Lord Byron wrote:
<<<Thank goodness that PWP has the sense
not to discuss such an outdated book of drivel. You go and discuss the bible
"I disagree that it is 'an outdated book of
Since you are a Christian, I would not expect you
to accept lordbyron's characterization above. But no Christian I've ever met
has been able to prove to me that the collection of primitive writings known
as "the Bible" has any relevance to my life.
You yourself wrote to the Rev: "Philosophical
arguments are much more important than any 'evidential' argument because,
absent of actual first hand knowledge, no one can say anything difinitively
about what historically happened in any time--philosophy, on the other hand,
does not need history in order to be right."
This just tells me that one needs philosophy, not
the Bible. And I agree wholeheartedly. Besides, why read the Bible when you
could read Atlas Shrugged?
"However, it is pointless to discuss it at
this point due to the fact that the atheist worldview is completely different
from the theist worldview."
I have to intervene on this matter again. There is
no such thing as "the atheist worldview," Peter. Atheism is nothing
more than the absence of god-belief. It tells us only what one does not
believe; it does not tell us what one does believe or hold to be true. You'll
see that many atheists reject Objectivism, a worldview (i.e., a philosophy)
which is atheistic in nature (since it rejects god-belief as irrational). In
the context of my point here, this can only serve to indicate that atheists
may hold any variety of ideas which constitute their general philosophical
outlook, and that by no means are they unified in their worldview by virtue of
Furthermore, atheism, for me anyhow, is not a
primary. It is a consequence of my allegiance to reason. In other words, I do
not begin my philosophizing with "the assumption that God does not
exist" as many theists claim to be the case. It should be very
clear to everyone who has been reading that I begin my philosophizing with the
axioms, and reason from there onwards. I do not begin with "the
assumption that God does not exist" any more than I begin with "the
assumption that Allah does not exist" or "the assumption that Scooby
Doo is not a real dog." Negations are not properly axiomatic; they are
only possible in contrast to affirmations.
"In short, we could argue all day about
whether the border between Kansas and Nebraska is fair, but if one side
doesn't even believe in the existence of Nebraska then the argument is futile
Point taken. But then again, if the Bible does not
address many of the philosophical issues which come up in debate (and indeed,
we know that it does not; it does not even define its own key terms!), then
naturally Bible-believers must go outside their Bible in order to find
answers (indeed, earlier you were referencing Descartes rather than Jesus!),
and this naturally leads to borrowing from non-biblical worldviews in order
for modern theists to play. These facts only go to reinforce the spirit of
lordbyron's characterization above, which you have rejected.