geo wrote:
What I said was: " Atheists typically don't have a bias against the existence of God."

Thanks, I seem to have been having a bad cut and paste day.

I would say the same thing though. Every person has a bias towards the view they already hold.

b) that science is designed to test things (from a 2000 year divide) that assert supernatural claims, because supernatural claims by definition are those "contrary to the established laws of nature" If you can think of a way (and I'm not talking silly ideas, but actual workable ones) that...

Very interesting that you pose a hypothesis to three different people, and they all tell you that it doesn't make any sense. yeah but when those three are stahwre, ant and Doulos it's a sure sign you're onto something. PS: especially stahwre, wow that guy was amazing, i still shake my head in disbe...

The problem with "claims" for God's existence is that there's nothing to back them them up. Those who want to believe will go through all kinds of contortions to justify their beliefs and I suspect it is those rationalizations to which Chris refers. If actual evidence came along, atheists...

Gentlemen, We can certainly disagree on issues. This forum is titled as "Quality Books, Good People, Great Conversations." It is entirely possible to discuss contrary ideas in a polite and respectful manner. That does not mean there cannot be occassional jokes and humour, as those are some...

Doulos said rationality does not provide a real critique of Biblical assertions. You've creatively changed what I wrote into some strange statement of your own. Here's my original post: I think there are very real critiques against belief in what the Bible asserts, but I do not think that rationali...

I think there are very real critiques against belief in what the Bible asserts, but I do not think that rationality/science is really one of them. so you are saying that rationality/science doesn't have a problem with the suggestion (sorry, assertion) that an invisible dude got a lady pregnant so h...

Science does not say: "I already have enough evidence" "I don't need to hear even a single word" Every single day scientists have to laugh off ridiculous claims or they would be bogged down with testing and invalidating an almost infinite barrage of irrational nonsense. Your cla...

The Romans inventing crucifixion has nothing to do with it. The point is that the writers used crucifixion as a way to tug at peoples heart strings by claiming that an innocent man was beaten and killed for their sake. It's supposed by a real tear jerker and that's the way the passion has always be...

Doulos said rationality does not provide a real critique of Biblical assertions. That is not just ‘questioning science’ but asserting that the scientific method is fundamentally defective. Testing religious claims and other folk traditions against actual evidence is part of the scientific process. ...