(July 27, 2012 at 3:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(July 27, 2012 at 8:29 am)whateverist Wrote: 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.
Well it wasn't my intention to disregard your explanation. I'm afraid I haven't kept up with this entire thread.
I'm frankly not exactly sure what explanation you mean but if you could tell which post I'd be happy to go back and read it. 
So you only mean to be talking about theism broadly and not Christianity? I guess I'd better wait to press you regarding my distinction between a belief in a god vs a belief that a book contains that actual will of a god.
