hinduwoman

That argument cuts both ways. This means that there is 50% chance of Christianity being false, and hinduism being true.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Liana,
1) You ask:


I don't. Mythology does not support the existence of deities, rather, mythology provides insight into humans, revealing that we have a propensity to be thrilled by the idea of God.

2) You ask:


I don't. The validation differential between religions is supplied by reason, not thrills. All religious myths are not created equal. Some are more thrilling than others.

The fact that theistic myths thrill, not how much they thrill, validates no religion but signifies that theism is thrilling. If theism is thrilling the converse, atheism, is not thrilling.

You say:


You shouldn't. It's bad form, and pretentious. Besides, it seems to interfere with your reading comprehension. How else to explain that you twice asked me how to explain what I never asserted?

You ask:


No. It means that evolution is a thrilling myth. That you build your un-thrilling house of atheistic cards upon this thrilling sand foundation does not make the foundation any less thrilling nor atheism any more thrilling. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

theophilus

Actually, there is a 50% "probability" that either are true.
However, since you introduced this topic as an apparent defect in Christianity, your point here is irrelevant.

theophilus

Ah, but the "entire natural world/universe" does not speak, does it. It's just there.
Actually, it is your interpretation of your own sensory impressions. But since sensory impressions convey no knowledge and your mental process are known to be unreliable, where does that leave you?

Apikorus

Similarly, the Bible does not speak. It, too, must be interpreted. Indeed, even the spoken word is subject to misinterpretation.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

lpetrich

[quote]Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
<strong>Dear Anunnaki,
So you think my following syllogism is silly?:
1) Atheism is not thrilling.
2) Truth is thrilling.
3) Ergo, Atheism contains no truth.
</strong>
[QUOTE]

What is silly in it are the premises, that truth is always thrilling and that atheism is not thrilling. Aside from that, this syllogism is fine.

No, it's a single standard. To us, the first two propositions of your first syllogism seem impossibly silly. However, you have had made no objection to the first proposition of your second syllogism, and you emphatically agree with its second proposition.

I'll give some examples of what I mean. Let's consider some cases of where a king tries to kill some hero when that hero was a baby.

Jesus Christ, son of the Christian God, and also either all or 1/3 of that entity: King Herod orders the killing of all the baby boys in Bethlehem, in order to kill the infant Messiah. JC's parents flee to Egypt with their child.

Moses: The Pharaoh orders the killing of Israelite baby boys, though he does not specifically target Moses (killing baby girls would be a more efficient way to handle overpopulation, I may add). Moses's mother puts him into a waterproofed basket and sends him floating down the river Nile. He is found by the Pharaoh's daughter, who raises him.

Krishna, avatar of Vishnu: King Kamsa did not want Krishna to exist; he had been killing Krishna's mother's children as she gives birth to them. But Krishna escaped by being switched with another baby; that other baby's parents raise him.

Romulus and Remus, sons of Mars: The wicked king Amulius deposed his brother Numitor, and decided to keep Numitor's offspring from succeeding him, making Numitor's daughter Rhea Silvia a Vestal Virgin. However, one day, the god Mars took an interest in her, and she eventually had Romulus and Remus. Whom she puts into a waterproofed basket, which she sends floating down the Tiber. The twins are found by a wolf, who raises them.

Hercules, son of Zeus: Hera sends some snakes to kill him; the baby Hercules strangles them.

Perseus, son of Zeus: King Acrisius learns that Danae will have a son who will kill him, and shuts her up in a dungeon. But Zeus turns himself into some gold and pours into that dungeon, making her pregnant. When she has Perseus, Acrisius puts her and him into a wooden chest, but the two are eventually rescued by a fisherman.

Oedipus: His father, Laius, ruler of Thebes, finds out from an oracle that the baby Oedipus will grow up to kill him and marry his wife; he tells his slave to leave Oedipus in the wilderness, but that slave gives him to a fellow shepherd to raise.

Buddha: His father, a noble, did not want him to be a religious prophet, but instead of trying to kill him, he spoils him, keeping him unaware of major pain and suffering. But he eventually sees a monk, an old man, a sick man, and a corpse, and decides to find out what this was all about.

So what makes the story of Jesus Christ so special?

GunnerJ

Why, he was the TRUE Savior. The rest are demonic copycats.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Ipetrich,
You assert:


Then you should have no problem with the following (affirmation of the consequent) syllogism that's equally as fallacious:
1) Men look suspiciously similar to apes.
2) Apes are not men.
3) Ergo, men are not men.

You guys just don't get it! This has been my fourth and last demonstration through reason and example of your illogic. I give up on you. – Tired of Your Insincerity and/or Inability to Argue Logically, Albert the Traditional Catholic

theophilus

If you view the Bible simply as a human book, i.e., a communication of one human to another, this might be true (does a recipe book have to be interpreted to be understood?).
However, since the Bible is, by nature, revelation, the interpretation is not a human enterprise. The Bible interprets itself as the word of God.

Foxhole Atheist

"However, since the Bible is, by nature, revelation, the interpretation is not a human enterprise. The Bible interprets itself as the word of God."

Then, why so many factions among christians? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">