(February 10, 2014 at 1:25 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:(February 10, 2014 at 12:47 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Sure - anything can be read as evidence for "God", or Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, if you look. The question then becomes: is it convincing evidence? That's where intellectual honesty, critical thinking and the all-important bullshit filter comes in.
You have to look within, and without as well I mean you have the fine tuning of the universe and the natural constants and that kind of thing as well if you look, and understand what you're looking at. Revelation wise there are different choices there but the Bible has a lot going for it despite some of the flaws you can certainly point out. As long as the source/inspiration for it was God the details and things they may have got wrong about certain things is a little academic, it's not a huge faith destroying deal.
Of course it isn't 'faith destroying', because faith doesn't rely on evidence; that's why it's a synonym for 'gullibility'. This is indecently why faith sucks at determining the nature of reality, because in centuries past you'd be the very person who would posit faith in a flat Earth at the center of your god's supposed creation. Having faith in that concept didn't make it any more true, and truth is ultimately what I'm interested it. The absolute best way to determine truth is by the evaluation of evidence, which is precisely what you do not have for your belief; which is why you rely upon faith.
Because if you actually had any fucking evidence, you wouldn't need faith; you'd simply rely on the evidence. Faith is unnecessary when you have evidence. We don't need faith to understand and explain gravity, electromagnetism, or to support our belief that the Earth is an ellipsoid; because we have ample evidence to support these propositions.
![[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/E3WvRwZ.gif)