(July 27, 2012 at 8:29 am)whateverist Wrote:(July 27, 2012 at 7:22 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Your question to me was to clarify why I was saying thiests had no specific beliefs other than a belief in a deity.
But do you really think that is true? Most Christians I meet express much more belief in the bible than they do a deity. Given the primacy of my agnosticism, I have no problem with anyone else believing in a deity. Their call. But the jump from that to "..and this book, the bible, is divinely inspired and so conveys the will of God" is one even my agnosticism can't allow.
Your essential hunch/belief that a personal god (or deity of whatever stripe you please) exists is neither required nor ruled out by evidence. So it is your call to make. But claims made about a book we can hold in our hand, which was transcribed by the hand of man (inspired or not), and which has a history .. those require evidence. The bible should be subject to exactly the same kinds of criticism and interpretation as any other book. That is a leap too far for me.
Christians are to theism as (pick any, but eg) Bhuddists are to atheism. We're not talking about Christianity here.
Belief in said deity to me as a Christian is originally informed by the bible. How isn't the bible subject to the same scrutiny as any, and more so than most I'd propose?
"Hunch" is you disregarding my explanation above. Existence isn't the question. Belief through faith is.
But this is way off topic.
