Rock Beyond Belief

[Spademan 94]

Maybe I've lost the thread here, but it seems to me you are mischaracterizing their position somewhat.

Well, to be fair, I'm not calling them baby rapists, so, there's that.

Their god has given them a moral code which they are expected to live by. This moral code includes rules that make it pretty clear that raping babies is bad. However, they are not supposed to use this moral code to evaluate god's own actions. It only governs the actions of humans. God can go ahead and wipe out thousands of people (or, by reductio, rape lots of babies) if he deems it necessary for his master plan. Morality doesn't apply to god because morality is the system by which god judges our actions -- and not the other way around.

And this is what I am saying is an unresolvable proposition. The latter cannot follow the former without "morality" being an arbitrary concept. Morality becomes devoid of meaning outside of what a holy man tells you, or what the text you choose to read tells you. "Morality" is no longer "morality". As you described, it is simply a set of rules. Law does not equal morality. This discrepancy is what leads to the BR being arbitrary (or even good, if one purports that everything is part of gods plan and that god is omniscient and omnipotent) in terms of "morality". To elaborate: if one's god concept is not bound by ethics or morality as a human can reason, BR is the same as not BR "morally". If a man comes down from a mountain riding a lightning bolt with a new tablet that has only 1 rule on it and that rule reads: Thou shalt rape babies daily, under the argument that god is not "bound" by morality, and you are "bound" to god's laws BR is now "moral code".

( Of course forbidding us from evaluating god is just another method by which this belief system disarms the reasoning parts of people's minds which would otherwise reject it. It's almost like AIDS - it goes for the immune system itself. )

Virus of the mind, indeed.

( Algore causing global warming that gave us Katrina. )

Heh.

[brvheart 1,752]

You're an idiot.

No way.

[Spademan 94]

No way.

Heh.

[brvheart 1,752]

Listen Spade, we're friends, and have generally gotten along well since forever. There is no reason to make this a personal attack on me. I only have 12 posts in this entire thread. (At least 2 of which just said I was enjoying the discussion, and at least a couple more were making fun of Mercury69) Out of more than 250 this means that I really haven't "been following the thread closely". I usually tend to avoid this section all together and don't really get into the debate, since I already know your positions and I don't see how it's beneficial. That being said, I have enjoyed the discussion and I always appreciate your point of view. I love logic, and am not like the multitude of Christians that don't even want their faith challenged. Because you asked, I'm going to respond specifically to your posts. (Don't be mean when I'm finished.)

I just remembered I was going to respond to this. Then I had to look for it. Annoying.This is what you are willfully, or are blindly, ignoring:This quote is exactly the same as, "My problem is that you guys seem to be boxing Tooth Fairy in. I don't see how you can know so confidently what a hypothetical Tooth Fairy's plans are."Some random supernatural, spectacular, magical conception of man... some concept that has no traffic with the observed universe... is fucking irrelevant to me dude. Could there be an invisible being out there that is strangely obsessed with teeth? Yes. Could this invisible being have created the universe as we know it? Yes. Could teeth be the most important and vital thing in the universe and some invisible being knows this fact and I don't know because my lolhumanlogic is not capable of realizing? Yes.

I completely agree. They are the same thing. That doesn't mean that either one isn't real, it just means that it's unlikely. (based on the empirical evidence) What I would say is the difference is that I believe the Bible is be a very hard book to attack. Historically it's incredibly accurate. Archeologists have used it as a map to finding long lost places and people. I fully understand that their are many different deities that have "contacted" humans, so the next logic discussion would be why do I think the Biblical God is the one that's real? My answer is the Bible. I've read much of the Quran and I've read the entire book of Mormon, for two. Neither holds up and I believe, are easily dismissible. I don't believe the Bible is easily dismissible... expect by Randy Reed because he LOVES confirmation bias.The Easter Bunny has never tried to contact humans to discuss it's thoughts on life.

The problem - aside from falling to parsimony, which is big, but the much bigger and dangerous issue is - the problem with your fucking stupid ass belief in belief is that it leads to.... by FUCKING NECESSITY dude... morality and reality being completely meaningless unless provided to you by a text/holy man who has been blessed with revelation via an invisible and majestic being in the sky. Raping babies is good or bad?According to your argument from ignorance claim concerning an invisible wizard the answer is: only the god of Abraham knows. Raping babies is the equivalent of not raping babies. Since we can not know. This fails on even a pragmatic level. Fucking use your brain, dude.

The New Testament isn't simply a list of things you can and can not do. In fact the entire book is saying over and over that the heart is the issue. Jesus is asked, "What is the greatest commandment?" He answers that you love the Lord your God with all your heart. Then says the 2nd greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. This makes morality kindof up to you. It's not specific. It's not directly directly by an invisible man in the sky. If you didn't want to be raped as a baby... don't rape babies.

I'm not mixing anyone together.Meh, I really thought you were following the discussion more capably. The beliefs you purport lead directly into the baby rape conclusion via reductio ad absurdum.You must not have read the links I provided, or didn't make a real effort to understand them as you read, or, at the most depressing end of the scale, are incapable of understanding them.Ugh, so distressing. Almost makes me want to give up putting effort into this thread.

You can give up, but I wouldn't do it on account of me. You weren't even talking to me when you posted those links, at least I didn't think you were.

Baby rape is about the worst thing I can conceive. Brv's claims or "possibilities" lead to baby rape being, at worst, good, and at its very best, neutral or "unknown", in terms of morality.

Honestly, I'm going to have to go back through the thread because I still don't know when your baby rape "parsimony" started and what you were talking about... and now you're giving me credit for it, and I'm really confused.

And this is what I am saying is an unresolvable proposition. The latter cannot follow the former without "morality" being an arbitrary concept. Morality becomes devoid of meaning outside of what a holy man tells you, or what the text you choose to read tells you. "Morality" is no longer "morality". As you described, it is simply a set of rules. Law does not equal morality.

Fully agree here.

To elaborate: if one's god concept is not bound by ethics or morality as a human can reason, BR is the same as not BR "morally". If a man comes down from a mountain riding a lightning bolt with a new tablet that has only 1 rule on it and that rule reads: Thou shalt rape babies daily, under the argument that god is not "bound" by morality, and you are "bound" to god's laws BR is now "moral code"

Do you think you could receive a message like that, from a guy riding a lightning bolt, and still reject the message? I believe that I could. It's one reason that the Biblical God passes the "sniff test". He isn't asking me to rape babies. There may be something he is asking that you reject, but I don't have the same issues with him.

[Spademan 94]

I love logic, and am not like the multitude of Christians that don't even want their faith challenged.

And this is why I was so annoyed with you, specifically. You make this claim, specifically that you love logic, and then completely refuse to engage it. Furthermore, you're being intellectually dishonest by making this claim and then go on to show that you're too lazy to actually utilize logic. For example:

Honestly, I'm going to have to go back through the thread because I still don't know when your baby rape "parsimony"

I'm not sure why you put parsimony in quotes, and if that means you know you aren't using it correctly. If that's the case I don't even know what you were getting at. So my assumption is you don't know what parsimony means even though I've both defined it and linked it in this thread.

You weren't even talking to me when you posted those links, at least I didn't think you were.

I was talking to anyone who wasn't familiar with any of the terms or words used in the links. As someone who claims to "love logic", I would think that would apply especially to you. Then you go and use parsimony in a completely nonsensical way.

and now you're giving me credit for it, and I'm really confused.

Again, this is just lazy thinking. I'm not "giving you credit" for it. It should be glaringly obvious by now that I'm using it as an example of where your concept of morality, and your concept of god, goes wrong. Because it applies to your faulty logic, not because you came up with it or something.

What I would say is the difference is that I believe the Bible is be a very hard book to attack. Historically it's incredibly accurate. Archeologists have used it as a map to finding long lost places and people. I fully understand that their are many different deities that have "contacted" humans, so the next logic discussion would be why do I think the Biblical God is the one that's real? My answer is the Bible. I've read much of the Quran and I've read the entire book of Mormon, for two. Neither holds up and I believe, are easily dismissible. I don't believe the Bible is easily dismissible... expect by Randy Reed because he LOVES confirmation bias.

This is going to sound flippant, but I'm asking it legitimately. Have you read anything about the history of the bible outside of theist-based websites/books? Have you read any books like "A History of God", for example? Because, I mean... just, wow. Anything about why the OT god was so vengeful and adamant about nobody worshipping "other gods", for example? Anything about the prominent gods around in that time and how the were used by the people? The roles each God had (Spoiler alert: where your God came from)? What science says about a world flood? What is and isn't known about the supposed authors? Anything about any of that?

Do you think you could receive a message like that, from a guy riding a lightning bolt, and still reject the message? I believe that I could. It's one reason that the Biblical God passes the "sniff test". He isn't asking me to rape babies. There may be something he is asking that you reject, but I don't have the same issues with him.

Oh no. No. No no no no no. Sorry bro'. Can't let this just slip by. Everything that has come from the believers in this thread has put God outside of our ability to comprehend in terms of morality. There is no "sniff test". To follow your analogy the god you are propping up has a scent that cannot be detected by the human nose. This is a veiled attempt by you to try to impose our conception of morality on your god. The believers have been claiming left and right that god is not subject to our weak, lolhuman understanding of morality. Now you try to sneak in that you can tell which rules would be "god like" and which would not. It is either out of your hands, or it isn't. If a believer were being intellectually honest when they said our morality, our logic and our reasoning are incapable of "boxing god in" then there is no "sniff test". Whatever this hypothetical god supposedly imparts is the "moral code". Raping babies, slaughtering pregnant women (excellent example of what I'm talking about, btw, since this was described as a-ok in the OT) or loving thy neighbor.

[brvheart 1,752]

And this is why I was so annoyed with you, specifically. You make this claim, specifically that you love logic, and then completely refuse to engage it. Furthermore, you're being intellectually dishonest by making this claim and then go on to show that you're too lazy to actually utilize logic. I was talking to anyone who wasn't familiar with any of the terms or words used in the links. As someone who claims to "love logic", I would think that would apply especially to you. Then you go and use parsimony in a completely nonsensical way.

I probably should have used the word "reason" instead of logic, since using the word logic, especially to you specifically, means the scientific definition of the term logic. I'm not familiar enough with all the a priori/a posteriori bullshit to be able to carry on a reasonable discussion with you. I very much enjoy it, and I definitely think it's very important for Christians to understand how stupid they sound soooo frequently when they think they are making a wonderful point that is without holes. Whenever you discuss it, I learn how important it is to choose the correct words, so thanks.

I'm not sure why you put parsimony in quotes, and if that means you know you aren't using it correctly. If that's the case I don't even know what you were getting at. So my assumption is you don't know what parsimony means even though I've both defined it and linked it in this thread.

I was trying to make a joke. I knew it wasn't supposed to be used in that way or that tense. That's why I put it in quotes.

Again, this is just lazy thinking. I'm not "giving you credit" for it. It should be glaringly obvious by now that I'm using it as an example of where your concept of morality, and your concept of god, goes wrong. Because it applies to your faulty logic, not because you came up with it or something.

Fair enough. It sounded like you were directing your comments at me, and not a general audience. Sorry about that.

This is going to sound flippant, but I'm asking it legitimately. Have you read anything about the history of the bible outside of theist-based websites/books? Have you read any books like "The History of God", for example? Because, I mean... just, wow. Anything about why the OT god was so vengeful and adamant about nobody believing in "other gods?"

I don't visit Christian websites or read Christian books, other than from the old guys... like Luther, Calvin, and Edwards. I find Christian authors to be very untrustworthy in their conclusions, and if I can see holes in their arguments I just feel embarrassed at what someone like you would do to them in a debate. The only contemporary author I read, other than CS Lewis, is Hank Hanegraaff, but he usually doesn't write books tailored to atheists or talking to atheists, but usually focuses on "false" teachers within Christendom.

Oh no. No. No no no no no. Sorry bro'. Can't let this just slip by. Everything that has come from the believers in this thread has put God outside of our ability to comprehend in terms of morality. There is no "sniff test". To follow your analogy the god you are propping up has a scent that cannot be detected by the human nose. This is a veiled attempt by you to try to impose our conception of morality on your god. The believers have been claiming left and right that god is not subject to our weak, lolhuman understanding of morality. Now you try to sneak in that you can tell which rules would be "god like" and which would not. It is either out of your hands, or it isn't. If a believer were being intellectually honest when they said our morality, our logic and our reasoning are incapable of "boxing god in" then there is no "sniff test". Whatever this hypothetical god supposedly imparts is the "moral code". Raping babies, slaughtering pregnant women (excellent example of what I'm talking about, btw, since this was described as a-ok in the OT) or loving thy neighbor.

I think this is fair. I agree we can't have it both ways.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I completely agree. They are the same thing. That doesn't mean that either one isn't real, it just means that it's unlikely. (based on the empirical evidence) What I would say is the difference is that I believe the Bible is be a very hard book to attack. Historically it's incredibly accurate. Archeologists have used it as a map to finding long lost places and people. I fully understand that their are many different deities that have "contacted" humans, so the next logic discussion would be why do I think the Biblical God is the one that's real? My answer is the Bible. I've read much of the Quran and I've read the entire book of Mormon, for two. Neither holds up and I believe, are easily dismissible. I don't believe the Bible is easily dismissible... expect by Randy Reed because he LOVES confirmation bias.

haha, dammit. Look, if you and billions of people are going to base your entire morality on a book, at least I figured I'd give it a read and try to understand where you are coming from. You are open to tell me what I got wrong about the couple chapters I've mentioned like BG. I will pretty much discuss any chapter in the old testament. I don't think you can ignore the old tstament either since it is the basis for the NT. One doesn't hold up without the other and Jesus supported the content of the OT as well. I mean, I seemed to have taught him a couple things and gave him a new perspective on at least Job. I mean that book is the sole basis for everything you believe in so you ought to be able to defend what it says at the very least. It just occured to me that people are told what it says versus actually reading it and deciding for themselves like I did.

[Easter Bunny 1]

The Easter Bunny has never tried to contact humans to discuss it's thoughts on life

BRV- THIS IS THE EASTER BUNNY. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON LIFE?

[brvheart 1,752]

haha, dammit. Look, if you and billions of people are going to base your entire morality on a book, at least I figured I'd give it a read and try to understand where you are coming from. You are open to tell me what I got wrong about the couple chapters I've mentioned like BG. I will pretty much discuss any chapter in the old testament. I don't think you can ignore the old tstament either since it is the basis for the NT. One doesn't hold up without the other and Jesus supported the content of the OT as well. I mean, I seemed to have taught him a couple things and gave him a new perspective on at least Job. I mean that book is the sole basis for everything you believe in so you ought to be able to defend what it says at the very least. It just occured to me that people are told what it says versus actually reading it and deciding for themselves like I did.

I'm not ignoring it. I think it's very important. The majority just doesn't apply anymore, thanks to Jesus and the New Testament.

[Roll the Bones 74]

How can you go from saying that the reason you believe the bible is it's historical accuracy but then flippantly dismiss half the book? I mean it had God speaking and you are saying the direct preceding lineage of Jesus is somehow irrelevent? Let alone all the morals and laws Christians follow based on that book, are they irrelevant as well? (Like the ten commandments)?You also seem to be basing your entire belief system on Jesus resurection which has different accounts of the actual event in all 4 gospels. Oh and why would you give more credence to that resurection story than these?1. That Muhammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse.2. That an angel named Moroni (also resurrected, by the way) appeared to Joseph Smith Jr. and assisted him translate the Book of Mormon from ancient egyptian written on gold plates.3. That 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans (i.e. souls) then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. You might recognize this as one of the beliefs of Scientologists.4. Castrating oneself is the only true path to salvation - see the Skoptsy sect.5. Transubstantiation and infallibility of the Pope.6. Blood transfusions should not be used under any circumstances in medical treatment.7. Everything and everyone are just figments of your imagination. You are God and you are truly alone.If Christians are willing to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, I don't understand why they aren't willing to believe #'s 1 -7. Why are any of them any less probable?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

How can you go from saying that the reason you believe the bible is it's historical accuracy but then flippantly dismiss half the book? I mean it had God speaking and you are saying the direct preceding lineage of Jesus is somehow irrelevent? Let alone all the morals and laws Christians follow based on that book, are they irrelevant as well? (Like the ten commandments)?

He's saying it's irrelevant to how Christians should lead their lives.

[Balloon guy 158]

haha, dammit. Look, if you and billions of people are going to base your entire morality on a book, at least I figured I'd give it a read and try to understand where you are coming from. You are open to tell me what I got wrong about the couple chapters I've mentioned like BG. I will pretty much discuss any chapter in the old testament. I don't think you can ignore the old tstament either since it is the basis for the NT. One doesn't hold up without the other and Jesus supported the content of the OT as well. I mean, I seemed to have taught him a couple things and gave him a new perspective on at least Job. I mean that book is the sole basis for everything you believe in so you ought to be able to defend what it says at the very least. It just occured to me that people are told what it says versus actually reading it and deciding for themselves like I did.

Bolded:HAHHAHAHHA that I can learn.But taking your first two words of this post, I have determined that you are a foul mouthed person who hates people who try to correct or instruct you.Therefore I will assume that the rest of your post should be filtered through this perspective I have deduced from those two words and nothing you write afterwards will be interpreted anyway that is contrary to what I have decided is who you are.I am now able to change the meaning of your intentions and of what you are saying, to fit what I know to be true about you.

[brvheart 1,752]

How can you go from saying that the reason you believe the bible is it's historical accuracy but then flippantly dismiss half the book? I mean it had God speaking and you are saying the direct preceding lineage of Jesus is somehow irrelevent? Let alone all the morals and laws Christians follow based on that book, are they irrelevant as well? (Like the ten commandments)?

Oh Randy. The ten commandments are not part of Christianity. Jesus came to free us from that bondage. Unless the "rule" is explicitly restated in the New Testament it's no longer a commandment for Christians... only Jews.

You also seem to be basing your entire belief system on Jesus resurection which has different accounts of the actual event in all 4 gospels. Oh and why would you give more credence to that resurection story than these?1. That Muhammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse.2. That an angel named Moroni (also resurrected, by the way) appeared to Joseph Smith Jr. and assisted him translate the Book of Mormon from ancient egyptian written on gold plates.3. That 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans (i.e. souls) then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. You might recognize this as one of the beliefs of Scientologists.4. Castrating oneself is the only true path to salvation - see the Skoptsy sect.5. Transubstantiation and infallibility of the Pope.6. Blood transfusions should not be used under any circumstances in medical treatment.7. Everything and everyone are just figments of your imagination. You are God and you are truly alone.If Christians are willing to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, I don't understand why they aren't willing to believe #'s 1 -7. Why are any of them any less probable?

1. The Koran is full of provably terrible information that makes it easily dismissible... like the Earth being a flat disk.2. The Book of Mormon was written by a actual snake-oil salesman, who went to prison at least twice for Con-ing people. It also is full of "history" like major battles fought with swords by more than 100,000 people in the southern United States in the early AD years, but zero archaeological evidence has been found from the great battles of the Nephites. Why is that? Why has so much been found exactly where the Bible has it is? Why have archaeologists used the Bible as a roadmap to the history in the middle east?3. No evidence.4. The Bible has that if anyone comes to you with a new gospel or a changed gospel that he is a false prophet.5. The pope and the rules of the Catholic church can definitely be shown to be a changed gospel.6. The Bible doesn't agree with that. It's a made up rule by man, and the weird-o Jehovah's Witnesses and the Church of Christ - Scientist. 7. Ok. That's fine. No evidence, but whatever. If that's the case then we're all in the same boat.

[BaseJester 1]

1. The Koran is full of provably terrible information that makes it easily dismissible... like the Earth being a flat disk.

If those same passages were in the bible, you'd be arguing that they were obviously metaphor. You're seriously going to argue that the bible is believable because it lines up so well with what we know from science? Really?

[vbnautilus 48]

You're seriously going to argue that the bible is believable because it lines up so well with what we know from science? Really?

Well, if you imagine what brv probably knows about science it becomes easier to reconcile.

[brvheart 1,752]

If those same passages were in the bible, you'd be arguing that they were obviously metaphor. You're seriously going to argue that the bible is believable because it lines up so well with what we know from science? Really?

Well, it's interesting that I don't have to do that. I also don't believe that I would be arguing in the face of obvious errors like those in the Mormon bible or the Koran, since the Bible's seeming authenticity is probably the main reason for my belief. It seems to me that you folks have a problem in general with the concept of God, and I do not. I don't read about the Red Sea being parted by God and say, "That couldn't happen in the natural world, therefore this is absolute proof that the Bible is fiction". I tend to not care about stuff that isn't provable one way or the other, so I will only tend to believe it based on how trustworthy I view the source. If the source is right about countless items, then I'll lean toward believing other things that source says.

Well, if you imagine what brv probably knows about science it becomes easier to reconcile.

hey!

[BaseJester 1]

Well, it's interesting that I don't have to do that. I also don't believe that I would be arguing in the face of obvious errors like those in the Mormon bible or the Koran, since the Bible's seeming authenticity is probably the main reason for my belief.

Explain to me the standard that makes the Koran obviously false (flat earth) as compared to the bible (geocentric solar system)? What's the difference?

"...And a route he followed, until when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it to set in a miry fount; and hard by he found a people...Then followed he a route until when he reached the rising of the sun he found it to rise on a people to whom we had given no shelter from it." .

12 Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

[BaseJester 1]

Well, it's interesting that I don't have to do that.

Then stop it. Respond to Randy's post with something else. You're arguing that we can tell the Koran is false because it fails on basic science. Am I wrong?

. . . since the Bible's seeming authenticity is probably the main reason for my belief.

This is circular logic.

It seems to me that you folks have a problem in general with the concept of God, and I do not. I don't read about the Red Sea being parted by God and say, "That couldn't happen in the natural world, therefore this is absolute proof that the Bible is fiction". I tend to not care about stuff that isn't provable one way or the other, so I will only tend to believe it based on how trustworthy I view the source. If the source is right about countless items, then I'll lean toward believing other things that source says.

Name some of these items that made you believe the bible was true. I in no way believe that this is the process you used to choose your religion. It's not an especially good method, anyway. Consider the book of basejester:

2+2 = 4Nineveh is the capital of AssyraThe moon orbits the earth.The acceleration of gravity is 32ft/s.Give me 10% of your income because the unicorns want you to.

Look at the countless ways the book of basejester is correct! We can tell from inductive reasoning that the supernatural claim is also correct!

[brvheart 1,752]

Explain to me the standard that makes the Koran obviously false (flat earth) as compared to the bible (geocentric solar system)? What's the difference?

How does God miraculously extending the day so that the Israelites could win a battle have anything to do with anything? I'm surprised that you could actually find those verses and type that all out and not see the obvious difference. One says that a group of people live right by the sun, the other says that God performed a miracle. That's a small difference, no???Are you next going to ask me how I could possibly believe that the Red Sea was parted or how Jonah got swallowed by a fish?I thought I made it clear that I believe that an omnipotent God can work miracles.

[brvheart 1,752]

Then stop it. Respond to Randy's post with something else. You're arguing that we can tell the Koran is false because it fails on basic science. Am I wrong?

Yes. This is why I personally can dismiss it. I'm not out to change anyone's mind. I'm discussing my personal faith.

This is circular logic.

No it's not. I'm not saying that I believe it's true because the Bible says it is and so it's true. I'm saying that I believe an eyewitness account, recorded in a particular book, by a particular author, because this witness has proven himself worthy to me. If you have new evidence to disprove the Bible, I'd be eager to discuss it with you.

Name some of these items that made you believe the bible was true. I in no way believe that this is the process you used to choose your religion. It's not an especially good method, anyway. Consider the book of basejester:Look at the countless ways the book of basejester is correct! We can tell from inductive reasoning that the supernatural claim is also correct!

I'm an adult of sound mind. Of course I choose my belief system. Just like others choose theirs. If I had grown up a Mormon, I would guess that there would be little chance I would still be a member. There are just too many glaring problems. I'm great with having my faith challenged. I'm not sure that there is a more hostile environment to my faith than this forum.

[vbnautilus 48]

Saying that you believe the bible because of its scientific accuracy is like saying you eat at McDonalds because it is so healthy. It barely warrants a serious response. Just admit you like the burgers enough to ignore your health. We get it, they are tasty burgers.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

He's actually arguing for historical accuracy. Scientific inaccuracy is attributed to miracles by God.

[brvheart 1,752]

He's actually arguing for historical accuracy. Scientific inaccuracy is attributed to miracles by God.

This guy here. This guy... gets it. Except I wouldn't necessarily say "scientific inaccuracy", but whatever. Most important, we're just talking semantics now.

[vbnautilus 48]

He's actually arguing for historical accuracy. Scientific inaccuracy is attributed to miracles by God.

He's claiming both historical and scientific accuracy. He rejected the Koran because it was scientifically inaccurate ( giving flat earth as an example ). The subtext was that he does not reject the bible because it does not contain such inaccuracies.

[Mercury69 3]

If by "semantics" you mean some kind of arguable premise for the provable existence of God, then I would tend to categorically refute those arguments as having no scientific merit or any basis in fact. It then becomes either a question of faith or philosophy.In terms of the existence of God, I would submit that any concept of God is a form of faith and has merit, especially in terms of how one applies their own moral and ethical rules to their own lives and NOT forcing others to live by it. It becomes a cleective when such concepts are discussed and, possibly, agreed upon by more than one person. While some concepts of what is right or wrong are fairly clear, many others remain vague and require debate and consideration from as many people as possible in order to arrive at some form of quorum so that the application of said moral or ethical rules meets general concensus. This may end up being made into law, like the Commandments once were. And, as time goes by, things change and laws become outdated for various reasons, which should cause a reevaluation.