fishbulb

It's probably just the new deoderant.

In case anyone missed the underlying point: my diatribe was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I did nothing more than string together arguments that I have seen made numerous times by theists here as well as elsewhere.

The point is this: a skeptic has no faith. He starts with nothing but his observations and must try to infer the truth from them. Someone with faith starts out, or so he believes, with the truth. To the skeptic, observations are tools used to try to uncover the truth. To someone who already has the truth, observations are merely things to be interpreted in accordance with that truth.

That is why it does no good to ask a true believer whether the Bible is consistent with their revealed truth. The question seems silly to a believer, because revealed truth is just that: truth. Facts and observations aren't things that can help you find the truth. They are simply things that must be understood, and understanding them means interpreting them in a way that is consistent with the revealed truth. How many times have you read here something to the effect of, "you don't see the evidence because you don't have faith. If you believed in God, you would see evidence everywhere?"

Fundamentally, skeptics and theists whose beliefs are based on revealed truth cannot have meaningful conversations. You can see countless examples right here on this board of them talking right past each other, getting louder and louder with each exchange but never actually communicating with one another.

Clearly, not everyone who is religious, or even Christian, believes in revealed truth. With some Christians, the skeptic can have a meaningful conversation. Some of these turn into pointless ontological justifications which degenerate into more and more elaborate question begging. Some actually end with the Christian conceding that his belief isn't rational, but that doesn't mean he's going to abandon it. (And, to be fair, we all hold irrational beliefs of some sort which, even if we recognize them, we are loathe to abandon.) Occasionally, one is convinced and ends up abandoning his beliefs. Many of us were once one of them, and we know that, even if we let go of our beliefs at a relatively young age, the process of divesting ourselves of the emotional need to believe can take a long time. But some believers are fundamentally irrational about their beliefs and they either don't see it or they don't see it as a problem. There is not much point in asking rational questions, however legitimate, about their beliefs.

The Other Michael

Hi christ-on-a-stick,

Pay close attention:

<waves hands mysteriously while making "whoo hoo" noises>

Does that make it all clear now?

cheers,
Michael