I haven't posted this in a while. In part because I feel we are beyond believe; The far bigger problem right now seems to be how many people are happily dealing in obvious lies that they themself can't possibly believe. So here goes nothing: http://www.clifford.at/Docs/EthicsBeliefWKClifford.pdf ….
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @oe1cxw
So this matches: "You may believe the statement of another person [God], when there is reasonable ground for supposing that he knows of what he speaks [there is], and that he is speaking the truth as far as he knows it. [He knows the truth better than I do, so ... yes.]"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zipcpu
For starters, God is not a person. God is an abstract concept created by people. God never made any statements. People make statements and attribute them to God.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
This is of course the main reason why ethics of belief is controversial: It has no loophole for religion. But that's not a flaw! It just shows that religion is unethical. (That doesn't mean religious people act with bad intentions. It means good intentions isn't enough.)
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @oe1cxw
Here is where we must disagree: 1) God is a person, 2) He has made many statements which have been recorded and preserved for you and I, 3) the history of Christ proves this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zipcpu
You have a really strage definition of "prove" when it comes to your religion imo. A system of logic that applies one method to one source, and refuses to apply the same method to any other source is obviously inherently flawed.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The people (humans) who wrote the books in the bible obviously had no idea where the sun went at night and didn't know what stars are. Why would I believe their bronze-age stories about the nature and origin of the universe? They are simply not a reliable source.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @oe1cxw
Bronze age? The Bible was written over the course of time between about 1500 BC (Bronze age) and 100 AD (long past the Bronze age). In my response, I referenced the history of Christ. Christ was born long after the Bronze age ended, yet He validates the writings of Moses.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zipcpu
What "history of Christ" are you even referring to? There is no tangible evidence for the existence of a historic Christ. But there is negative space that suggest no such person existed (e.g. the "cleansing of the Temple" narrative would be recorded in roman records, but isn't).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The gospels contradict each other in key points, and contradict historic records, and it's pretty well researched when they were written and in which order, neither result suggests that they are anything even close to eye witness accounts of a historic Christ.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.