I'm sure that is much appreciated.

And likewise, if your world view were to suddenly seize it's chest, keel over comically grabbing at the furniture, pulling down the blinds and sharting it's last gasps of credulous zeal, do look us up.

We would be glad to help you when you are more receptive.

nightwing4
The point was that we accept as authentic histories of which we have few copies and no way to verify the accuracy of those we have.

Actually those other stories are checked against other contemporary historical records, artifacts and geography (looking for battle sites and so forth). The reason that those other histories and people are considered authentic is because they check out… like those of say… Caesar’s and his journals… even though the gap between the original writing and the earliest transcript is vast… in short they are verified by multiple types of contemporary evidence.

The tales in the Bible have no outside historical documentation; no contemporary artifacts, no corroborating evidence of any kind … none at all… even where there should be, especially considering some of the events described… all we hear are excuses why there is no evidence to be had… no evidence is ever actually offered.

So no there is not actually a double standard… the Biblical claims are claims of faith… which is why faith is so valued by the church… because they know that there is no evidence behind their claims.

Later

nightwing4 wrote:No, I can't blame you. I can feel sorry for you and even pray for you but to cast blame isn't for me to do. Should your worldview fall apart, however, look me up and I'll be glad to share mine when you're receptive.

Not that it really matters but it would be nice if you religious people were not so condescending. You always act like we who do not have the "right" message are somehow deficient in understanding, intelligence and most of all experience and education. Much, much more likely Your world view will fall apart before ours does. I have yet to meet a dying person who, formerly in their lives, had declared strong religious convictions, care at all as their lives ended.

Interbane wrote:So to be quoteworthy, there is a double standard. One standard for ancient documents which accord with the way the universe works, and another standard for ancient documents which don't accord with the way the universe works.

Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof.

But one has to believe the proof given or at least believe the person claiming to have recieved that proof which leads one around in circles. In the end it comes down to faith in whatever belief system one has. I'll keep mine.

The two are not equivalent.

One can have confidence in a story where there are copious amounts of historical, un-biased, contemporary, un-vested corroboration. Especially when said story not only conforms to other accounts and do not propose anything that is of a magical nature. The evidence backs these stories.

It is understandable to doubt the veracity of a story which proposes magical events, time lines which are shown to disagree with contemporary non-vested historians, and who's contributors have a proven track record of revision. These stories might easily fly under the radar of most, but the kicker is the magic.

Material transformations, magical spells and invocations, mythic propositions for creation, comical life time assertions, feats of healing, resurrection, and direct communication with a deity, all classify this story, categorically, as fiction. Add in that the only contributors to the story are vested, then there is plenty reason to doubt one over the other.

This is just about the most literal reading of biblical fables. God destroys, murders, and mis-advises. Then blames the humans.

Ask Job.

nightwing4
But one has to believe the proof given or at least believe the person claiming to have received that proof which leads one around in circles.

Again not entirely true… in the case of Caesar I can go and see the statue that was made of him during his life… I can find coins (I have them) with his image on them, made when he was alive… I can visit places all around Rome and dig up arrow heads, more coins, pieces of armor, weapons and spear tips that were found at battle sites mentioned in his (and his enemies) written accounts… all of this I have for the existence of Caesar and there is of course more… I can independently and physically verify the claims made by him and about him… and on many levels I have already done so…

There are small levels of trust associated with these artifacts and other pieces of evidence… but they require very little faith… simple faith… because there are multiple pieces of evidence from different sources and areas that all corroborate each other… and all expertly certified as authentic by multiple scholars and historians…

No such tangible verification is possible with the Biblical claims... they require extraordinary levels of faith… the scale is not equal.

But you keep your faith... you are welcome to it.

Later

Frank 013 wrote:Again not entirely true…

You see nightwing4, there is a portfolio of glib retorts that has been assembled by expert deniers and published broadly on the internet. The beauty of the retorts is that they all sound so reasonable and yet are empty of content. For example:

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

Says who? Why? As a matter of fact, what, tell me what, is extraordinary evidence?
It's a bogus term made up to allow the rejection of anything.

As a matter of fact, no evidence of any kind will ever be accepted. We did that exercise in a discussion. Showed a prophecy of the refounding of the Nation of Israel to the day 907,000 days after the prophecy. The retort was, Prophecies are not possible so it was rejected as evidence.

Look at the quote above, '...not entirely true.'
I might ask for someone to show me something in this world which is, 'entirely true.'
How about it Frank013,
got an example?
Was my quote ok?
You owe me a PM.

thank you Nightwing4

Says who? Why? As a matter of fact, what, tell me what, is extraordinary evidence?
It's a bogus term made up to allow the rejection of anything.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008 ... ary-c.html