No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[Captain Colostomy]

As an epileptic, I think I have to bow out. Being spun in circles and smelling shit can both trigger a seizure in me.

[fr0d0]

Yes Chad. That we create our own purpose is the strict realist/ minimalist approach. I think the theistic answers are an evolutionary step beyond that, and do actually become 'meaningful'.

---

If we based our knowledge solely on looks, we would have never progressed beyond Newtonian physics.

Emphasis on 'solely'. And if we based our science solely on what we already know, and not theorised about possibilities we would also never have progressed beyond Newtonian physics.

I think you are make a big error by staking your claims on the ability of human. Our whole reality is filtered through the flawed mechanisms of the human mind, which evolved to survive and adapt, not solve the reasons for existence.

Then science is on equally shaky grounds. Christianity is founded on reason which is why some say science was it's natural byproduct. Exploration and experimentation is key, but that doesn't mean the fashionable zeitgeist of materialism over sense should discount a whole swathe of human endeavour, which is what you are promoting here.

And yes, progress is made from building on conclusions. Do you know how? Through, you guessed it, verifiability.

*blinkers necessary for students wishing to replicate this experiment

So let me get this straight, your position is that requiring verifiable evidence for the answers to complex questions causes us to regress?

No. As I'm saying: thinking that verifiable evidence is the new holy grail is a huge delusion.

[Ryantology]

That we create our own purpose is the strict realist/ minimalist approach. I think the theistic answers are an evolutionary step beyond that, and do actually become 'meaningful'.

Nonsense. The theistic approach is creating your own purpose and, through the expression of amazing amounts of hubris, insisting that the purpose you created for yourself applies to everybody else.

[Bad Writer]

Not all religions are guilty of the above, but we have the unfortunate privilege of having to cooperate in this world with Christianity and Islam, religions that are indeed trying to make their beliefs apply to even those who do not believe as they do.

[fr0d0]

And Ryan here is modelling the same for atheism.

[FallentoReason]

What I don't understand is what evidence do you have to take anything on faith in the first place? Why the bible and not something else to believe in for absolutely no reason?

Your second sentence makes no sense. I presume you're asking the old clichéd question about how one chooses one set of directions over another. This rich source if evidence all focuses on the same subject. Some is weak and some is unbreakably (so far) strong. We would have to gravitate toward the best answer or suffer cognitive dissonance. That's why I choose the bible as my source.

This is pure bs unless you gave every other holy book an *equal chance*. Did the Qu'ran not do it for you? How about the Vedas - did it not live up to its claims?

[Captain Colostomy]

And Ryan here is modelling the same for atheism.

*Doubles down on anti-seizure meds.*

[fr0d0]

This is pure bs unless you gave every other holy book an *equal chance*. Did the Qu'ran not do it for you? How about the Vedas - did it not live up to its claims?

Yes. Why wouldn't I?

---

*Doubles down on anti-seizure meds.*

Yah you're bigotry is showing

[Minimalist]

This is pure bs unless you gave every other holy book an *equal chance*. Did the Qu'ran not do it for you? How about the Vedas - did it not live up to its claims?

Or the pyramid texts? After all, they far predate the stupid fucking bible. Surely that makes them authoritative?

[Captain Colostomy]

*Doubles down on anti-seizure meds.*

Yah you're bigotry is showing

No, my hipocracy was shown by responding. Nothing bigoted in seeing the weakness in your comeback to BWS about Ryan.