Man, it's been forever since I had to multi-quote a single post. I feel old.
The OP. Sorry for the confusion, but typically if I'm not quoting individual posts in a thread you can usually assume I'm responding to the OP.
When I talk evidence from unbiased sources I mean something that can hold up under scrutiny. The longer it holds up and doesn't contradict itself, the more likely that it's true. I mean, there was a time we thought the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth. Then it was proposed that the Earth was actually round and that was proven to be true beyond personal bias since we can actually see the Earth and how it's shaped. That doesn't stop people from still claiming the world is flat, but they're not taken the least bit seriously because of all the overwhelming evidence against them.
Except, Christianity isn't anymore probable than all the other religions out there. It's on the same exact footing of probability.
Do you hold the same view for people who come to the opposite conclusion? Because I know plenty who lose faith based on what they know about God.
I don't know. My dad read the bible seven times and he hasn't been able to make anymore sense out of it and he's been a Christian since the eighties.
(August 18, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: To which post and question are you responding?
The OP. Sorry for the confusion, but typically if I'm not quoting individual posts in a thread you can usually assume I'm responding to the OP.
(August 18, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Hardly. EVERYONE is biased; the question is whether you are aware of your bias or not. The authors of the gospels WERE biased, but then, so are the authors of textbooks about biology or the origin of the universe. What matters, Tori, is whether you can recognize the bias (yours and theirs) and sort the facts from the fiction, so to speak. Professional historians do this all the time, and yet, they have no problem with accepting the gospels are historical documents which provide important information about the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
When I talk evidence from unbiased sources I mean something that can hold up under scrutiny. The longer it holds up and doesn't contradict itself, the more likely that it's true. I mean, there was a time we thought the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth. Then it was proposed that the Earth was actually round and that was proven to be true beyond personal bias since we can actually see the Earth and how it's shaped. That doesn't stop people from still claiming the world is flat, but they're not taken the least bit seriously because of all the overwhelming evidence against them.
(August 18, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Hmmm...if you were sitting on a jury listening to a murder trial, you might determine in your mind that the evidence presented by the prosecutor had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. But would this mean that you knew with absolute certitude that the person on trial had committed the crime? Or would it simply mean that the probability that the defendant was guilty had reached the level of being much more probable than his innocence?
Is our understanding of Christianity any different? Aren't we making a decision about what we believe to be more probable than not?
Except, Christianity isn't anymore probable than all the other religions out there. It's on the same exact footing of probability.
(August 18, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Not really. We put our faith in God based upon what we know about God. There's nothing wrong with gathering the data and making an informed decision to believe and trust God.
Do you hold the same view for people who come to the opposite conclusion? Because I know plenty who lose faith based on what they know about God.
(August 18, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Maybe it's worth taking a second look now that you're older.
I don't know. My dad read the bible seven times and he hasn't been able to make anymore sense out of it and he's been a Christian since the eighties.