evangelicals looks beyond the literal word of the Bible...it's more a question of what sources they view as valid. For many, the extra-biblical sources are not literary (or historical) but social and cultural. Look at the widespread belief (in the U.S.) of the "Rapture." There is scant evidence of the Rapture in the literal text of the Bible, only vague statements. Clearly, the reason so many have gravitated to the Rapture interpretation is because they have received that interpretation from others (parents, pastors, etc), not because they are reading the literal words of the Bible and making an independent assessment.

It is interesting how different populations will classify sources as orthodox or heterodox, but I doubt there's any Christian community that really encourages its members to read the Bible and to take that as "only" source worthy of consideration. In fact, doing so would lead to a minor paradox. If your pastor tells you, "The Bible is the only source of Truth," then the pastor himself is *not* a source of truth and hence why believe his pronouncement about the Bible?

I read everything I could get my hands on until I was almost 40. Once saved, I read everything Christian I could get ahold of. I no longer read anything fiction or non-edifying. I'm not interested in those things anymore.

Wow... and atheists call Christians ignorant. You've automatically assumed that all Christians only read the Bible and just the Bible.

I'm Christian, and I've more than done my research... I've read all the books off all religions. I've explored the God Delusion and the such. All of which only helped confirm my faith.

Please expand on this. I'm interested in which books of other religions you've read, what your impression of them is and how, precisely, these have helped confirm your faith. Specifically, what of Dr. Dawkins' work confirms your faith?

Was it his detailed discussion of the roots of religious thought beginning on p. 161? Perhaps it was his thorough debunking of irreducible complexity and his criticism of the "god of the gaps" excuse (pp. 119-133)? Perhaps you gained a better understanding of morality and how this isn't a religious quality but, rather, one that religion has demonstrably mucked up over the centuries, a discussion found in chapters 6 and 7?

Surely you aren't simply going to tell us all that you're well-read and not demonstrate the extent of your literary prowness in the religious and humanist texts of humanity? If so, I call balderdash.

I read everything I could get my hands on until I was almost 40. Once saved, I read everything Christian I could get ahold of. I no longer read anything fiction or non-edifying. I'm not interested in those things anymore.

Obviously. You have a conclusion to which you only seek that data to support.

Why bother reading things that question your superstitions or enlighten your overall knowledge?

Even Evangelicals looks beyond the literal word of the Bible...it's more a question of what sources they view as valid.

An interesting point. There is no shortage of evangelical and fundamentalist literature. There is, by the way, a difference between evangelical and fundamentalist -sometimes the two are overlapping descriptors, but they are different.

[...] I doubt there's any Christian community that really encourages its members to read the Bible and to take that as "only" source worthy of consideration. In fact, doing so would lead to a minor paradox. If your pastor tells you, "The Bible is the only source of Truth," then the pastor himself is *not* a source of truth and hence why believe his pronouncement about the Bible?

Actually, I agree somewhat. I think that most religious leaders in Christian cults would prefer that their membership didn't read the Bible but rather the literature that they publish about the Bible and the so-called "word." That way, they're getting the message just as these religious leaders like it, tailored to fit their specific cult doctrines and beliefs. I'm using the word "cult" very specifically and not just as a pejorative or insulting term, its simply the most accurate means of describing the individual doctrines and beliefs that exist between different sects of Christianity.

Of course, you'll always have those that claim they follow only the Bible and its teachings and these individuals will generally refer to themselves as the "true" Christians (as if others are automatically fake or less bona fide). This puts these individuals in their own cult, ironically.

I read everything I could get my hands on until I was almost 40. Once saved, I read everything Christian I could get ahold of. I no longer read anything fiction or non-edifying. I'm not interested in those things anymore.

*************
M*W: Can you tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction?

[QUOTE=ylooshi;1426071]...
"Obviously. You have a conclusion to which you only seek that data to support.
Why bother reading things that question your superstitions or enlighten your overall knowledge?"


Not true. I have read plenty and continue to do so. I'm just more selective about what I read.
Gargabe in. Garbage out.
I have no superstitions.
And I read plenty that enlightens overall knowledge.

I no longer read anything fiction or non-edifying. I'm not interested in those things anymore.bite your tongue woman, you lie.
you little tinker, telling such fibs.

you read the bible dont you.

The Bible is the most edifying book in the universe. It is man's handbook for everyday life. If we all lived by the New Testament, this would be such a more awesome world. There would be no more crime, no more baby-killing, no more non-believing. It would be the world God had in mind when He created it. Too bad we messed it up so much.

The bible is a book of myth and superstition with a god that is immoral and cruel. It teaches people to lie, hate and oppress.

Yes, it would be the world your god had in mind.

You believe in your God. I'll believe in mine. Let's see how that works out for both of us.;)

You believe in your God. I'll believe in mine. Let's see how that works out for both of us.;)

History has already demonstrated what derives from t