Grassblade wrote:
> The question was quite innocent, actually, just trying to figure out where you
> draw the line of what you believe others tell you. E.g. Do you believe
> reporters?

You're asking the wrong kind of question. You're asking whether I 
believe certain types of people. No. Nor do I disbelieve them.

What you *should* be asking is what *information* I believe.

I think that right there says a lot about our different viewpoints.

>> What historians, *other* than biblical, do you base your entire life and
>> view of the universe around?
> I don't really count biblical historians as "historians", except maybe Luke.

I was interpreting the Bible as a historical (possibly inaccurate) 
account of what happened. (I'd hope you would count Moses writing 
Genesis as "historian". :-)

>>>> Here's a question for you: What would it take you to convince you that
>>>> ESP is real? Would you consider yourself egotistical to ask to see an
>>>> actual ESP experiment that succeeded? Or is just reading Doctor Mesmer's
>>>> writing good enough for you? If you came across a book written in the
>>>> 1700s talking about how there was this one guy who could predict what
>>>> card was coming up next in the deck, would that convince you that ESP is
>>>> real? If not, why not?
>>> Depends if it was his deck or not, I guess. ;-)
>> I'll take that as meaning there's nothing that would convince you.
>> Again, why not? Why do you believe biblical historians, and not someone
>> from just a few hundred years ago?
> I didn't say that. If it was his deck I would look askance: there's plenty of
> known tricks with cards. If it was my deck, or a deck from somebody that I was
> reasonably convinced wasn't in league with him, maybe.

Well, all you have to go on is the reports from 300 years ago. Not 
something where you can say "here, do it with my deck." That's kind of 
my point.

>> Except I only "know" it in the scientific sense. I am confident, not
>> faithful. I not only am confident your god doesn't exist, I'm confident
>> that Shiva doesn't exist, that Zeus doesn't exist, etc.

> It is my understanding that that would make you more of an agnostic than an
> atheist, then.

You would be incorrect. One doesn't have to have a blind faith that gods 
don't exist in order to be an atheist. One *can* have an *informed* 
opinion that gods don't exist.

I don't say "since I haven't ever seen an electron, I'm not sure whether 
they exist."  I'm confident they do. Not faithful, confident, not agnostic.

Would you say you're agnostic on the topic of unicorns, fairies, and 
leprachans?

>> Then saying there's evil in the world that happens to Christians because
>> of original sin doesn't make much sense.
> Who said such nonsense?

Whoever it was I was following up on. IIRC, someone claimed that God 
doesn't *allow* evil, but it's a result of the original sin. I'm too 
lazy now to track it back.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message