Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
tragic_pizza:
Really? What did you see the previous poster as saying?
pwhodges:
That religion is commonly judged by different criteria and to different standards from all other aspects of life.
You can see this, for instance, in the amount of circular argument relating to the interpretation of Old Testament (in particular) geography and its relationship to the pitifully few truly ancient artefacts and archeological relics surviving in the Palestine area. Have you read any of Kamal Salibi's books (which are not anti-religion, but aim to reinterpret early biblical history in a more consistent manner)? Whether or not you accept the thesis laid out in them (which is not well represented in that Wikipedia article), you will find that criticism of them is enlightening for the way in which it is almost entirely partisan, and ignores the specific arguments in the books. I'm afraid I find this quality in just too much argument about religion in general.
jtheory:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 05 Jan 2009, 04:10 ---That religion is commonly judged by different criteria and to different standards from all other aspects of life.
You can see this, for instance, in the amount of circular argument relating to the interpretation of Old Testament (in particular) geography and its relationship to the pitifully few truly ancient artefacts and archeological relics surviving in the Palestine area.
--- End quote ---
Which brings us back to my question.
--- Quote from: tragic_pizza on 04 Jan 2009, 19:13 ---
--- Quote from: jtheory on 04 Jan 2009, 18:49 ---
--- Quote from: tragic_pizza on 04 Jan 2009, 18:29 ---
--- Quote from: jtheory on 04 Jan 2009, 18:17 ---Would you believe the authors themselves if they were standing in front of you, 40 years after Jesus' death (or just long enough that any possible physical evidence of miracles was long gone)?
--- End quote ---
You mean, if they hadn't been talking about, living out, relating and being punished for those things they told me about during those forty years? Probably not. But this is nto the case with the Gospels.
--- End quote ---
So if they had put enough effort and risked enough for their cause, you would accept *that* as acceptable evidence that they were telling you something that was factually true?
Is that the criterion?
You can probably see where this goes (I'm tipping my hand now either way; I'm not aiming for rhetorical tricks); just because they believed it, even believed it enough to die for it, does not make it factually true. History does not lack for martyrs to all kinds of causes and beliefs; I'm sure you don't accept them all.
--- End quote ---
Please point out where I said it did.
eta: there is more than a single criterion to the whole canonicity/reliabiltiy question. Limiting it to a single point is not smart.
--- End quote ---
Where you said what did? I'm missing the reference there. I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Next: I'm not limiting it to a single criterion; I'm asking you for clarification. I asked if you'd believe the two guys standing in front of you (see above); you said probably not: "if they hadn't been talking about, living out, relating and being punished for those things they told me about during those forty years."
That implied that you would believe if they had been punished, etc..
Now you say even that wouldn't be enough -- so I'm still trying to get a clear answer as to what you accept as "proof enough" to believe extraordinary claims when tangible evidence is lacking.
JonSnow:
--- Quote from: tragic_pizza on 05 Jan 2009, 01:07 ---No, spanky, the textual citation for this:
"They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion."
Try and keep up.
--- End quote ---
Doesnt the Bible teach you to have an open heart towards everybody that hatred only leads to more hatred. If you try to live like Jezus you should thus open your heart to different opinions. Not claim them heretics. I cant see every christian in the time of the forming of the Biblical canon to call people heretics, let alone a fellow chirstian who shows a different opinion, forsaking pretty much everything Jezus stood for. This makes it plausible, not certain though, that less radical texts were banned in the earlier years...
wargrafix:
I suppose the only real reason it came up as an issue is because its away from the percieved norm. If you were to say you are christian, muslim or hindu, people would simply nodd and say "oh, ok." Once you say your are atheist, they are all"burr? who, da what?"
As for the charicture of Pen's atheist as being militaristic, its tough to say if there aren't people like that in reality. But I highly doubt this is how Jeph intended to paint all atheists.
I would say by definition I'm atheist. Even then I prefer no labels.
of course my solution is to take all fundamentalist people of all persuasions and put them on an island to survive. and provide weapons. I tell you, its will make big ratings.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version