(September 25, 2012 at 9:23 pm)Darkstar Wrote:(September 25, 2012 at 9:11 pm)treshbond Wrote:
I was simply saying that the whole 'brainwashing' bit was common knowledge (to atheists, anyway). I can't vouch for the bible's accuracy compared to other ancient texts. Maybe it is more credible, but how much more, and is it still very credible at all? I don't think that everything in the bible is a lie...just the supernatural bits (most of it). Some theists are now interpreting the more ridiculous bible passages as metaphor. I have read on this forum that god 'is a metaphor but also real'. But if god is a metaphor, he doesn't need to be real. I think most take the ressurection literally, though. I'm not an expert on the bible, but I've seen various arguments against its validity on this forum (not to mention the numerous contradictions.)
Personally I don't have any problem with accepting the supernatural as 'possible', the issue is how 'probable' it is. Years ago the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was a supernatural concept, it ceased to become so when a means came about to test and measure it.
It is just as possible that what is considered supernatural now may become natural once the necessary technology (means to test and measure) is developed. Of course until that happens it is still super natural but just as with the orbit of earth, many began to believe it revolved around the sun before it was firmly established as fact.
That means they acted in faith based upon evidence. Much like one has faith that when they drive down a road they have never personally traveled, that it will hold the weight of the car and not collapse beneath them. Why? because they know there are systems in place to ensure consistent construction standards etc. Does that mean it is not an act of faith? I say it is faith, but it has a reasonable basis. My goal is to determine how reasonable it is to consider the Bible a reliable source of information about what could possibly be true. In other words, how probable it is.
