I love a happy ending! :)

The problem with made up stories is that there is no evidence to disprove them.

If you want to believe in magic, go ahead, if you want to believe in fairy tales, go ahead, the only downside is lost resources (money and time spent on religion) and believing in something that isnt true. Not that much different from an athiest like myself, however, as I believe the Cleveland Browns are going to win the Superbowl and I spend time and money in hopes of them doing so.

 What did I say it was better?  It is only an option that I feel everyone should explore.  Because only you decide what you believe... it's not pretentious.  I do hope people are reading this and giving it serious thought, but it is obvious that most of the people have their set beliefs and wouldn't change them unless there was proof without a shadow of a doubt one way or the other.  YOu should look inside yourself not look at others.  The Bible or the Quran are books that no doubt hold truth and a very good guidline to how you should probably live your life and treat others, but they are still the text of men and so that why I believe that only by searching inside of yourself can you find your own truths.  It don't matter if it's diffrent from mine or anyone elses. 

You come off sounding like an ass.  It's fine if you don't believe, but if you don't have anything to add but ignorant comments then you should just keep them to yourself. 

You're more than welcome to add your thoughts to the thread, just drop the unnecessary hostility because it doesn't help you at all...nobody wants to take advice from the guy who calls them a tool.  Nobody wants to hear anything the guy who calls them an "ass" has to say.

Indeed, they rarely end so well.

Out of curiosity, in your view what is the difference between the uber anti-theist and god?

Ignorant comments from an ass?  I'm not the one who believes in magic and fairy tales.  I'm not the one whose wasted my life believing in ridiculous stories (I'm actually not free of this, I was a devout Christian for much of my life, but I bothered to read the Bible and realized how silly it was).

The problem with made up stories is that there is no evidence to disprove them.  Coincidently, there is no evidence to support them either, which is where faith comes in.

How you would propose to keep your skepticism from becoming solipsism, I dunno... :) But maybe you answer that later, with "revelation."

Yep, Solipsism is only another possible belief relating to sense data.

Hmmm... do you mean that, the "fact" that "the sky is blue" could be "revealed knowledge"?

Yes, stated simplistically, as sense data ‘blue’ is being presented to you, you would still need knowledge that it represents the concept of the sky.

By the way, I love your qualifier "if you believe some history on epistemology"...

Hehe…

You're in an awfully difficult spot, naturally, trying to give the reasons for your positions... because at root you're insisting that there are no reasons for your positions (or those of anyone else).

Oh not so difficult, just not so palpable for defense. You could say “no reason”, yes. But of course I find it to be the only answer to the question of how one knows.

But, to facilitate our discussion, how about this: you're free to make "normal/empirical" arguments without needing to qualify them, unless I raise a specific question as to "how do you know that, without resorting to empiricism?"

Hmm not sure I follow you.

What other origins of beliefs do you believe exist, outside of revealed knowledge?

Getting all theological I could pose that all existing ideas could be believed by the “will of a man” (ideas being created by ol’ sovereign God). But that’s not necessary for the explanation of revelation.

For any given belief, how are you aware of the origin of that belief?

Being ‘gifted’ some absolute knowledge about the world doesn’t necessarily imply one also knows where it came from. A person simply can’t claim any absolute knowledge he has came from his own abilities (rationalism, empiricism, whatever) as the meaning of them in our mind confesses otherwise. Whereas, the meaning of revelation in our mind works as an answer to epistemology (a question also in our mind, if I needed to specify that).

* What is "biblical" Christianity?  Is it meant to refer to a specific denomiation or set of dogma?  Because I can only compare it in my mind to "non-biblical" Christianity... and I'm not sure what that would mean, either.  :)

As I find subjectivism nonsensical, I find the bible to mean only what it meant – aka one dogma. The understanding I have of it would contradict many denominations and cult break offs – thus what would be meant by non-biblical Christianity. The only reason I brought that up was because, as I’ve noticed you mentioning with someone else, many Christians hold that their beliefs can be proven via rationalism or empiricism. This isn’t something biblical supported.

* Is your knowledge that "revealed knowledge is a method of truth that is unique to Biblical Christianity" revealed knowledge?  Or do you know that is true of Biblical Christianity via some other method?

   Nope nope, nothing that I hold onto with such confidence. It’s not ‘absolute knowledge’. This doesn’t eliminate the possibility that such a piece of information could be revealed though.

   Related to this subject, there are some pronouncements of the status of “disbelievers” in relation to knowledge, if that matters.

   I’m impressed. These are exactly the questions I would have asked.

Revelation does not confer absolute knowledge, since you can't be sure of the source or the accuracy without faith.

wow extreme much? I wonder what bothers these people so much that they have to go to these extremes to get peace of mind. Isn't being who you are enough of a confirmation to them? Are they trying to prove this to others or prove it to themselves? If they are trying to prove it to others, then why do they care about what those people think of them to the point that they would do something this strategical? If they are trying to prove it to themselves, then are they really so sure that they don't believe in a deity deep within themselves?

There has to be something still plaguing them mentally on some level for these types of actions to seem necessary. If they think religion is silly, then a silly act such as baptism would just be a silly act. But apparently they still don't consider it a silly act. Which could infer that they believe God exists yet they still choose to reject him, rather than they don't believe in God. Which actually makes them something all together different.

@Sqrl, if you stop implying that people who think differently than you are delusional, then I'm sure Cueil will stop calling you an "ass."  Once this transaction takes place I'm sure you guys can actually begin to have a discussion.