You really think Rowling sells 500 million copies if the only truth contained within those books are factual descriptions?

This narrow version of truth is completely uncompetitive in the marketplace of values which makes it less relevant in a free, democratic society.

How do the people who subscribe to this version of truth not end up as supporters of authoritarianism due to their pessimism about the mass of humanity whose attention is captured by what they deem to be non-truth? Perhaps we are already seeing this play out in Western society?

Great post .

No, it isn't.

Please think carefully about the bolded above for at least three minutes. If after three-minutes of careful thought you don't see why the bolded is an utterly ridiculous comparison, I'd be delighted to explain to you why it is a ridiculous comparison. Thanks!

The Koran refers to Moses about 130 times. That is more mentions than any other prophet. The Koran itself holds the Torah in very high regard; hence, why Moses is the most mentioned prophet.

But, as I suggested in my previous post to you, I don't base the correctness of an argument based on how many people think it is a good argument or not. Even if only 1% of people think that God not being a pink elephant is proven by the Bible, that is still my argument because I am a Biblical Fideist. I accept what the Bible says by faith, based on it's power and authority. I don't believe the Bible so much because of what it says, but I believe the Bible mostly because of Who inspired it (God).

For the believer no argument is necessary, for the unbeliever no argument is sufficient.

I did not know the the word "Fideist". So I looked it up.
Definintion: "Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths."

The definition makes clear why we can never agree.
In science, we try extremely hard to remove subjectivity and bias from experiments. It sounds like you value your biases above objective evidence!

So.... I don't see any hope of resolving diametrically opposing viewpoints.

Not a tough question at all. The correct answer is that God has informed man in the Bible.

Now it's your turn to answer a tough question:

By way of introduction to my question, please re-read this post of yours:

I discovered three elementary informal fallacies in the above post. Can you spot all three? Looking forward to your answer.

... anything but the slaughter of human beings and children is relevant to this religious apologetic foolishness. And that's the "children are human beings informal fallacy" to a self-deceptive apologist. It's as dishonest and immoral as it gets ... hiding appalling immorality behind technicalities like a pharisee.

Let's hear how you know the answer you gave is the "correct" answer, just total LOL.

Not because kuran mention Moses many time or have Torah in high esteem they have the same demand on how people should act even they share the same god … u even said it yourself , the message in those books isn’t about what the books says ??

Just wow .
When u come to a point where it start what the bible says is literally gods will to only say the messages on what it says as long u believe in god should speak volume on how u should perceive religion …..

But hey we all free to believe in what we want huh .

Ps: not to mention they battle with each other’s for thousands of years because of those damn books …..strange if they share the same beliefs of gods ?

+1

Wrong !
Man wrote what he thinks god said because all knowledge in that book came from men , not from god directly .
Supposing to be from god because 1 man at some point in time said god told him so is vastly different then god said those words because he wrote it .
And btw if the words of god is so important and wanted all the people to know it why didn’t he just tell it to the mass instead of just 2-3-4 individuals and hoping faith would prevail from those human individual ?

It just makes no sense …

Anyway the words in those books been probably modify by many throughout history by personal interpretation since it’s been so long and rewritten many times .
Probably why the Old Testament needed to be rewritten and to give some credibility to the bible , the only was possible was to make Jesus a direct link with god .
What better link u can make by passing him at the son of god !


The difference with a sect and a religion is the number of his adepts like the difference of a murderer and a emperor is the number of people they kill …

Higher number of believer based on faith do not mean higher truth .

Since you have no interest in having a rational discussion, I will leave you to your typical ranting and raving.

Since lunkwill, montrealcorp and stremba70 are actually interested in a serious conversation with me, I will leave you alone.

I will give you "credit" where credit is due: You're the only "regular" on any forum I've ever participated in who posts like s/he is literally a raving lunatic.

Thank you for sharing.

Unfortunately I'm not really interested in engaging disjointed "stream of consciousness" posts right now.

Have a good knight!

We cross?? Oh, please interact with me. If I'm cut off from the ChuckyCHEESE philosophy group I just don't think I could bear it.

I doubt you could bear the Lincoln Junior High School Philosophy Group, let alone mine. Maybe if you learn a few of the elementary logical fallacies you could maybe at least keep up with the kids.

Sorry, MontrealCorp. I'm not gonna to try to figure out and respond to another of your "stream of consciousness" posts.

Hi, Lunkwill.

You raise some important points here.

If I can find it, I'm going to post an opening statement from a debate on fideism that I found years ago on debate.org.

It looks like the website is now defunct, but I made a hard-copy of it some time ago.

If I can find it, I'll will post it here.

Thanks for your patience.

I look forward to a fruitful discussion about fideism.

This is you being like Jesus and being godly, right? Or did you forget that part of it in the service of dishonest apologetics? Then again if being godly is akin to slaughtering women and children and spewing bigotry and hate crime incitement, maybe your loving nature is a cut above the cloth of the religion.

More goo-goo from Gaga.

So much focus within the religious domain is centered on God, but the ultimate question is: Do you believe in life and the promises of life written on your heart?

No matter how they identify, everyone should ask themselves this.

I have posted here or in another thread the results of an institute of physics survey into diversity of their membership - that's masters degree or higher - one of the questions being about religion. Close to 50% identified with specific religions, the rest said 'no religion' which is ofc not the same as not believing in god/s. Francis Bacon said a little philosophy inspires rejection of god but depth in philosophy brings us to religion. There are approaches to religious belief from logical perspectives, so there may be more common ground there than with respect to your definition. In the absence of a scientific approach to answering certain questions, lacking the possibility of experiment or mere observation, then why is faith not a valid way to pursue truth and this be recognised as superior to science in its absence?

Because u can’t share faith as evidence for truth while u can with scientific experimentation?

And that is massively important distinction when u try uses faith for societal policies .
Proofs is truth !
Imagination isn’t .

Weak response.

The vast majority of people are not policy-makers or scientists. If getting closer to truth is the aim, then individuals should not be discouraged from truth seeking within the subjective, even recognizing that the subjective is complex, chaotic, and full of deceptions.

Sure, teach everyone the value of empiricism, but the attempt to make it totalizing is hostile to truth seeking.

Complex , chaotic and deception certainly won’t be solved with faith .
Those attribute just appears from the lacking comprehension of a subject .

Agree. And so what needs to be done is move "religion" to "spiritual," thus moving the search from mythical to mystery but of this world. What things affect the human spirit and how ... in this world, in this life. Instead of the Pearly Gates magic story. Supernatural religion from magic believing times only diverts from this more real ideal.