(January 31, 2011 at 4:17 pm)Matthew Wrote: It's nice that you have an opinion about these matters, but it's not especially relevant here. If you'd like to start a thread on the subject (with some justification for your views) I would be happy to engage with it.
A cursory look around AtheistForums would indicate that a divergence in a thread is quite, quite common. Fact that you chose to reveal information pertaining to your beliefs in greater detail makes it fair game, me thinks.
You are welcome to lecture me though.
(January 30, 2011 at 1:48 pm)Matthew Wrote:Quote:And yet you trust in the capacity of the tales told by a clan of goatherders and "improved" by the committee, I mean council, of Nicea. Charming.Not only in this comment out of place once again, as above, but you are confusing the categories of capacity to trust (the cognitive faculties of the knower) and capacity to be trusted (the reliability of the source of knowledge). [Also, I wasn't aware that goatherders were so notorious, or that the Bible was only written by goatherders, or that the council of Nicea had anything whatsoever to do with the formation of the Biblical text or canon.]
(January 31, 2011 at 4:17 pm)Matthew Wrote:Quote:Ignorance is a bitch, isn't it?Exactly my point, and nicely evidenced by your previous comment.
How christian of you.
(January 31, 2011 at 4:17 pm)Matthew Wrote: Provable in what sense and according to whose epistemology?
Let me rephrase that simpler:
Why should your system (God) hold any more validity than some monkey's convictions?