Claire Xen  🏳️‍⚧️ 🏳️‍🌈 🧙🏻‍♀️ BLM  🏴 🚩

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.]"

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Furthermore: Bronze-age moral philosophy is a joke! It's puzzling to me without end how anyone would look for moral guidence in a document that fails to condemn slavery and fails to condemn treating women as property.

And equally important: Why would I then not believe all other bronze-age stories to be equally true? How do you know King Unis did not hunt down gods to eat them? How do you know all the other bronze-age creation myths are wrong?