GDR writes:
The fact still remains that [the Bible] is evidence which can be accepted or rejected.
Just as Harry Potter is evidence of the existence of Hogwarts and it can be accepted or rejected.
GDR writes:
I have faith that the stories reflect reality and an atheist has faith that the stories are false.
No - an atheist LACKS faith that the stories are TRUE. You're assuming positive belief where there is none. Unless you're just playing word games - would you say that you have faith there is no invisible pink unicorn in a lake under the antarctic ice? Or you lack faith?
The reason this distinction is important is that everyone lacks faith in millions of things that COULD be true - i.e. are undisprovable - and no one actively disbelieves in all of them, but rather passively rejects the plausibilty of most (=believer) or all (=atheist) fairy tales due to lack of evidence.
GDR writes:
all of the evidence I refer to is subjective, none of it scientific.
There is no real evidence that is not scientific evidence. Unscientific evidence is what we call wishful thinking.
GDR writes:
The good news for me is that I can't lose. If I'm right I'll be able to say I told you so in the next life. If you're right - c'est la vie.
Yes, you can lose. There are countless ways in which reality COULD be such that you won't be sitting on a cloud in your afterlife. Perhaps, when we die, we all go to a place called fun-land where the evil kangaroo-goblins pinch our ears for an eternity despite all the good things we've done. Who knows.
Edited by lehtv, : grammar fix
™ Version 4.2
