. - Understanding religious delusion

[Llucid]

Technically, I agree with his stance as well, but unfortunately that is not the reality, merely the theory. Like any scientific field, there is an clique of influential scholars, that are the unquestioned experts in said field and then there are the wannabes who are trying very hard to get into that little influential clique. Then we have the lobbies that try to influence that inner circle of experts.

In most cases a find in scientific field, especially in the cases of archaeology and History, don't stand a chance if they contradict the majority view in any way.

Again I give two examples: The death of Herod in 4 B.C.E. instead of 1 B.C.E and the supposed census in Luke that according to the majority view is an indication of error in the bible since to them it either didn't happen or it was written by someone who wasn't familiar with Roman law in these matters.

As I have previously posted, and no-one has seen fit or been able to refute. There are quite clear historical indicators that have been ignored by experts for some mysterious reason that Herod died in 1 B.C.E. and not 4 B.C.E and that there was in fact an oath of allegience which was seen as a census, which was mentioned by a number of ancient sources, but was also passed by in favour of more imaginative theories...

So yes, science is objective in theory, but not in practice, there are simply too many variables that influence that famed objectivity.

I agree completely. I don't think people realize that the scientific community is as prone to politics and corruption as any other community, included any religious ones. We've seen repeatedly researchers fake their results to support a certain agenda and ostracize those who don't agree with the "acceptable" views (such as those scientists who support ID. Good examples of this are covered in Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as well as the current legal dispute happening between the California Science Center and the Discovery Institute). It's unfortunate, really, that science has been perverted from a tool and method for discovering truth into the only acceptable source and sole measure of all truth, a view known philosophically as Scientism. One of the most ironic things about Scientism is that it claims to be the only definer of all truth, but this claim is not a scientific one, so it stumbles before it even leaves the gate.

[MARAB0D]

Okay, let me present this in a better way. Tacitus wrote, ""But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. . . ."

But they were not called Christians at that time and the Romans saw no difference between the Jews and what would later be known as the Christians.

They did see! Seneca, Nero's mentor, was a Jesus' fan already in 40s AD (not a "believer"!). He was close to Roman secret services and knew about the events in Judaea, he wrote some political plays about Christ for the young Nero (not the fakes which are spread now though), so Nero himself was fully aware of Christ and his followers since his young days. Moreover, later Seneca tried to use his power as a teacher to manipulate already adult Nero - and caused severe hatred in his former pupil, so Nero ordered him dead. When then Nero saw those Christians appearing in Rome itself, his hatred to them was already existing through his hatred to Seneca. Seneca was trying to make of Nero a tolerant, educated and enlightened ruler, and obviously over-done the job, causing the opposite...

If you look at the historical timeline, you would see that there was no "Jews" in Rome except a few merchants and retired legionnaires, the Jews were still living in Judaea up until few years after Nero's death, when Titus Flavius destroyed Jerusalem and enslaved the entire local Jewish population (Nero was killed in AD 68 and the Jews appeared in Rome after AD 70) - so the only Jews who were in Rome in Nero's days were exactly those Middle-Eastern and Greek Christians whom he was feeding to lions on a couple of occasions. They were escaping to Rome from religious persecution at home by Pharisees, who were the religious authority and were trying to weed out all followers of Jesus, the Essenes (who were a very numerous sect, nearly a 1/4 of population).

[Guest]

I agree completely. I don't think people realize that the scientific community is as prone to politics and corruption as any other community, included any religious ones. We've seen repeatedly researchers fake their results to support a certain agenda and ostracize those who don't agree with the "acceptable" views (such as those scientists who support ID. Good examples of this are covered in Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as well as the current legal dispute happening between the California Science Center and the Discovery Institute). It's unfortunate, really, that science has been perverted from a tool and method for discovering truth into the only acceptable source and sole measure of all truth, a view known philosophically as Scientism. One of the most ironic things about Scientism is that it claims to be the only definer of all truth, but this claim is not a scientific one, so it stumbles before it even leaves the gate.

\\

Nice try, but that is a gross distortion of how science works. There is resistance to new ideas within science, but ultimately evidence is the final arbiter.

Faith believers have no such luxury.

Br Cornelius

[Jor-el]

\\

Nice try, but that is a gross distortion of how science works. There is resistance to new ideas within science, but ultimately evidence is the final arbiter.

Faith believers have no such luxury.

Br Cornelius

No it actually isn't a distortion. I have been on this board for a few years now and I have seen the same weary old argments posted by many members time and again almost as if they are the 1st to have noticed or read what some expert said regarding the New Testament and especially all the facts regarding the birth of Jesus. This very thread relies on those very same experts and their distortions.

The fact that you present a number of fictitious stories and add the birth of Jesus to it, as merely another, carries the assumption that we are dealing with yet another fictitious story, everybody gets it, it is the purpose of the thread and the purpose of the original source of the OP.

What you assume though, is that you are correct in your reasoning and that therefore there is ultimately no defense against said reasoning. The reason you assume this is because of said experts in the fields of Archaeology and History have determined for you that it is reasonably safe for you to make just such an assumption.

But then again, why is it that I can demonstrate something they have claimed to be fiction and in doing so I have also demonstrated that their favourite character, king Herod, didn't die when they claim him to have died?

There are maybe a handful of Historians who have been shouting (figuratively) for years on these issues, and you guys on this forum probably have never heard of this alternative. I believe this because you are still quoting most of those fat cats who actually control the system. But I suppose I can't blame you, your quoting experts who are the height of impartiality when it comes to their chosen field of "scientific" endeavour.

Why is that? Why is it that for close to 50 years at the very least these things have been demonstrated and steadfastly ignored by the said experts of these fields who make policy?

And you'd better believe it, they do, simply because they have the power to say Ye or Nay on what is printed in Peer review papers and to pass or fail any new graduate thesis according to their mode of truth, no matter how contrived it is.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Jor-el

[Guest]

Ultimately you can argue the details about the history till you are blue in the face.

My main argument with your beliefs is that it requires me to accept supernatural events and superstitions without proof when all evidence points to the fact that those supernatural events are impossible.

Argue your historical minueta all you like, it doesn't make the essential fantastical details any more true.

I am willing to accept that Jesus was a historical person, I am not willing to accept the Pagan mumbo jumbo which has been loaded onto that historical character. The fact that the historical case doesn't make sense is just icing on the cake.

Br Cornelius

[Jor-el]

Ultimately you can argue the details about the history till you are blue in the face.

My main argument with your beliefs is that it requires me to accept supernatural events and superstitions without proof when all evidence points to the fact that those supernatural events are impossible.

Argue your historical minueta all you like, it doesn't make the essential fantastical details any more true.

I am willing to accept that Jesus was a historical person, I am not willing to accept the Pagan mumbo jumbo which has been loaded onto that historical character. The fact that the historical case doesn't make sense is just icing on the cake.

Br Cornelius

I'm all for throwing out the pagan mumbo jumbo myself, that what made Jesus' story so similar to all the other dying and rising gods out there, the fact that you do not accept the supernatural as a possibility also means you only accept what can actually be proven, very well, then start by accepting the so called minutae, and you will in fact come up with the real historical character of Jesus, it will just be too bad that it will be quite close to what the bible says.... minus the supernatural events naturally, since you cannot believe them.

But then don't disregard the actual facts by preferring the stories laid on you by those same fat cats, because if you do accept them over the actual facts, you are truly just wasting your time discussing these issues.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Jor-el

[Dr. D]

I agree with your stance here, but I was reflecting on how our conversation is not proceeding this way. I linked you a recent scholarly article (containing over 50 footnotes) published in the Detroit Baptist Theological Journal, and you completely brushed aside any of the content of the article, dismissing it on the apparent bias of those who reprinted the article. This very much has the appearance of a dismissive character assault. The facts presented in the article have been completely ignored.

Perhaps I was not sufficiently complete in my complaint. I would not accept information coming from "Biblearchaeology" as being valid due to its agenda but as part of that agenda, they repeatedly print articles coming from sources that often have greater and more rigid agendas. This would be the case of the Detroit Baptist Theological Journal, printed by a fundamentalist seminary that is not accredited by any agency and teaches the 6,000 year old earth and claims to adhere to the "original manuscripts" of the Bible. In reviewing past articles, it is not difficult to see their selective research designed to support their particular beliefs.

I hope this explains it to your satisfaction.

[Llucid]

Perhaps I was not sufficiently complete in my complaint. I would not accept information coming from "Biblearchaeology" as being valid due to its agenda but as part of that agenda, they repeatedly print articles coming from sources that often have greater and more rigid agendas. This would be the case of the Detroit Baptist Theological Journal, printed by a fundamentalist seminary that is not accredited by any agency and teaches the 6,000 year old earth and claims to adhere to the "original manuscripts" of the Bible. In reviewing past articles, it is not difficult to see their selective research designed to support their particular beliefs.

I hope this explains it to your satisfaction.

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Dallas Baptist Theological Seminary is accredited by multiple agencies (source), such as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the same agency that gives accreditation to most southern colleges such as The University of Texas, University of Tennessee, University of Kentucky ect ect.

I find it fallacious that you would dismiss valid historical research and data because of a cosmological view in an entirely different field of study. I also find it wrong that you would have a derogatory view on those who adhere to the "original manuscripts" or the Bible. I hope you are aware that we have over 5000 copies of the New Testament in its original language, and these 5000+ copies have a 99.5% accuracy rate with one another. Furthermore we have manuscripts that are extremely close to the original writings, including a piece of John's Gospel (named p52) that dates 125 A.D. We are more sure of what the NT said than we are of what Plato or Aristotle wrote, considering that the handful of copies we have of their work date 1000+ years after they originally wrote them.

[+Paranoid Android]

Josephus' only mentioning of Jesus has been generally agreed by responsible Biblical historians as a forgery. Even those who disagree find it hard to explain why none of the early church leaders, Clement, Tertullian, Justin, Arnobius, Irenaeus, mentioned this incredibly important writing that gave literary proof to the existence of Jesus. And Eusebius, himself a great Biblical forger, did not mention the writing of Josephus until about 340 A.D.

Actually, the forgery was quite clumsy. Josephus was a Jew and it would not have been likely for him to so flambouyantly praise Jesus as a messiah.

Tacitus becomes equally suspicious since he mentions "Christians," a term not used in the time of Nero . . . the time to which his writing alludes.

Are you aware that there are two quotes about Jesus in the works of Josephus, and you are only referring to one of them here? And while there is much debate about the validity of this first reference (the so-called Testimonium Flavium), there is no such problem with the second reference.

~ PA

[+Paranoid Android]

Your right,as the OP was trying to point out, the adherents of each religion can spot the absurdities of of the others but they are unable to see or accept the absurdities of their own

fullywired

But I have already established that this is a falsehood, at least insofar as spotting absurdities in other religions. There are many people who grew up with one particular set of beliefs but then "convert" to a new religion. I, for one, did not become a Christian until I was 20. If it were a true fact that outsiders looking in on a particular faith could easily see the absurdities (as is the claim made by the article), then I as a non-Christian would have seen these absurdities, correct? The fact that converts to other faiths besides Christianity also do not see absurdity in what they choose to follow shows that the statement of the OP is severely flawed, particularly (but not limited) for those who convert from one particular religion to another (eg, Christian to Muslim, Mormon to Christian).

~ Regards, PA

[Llucid]

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Dallas Baptist Theological Seminary is accredited by multiple agencies (source), such as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the same agency that gives accreditation to most southern colleges such as The University of Texas, University of Tennessee, University of Kentucky ect ect.

Forgive me, I've gotten my schools mixed up. I'm much more use to dealing with Dallas Theological Seminary

Edited August 26, 2010 by Llucid

[Dr. D]

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Dallas Baptist Theological Seminary is accredited by multiple agencies (source), such as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the same agency that gives accreditation to most southern colleges such as The University of Texas, University of Tennessee, University of Kentucky ect ect.

I find it fallacious that you would dismiss valid historical research and data because of a cosmological view in an entirely different field of study. I also find it wrong that you would have a derogatory view on those who adhere to the "original manuscripts" or the Bible. I hope you are aware that we have over 5000 copies of the New Testament in its original language, and these 5000+ copies have a 99.5% accuracy rate with one another. Furthermore we have manuscripts that are extremely close to the original writings, including a piece of John's Gospel (named p52) that dates 125 A.D. We are more sure of what the NT said than we are of what Plato or Aristotle wrote, considering that the handful of copies we have of their work date 1000+ years after they originally wrote them.

That's easy to do. No problem. Tell me the percentage of accuracy to the original manuscripts and then we'll talk. The fact that copies agree with one another is not astounding. They are, after all, copies and any alteration, insertion, editing, would follow from one to the other until it appeared that there was a consistency when there really was not. For that reason it is impossible to adhere to the original manuscripts because none exist.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Dr. D

[Dr. D]

Are you aware that there are two quotes about Jesus in the works of Josephus, and you are only referring to one of them here? And while there is much debate about the validity of this first reference (the so-called Testimonium Flavium), there is no such problem with the second reference.

~ PA

Yes, of course I am familiar with the part dealing with the death of James. While it is commonly stated that modern historians do not hold this portion of Josephus' writings in suspect, I find that conclusion to be academically naive.

Johnson tells us, "When we turn to the earliest Christian sources, we enter a terrifying jungle of scholarly contradictions. All were writing evangelism or theology rather than history, even when, like Luke in his gospel, they assume the literary manners of a historian and seek to anchor the events of Jesus's life in secular chronology."

For more than a thousand years the church had almost complete control of all religious and most historical documents. Knowing the lengthy history of insertions, deletions, editing, forgeries . . . . it seems rather naive to accept any of the documents, including the gospels, as being absolutely legitimate.

[+Paranoid Android]

Yes, of course I am familiar with the part dealing with the death of James. While it is commonly stated that modern historians do not hold this portion of Josephus' writings in suspect, I find that conclusion to be academically naive.

What an.... odd.... position to take. Academically naive? It's the academics who are accepting Josephus' second quote as authentic, correct? Edited August 26, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[Guest]

I'm all for throwing out the pagan mumbo jumbo myself, that what made Jesus' story so similar to all the other dying and rising gods out there, the fact that you do not accept the supernatural as a possibility also means you only accept what can actually be proven, very well, then start by accepting the so called minutae, and you will in fact come up with the real historical character of Jesus, it will just be too bad that it will be quite close to what the bible says.... minus the supernatural events naturally, since you cannot believe them.

But then don't disregard the actual facts by preferring the stories laid on you by those same fat cats, because if you do accept them over the actual facts, you are truly just wasting your time discussing these issues.

That would still require me to believe in the virgin birth, resurrection (both Jesus and Lazarus), walking on water, that Jesus magically took away my sins (sins been a Christian concept to which I do not subscribe) and that the personality called Jesus will return at some undisclosed future date.

Thats enough of a package of fantastical bull to put me right off. You maybe able to brainwash small children into this rubbish, but I stopped believing in mythical creatures and fairy tales a very long time ago.

Focusing on semi-credable historical debate is a mere diversion from the unsupportable supernatural.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 26, 2010 by Guest

[+Paranoid Android]

You maybe able to brainwash small children into this rubbish, but I stopped believing in mythical creatures and fairy tales a very long time ago.

Love that term you use. "Brainwashing". Makes it sound so sinister. I seem to remember being an adult before I was "brainwashed" into this rubbish (I also love the way you belittle my beliefs as "rubbish" - total cred to you, my friend)

[Guest]

Love that term you use. "Brainwashing". Makes it sound so sinister. I seem to remember being an adult before I was "brainwashed" into this rubbish (I also love the way you belittle my beliefs as "rubbish" - total cred to you, my friend)

Unanalyzed superstition is reasonably describable as rubbish, and the vast majority of its supporters were indeed brainwashed into believing it at an age where they lacked the critical faculties to distinguish fact from fantasy. I know that you are a little more discerning about the internal details of your beliefs than most, but essentially it still boils down to accepting a series of unsupportable supernatural occurances.

If I asked you to believe in the Spaghetti monster in the sky I am certain your response would be very similar. You may argue that they are not the same but that doesn't make it so.

Br Cornelius

[+Paranoid Android]

Unanalyzed superstition is reasonably describable as rubbish, and the vast majority of its supporters were indeed brainwashed into believing it at an age where they lacked the critical faculties to distinguish fact from fantasy. I know that you are a little more discerning about the internal details of your beliefs than most, but essentially it still boils down to accepting a series of unsupportable supernatural occurances.

If I asked you to believe in the Spaghetti monster in the sky I am certain your response would be very similar. You may argue that they are not the same but that doesn't make it so.

Br Cornelius

Then I shall take your use of rubbish as the compliment I am sure it was intended. Yes, the Bible does describe a series of supernatural events. And yes, there is no empirical evidence to support said events took place. But I still believe these supernatural events happened. I can't prove that these happened in any significant way, but I don't mind accepting some things on faith from time to time, provided the rest that accompanies it makes sense, which Christian beliefs do (to me).

OH, and the Spaghetti Monster is different. Unlike Christianity, the Spaghetti Monster (FSM) was created as a satire and parody against a particular set of beliefs. This puts the FSM in a completely different category to Christianity or Islam or Mormonism. Christianity, Islam and Mormonism are all declared as being true accounts of God and though they may be wrong, they must be analysed within that framework of ideas. The Spaghetti Monster is an admitted parody/satire, and therefore must be analysed in its own framework as a satire/parody, quite separate from religions that portray themselves as "the true path".

I am surprised that you cannot see the difference necessary here.

~ Regards, PA

Edited August 26, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[Power Lust]

Unanalyzed superstition is reasonably describable as rubbish, and the vast majority of its supporters were indeed brainwashed into believing it at an age where they lacked the critical faculties to distinguish fact from fantasy. I know that you are a little more discerning about the internal details of your beliefs than most, but essentially it still boils down to accepting a series of unsupportable supernatural occurances.

If I asked you to believe in the Spaghetti monster in the sky I am certain your response would be very similar. You may argue that they are not the same but that doesn't make it so.

Br Cornelius

How patronising can you get?

Why do I keep hearing comments such as - you've been brainwashed, they got to you early before your thought processes were developed, only science explains why things happen etc, etc? I think people need to drop their arrogance and stop being closed minded.

Heres one for you. Language and maths (what science is based on) are fundamentally floored. Language is floored because each word has a definition and as such it cant represent things you cant define. Maths is floored (its a language system too) because it cant define numbers with infinite decimal places. Its essentially the same issue for both language systems.

This means regardless of how much scientists want you to believe that they can calcualte the orbit of the earth (for example) because it is based on pi which has infinite decimal places no answer they give you is ever 100% accurate. So in fact (and this applies to a lot of instances in science) scientists cant accurately predict anything.

This means people have no right to give the impression out that science can be used to explain everything because essentially it cant. Such people are allowing themselves to believe a science delusion and have a distorted perception of reality.

Anybody reading the replies I'm about to get which will no doubt try and rubbish what I'm saying should know 'the problem with infinites' isnt something I've just established it is a well known long running problem in maths and science.

[fullywired]

Then I shall take your use of rubbish as the compliment I am sure it was intended. Yes, the Bible does describe a series of supernatural events. And yes, there is no empirical evidence to support said events took place. But I still believe these supernatural events happened. I can't prove that these happened in any significant way, but I don't mind accepting some things on faith from time to time, provided the rest that accompanies it makes sense, which Christian beliefs do (to me).

OH, and the Spaghetti Monster is different. Unlike Christianity, the Spaghetti Monster (FSM) was created as a satire and parody against a particular set of beliefs. This puts the FSM in a completely different category to Christianity or Islam or Mormonism. Christianity, Islam and Mormonism are all declared as being true accounts of God and though they may be wrong, they must be analysed within that framework of ideas. The Spaghetti Monster is an admitted parody/satire, and therefore must be analysed in its own framework as a satire/parody, quite separate from religions that portray themselves as "the true path".

I am surprised that you cannot see the difference necessary here.

~ Regards, PA

The Islam story and the Mormon story describe supernatural events but as you said " there is no empirical evidence to support said events took place",. just as the Christian story has no evidence to support it .

Yet you choose to believe the Christian story and reject the other two ,therebye proving the point of the OP,you can see how absurd the others are but are blind to the absurdities of your own

fullywired

[Guest]

How patronising can you get?

Why do I keep hearing comments such as - you've been brainwashed, they got to you early before your thought processes were developed, only science explains why things happen etc, etc? I think people need to drop their arrogance and stop being closed minded.

Heres one for you. Language and maths (what science is based on) are fundamentally floored. Language is floored because each word has a definition and as such it cant represent things you cant define. Maths is floored (its a language system too) because it cant define numbers with infinite decimal places. Its essentially the same issue for both language systems.

This means regardless of how much scientists want you to believe that they can calcualte the orbit of the earth (for example) because it is based on pi which has infinite decimal places no answer they give you is ever 100% accurate. So in fact (and this applies to a lot of instances in science) scientists cant accurately predict anything.

This means people have no right to give the impression out that science can be used to explain everything because essentially it cant. Such people are allowing themselves to believe a science delusion and have a distorted perception of reality.

Anybody reading the replies I'm about to get which will no doubt try and rubbish what I'm saying should know 'the problem with infinites' isnt something I've just established it is a well known long running problem in maths and science.

I agree with your secondary argument entirely, it is the whole basis of my belief system. The only measure we have for science is its utility and it serves that function very well indeed. Without it you wouldn't be able to have this argument on the internet, so despite the fact that maths cannot be proved - it produces results which are physical and tangible.

I hold all scientific ideas as working hypothesis which will be refined as more data accumulates. If evidence were to show that evolution was not supported - great, lets move onto a better explanation.

I require no faith in anything - because quite frankly I believe in almost nothing in a firm and steadfast way.

Br Cornelius

[redhen]

It's funny how so many times on the UM forums that a general criticism of revealed religions inevitably leads to a debate on Christian textual criticism. I suppose that since we in the West are the heirs of Christendom (aka Europe), it's not all that surprising.

Anyway, I just wanted to interject a thought on scientism, since this thread really is about self-delusion.

There are many people who believe whole-heartedly that "Science" is the ultimate arbiter of reality. Everything else is just a bunch of woo. The problem with this stance is that they have not proved this empirically, it is in fact a philosophical claim. So this argument is self-defeating.

Also, these people that believe that "Science" is above reproach can be very dangerous. I watched a PBS show on Violence last night, in which psychologists duplicated the infamous Milgram Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment , with the same results. Otherwise normal, rational people were willing to torture and kill people in the name of "Science".

Any ideology can be dangerous. Just saying...

[Guest]

It's funny how so many times on the UM forums that a general criticism of revealed religions inevitably leads to a debate on Christian textual criticism. I suppose that since we in the West are the heirs of Christendom (aka Europe), it's not all that surprising.

Anyway, I just wanted to interject a thought on scientism, since this thread really is about self-delusion.

There are many people who believe whole-heartedly that "Science" is the ultimate arbiter of reality. Everything else is just a bunch of woo. The problem with this stance is that they have not proved this empirically, it is in fact a philosophical claim. So this argument is self-defeating.

Also, these people that believe that "Science" is above reproach can be very dangerous. I watched a PBS show on Violence last night, in which psychologists duplicated the infamous Milgram Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment , with the same results. Otherwise normal, rational people were willing to torture and kill people in the name of "Science".

Any ideology can be dangerous. Just saying...

The Milgram experiment demonstrated nothing of the sort - it demonstrated that people will follow authority regardless of the consequences. If the men in white coats were replaced with men in Cassocks or military uniforms - the outcome would have been the same. It was a psychological experiment into the power of authority.

Br Cornelius

[+Paranoid Android]

The Islam story and the Mormon story describe supernatural events but as you said " there is no empirical evidence to support said events took place",. just as the Christian story has no evidence to support it .

Yet you choose to believe the Christian story and reject the other two ,therebye proving the point of the OP,you can see how absurd the others are but are blind to the absurdities of your own

fullywired

If you think my reasons for believing the Bible and rejecting the others is based solely on the so-called absurdity of other stories, then you really do not understand what people such as myself actually believe. If anything, the fact that I (as an adult) turned to Christ disproves the point of the OP, since according to the OP anyone "outside" the mythology (any mythology) should be able to see the absurdities. My reasons for believing the Bible are far more complex than "miracles happened in Bible, therefore it must be true... but miracles in other holy texts are clearly absurd and/or false". This is a fatal flaw in the argument of the OP article - it does not allow other information beyond the supernatural into the debate. It assumes that the supernatural events occur in a vacuum and are not accompanied by other entirely natural events and teachings that may factor into the decision of an individual to believe or not. Do you really think my entire reason for turning to Christ was that he performed miracles? What about other factors that may influence my decision to believe?

As I argued right from the start, the criteria set forth by the OP makes the answer entirely too limited to be of any real use. It dismisses any possibility of a sane person looking at the details and arriving at a conclusion that disagrees with the OP.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[fullywired]

If you think my reasons for believing the Bible and rejecting the others is based solely on the so-called absurdity of other stories, then you really do not understand what people such as myself actually believe. If anything, the fact that I (as an adult) turned to Christ disproves the point of the OP, since according to the OP anyone "outside" the mythology (any mythology) should be able to see the absurdities. My reasons for believing the Bible are far more complex than "miracles happened in Bible, therefore it must be true... but miracles in other holy texts are clearly absurd and/or false". This is a fatal flaw in the argument of the OP article - it does not allow other information beyond the supernatural into the debate. It assumes that the supernatural events occur in a vacuum and are not accompanied by other entirely natural events and teachings that may factor into the decision of an individual to believe or not. Do you really think my entire reason for turning to Christ was that he performed miracles? What about other factors that may influence my decision to believe?

As I argued right from the start, the criteria set forth by the OP makes the answer entirely too limited to be of any real use. It dismisses any possibility of a sane person looking at the details and arriving at a conclusion that disagrees with the OP.

i don't know what your reasons are for believing the bible are but you can't get awa y from the fact that you are believing a story which is just as absurd as the others

fullywired