I think that is myopic. Anyone, inside and outside, can use those parameters.
Anybody who tells me that the scriptures contain no errors or gives arguments why a day is not a day is evaluating the words differently that the group who conclude otherwise. A believer cannot read scripture with the objectivity and skepticism of an unbeliever, just as parents who believe by faith that their children are angels - it's never Johnny's fault - can't see what others see there.
you are equating that someone who is learning arithmetic is more objective than a physicist.
I don't see how that is an apt analogy. Is the skeptic meant to be the one learning arithmetic? The skeptic isn't learning anything here. He's telling you what the words he reads mean to him. I understand that believers believe that there a deep layers of meaning there to be ferreted out over a lifetime of study, and that those who have done that like you are more advanced in some learning process, but that's because you believe the words are divinely inspired and therefore coherent and wise. But that's just more confirmation bias by the believer based in faith. What I'm saying is that it is very different looking at scripture and deciding what it says than looking at scripture and deciding what it must mean if a deity wrote it.
Yes, but I am a judge also. One isn't the judge of all judges.
Yes, you are, and that's my point. You had written, "Are you the judge of what are failed prophesies at the expense of what believers interpret the prophecies to mean?" to which I answered yes.
Native speaker? Do you read Hebrew and Greek?
No. English. That's the language the Bibles I read is written in. When I read words like, "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good," I can tell you what they mean in English. What it says is that unbelievers are fools. Worse, they're horrible people - corrupt and vile. Not surprisingly, not a one does good. Beautiful words, no? I'll bet they are to you - beautiful, truthful, and wise simply because of where you found them. That's the difference. I am free to tell you how ugly that passage is. You are not. You are not free to see how bigoted and hateful that is. You might if
unbeliever were changed to
black person - all vile, not one any good - and Ibet you'd howl if I wrote something like that about Christians. But I can rest assured you will sanitize the passage to make it good and pure and godly, because you assume it is and read from that perspective.
Finding one person to validate your position doesn't qualify what you are saying.
The statement was correct, or you would have rebutted it. You didn't try to rebut it, so one must assume that you can't, which is always the case with a correct statement. The argument was that it is the faith-based thinker who is closed-mined by definition, and in the manner I just described for a believer reading scripture. The faith-based thinker BEGINS with a belief - a guess, like Ham, who has guessed that his Bible was written by an infallible god. The critical thinker ENDS with one using a process that generates sound conclusions like Nye.
The rules for determining truth are different for these two types of people. The faith-based thinker is often aware of the rules of dialectic and academic debate, but the process involves two or more critical thinkers trying to resolve the truth or falsity of a proposition by showing one another why they must be wrong. The last one to present a plausible argument that the other cannot successfully rebut has arrived at the correct form of the statement.
Think of two attorneys debating in front of a jury. The prosecutor makes a case for guilt, say of murder. Suppose it is plausible - believable to jury beyond reasonable doubt if it can't be contradicted. The defense must provide a rebuttal - a counterargument that if correct, makes the prosecutor incorrect. If he can't or doesn't, he loses the case. Verdict: guilty.
An offered alibi would be a rebuttal. If the defendant wasn't near the scene of the crime, he couldn't have committed the crime. Perhaps his phone was pinging off a cell tower far from the crime scene at the time of the murder. Do you see why this is a rebuttal? If sound, it makes the rebutted claim impossible. An alibi does this. If it is accurate, and the prosecutor cannot discredit the claim, the defense wins. Debate over. Verdict: not guilty. Other forms of dissent are useless, like the kinds we're used to seeing here in these discussions, often strings of sentences that don't address the claim at all much less show why it must be wrong.
However, the prosecution may be able to rebut the claim of an alibi with a counterclaim, that if true, makes that alibi invalid. Perhaps closed circuit television shows that the defendant was in the vicinity of the crime after all. Alibi rebutted, and if this is not successfully rebutted in return, the prosecution wins. And back and forth it goes until the last plausible argument goes unrebutted. I think of this as similar to a game of ping-pong, with prosecutor and defense attorney rallying for several shots back and forth until finally a shot is made that can't be returned. Debate over.
In discussions with those not engaging in dialectic, generally because they are unaware of the rules or even the value, the discussion generally goes believer's claim followed by a skeptic's rebuttal followed by nothing but empty dissent. Using the ping-pong analogy, the believer serves (makes a claim), the critical thinker rebuts it (returns the serve) and then the ball goes past the original claimant and off the table. Volley over after one hit each. It's like the prosecution presented an opening argument, the defense rebutted it, and the prosecution ignored the rebuttal and just began expressing dissent: "This is unfair, I don't see it that way, yeah well that's just your opinion, everybody's lying." This form of dissent accomplished nothing, that trial is over and ready for a jury verdict.
So did you want to rebut my definitions of open- and closed-mindedness and the examples given in support, or just go with the kind of comment you did, a perfect example of dissent without rebuttal. If the later, I think we've reached the last plausible, unrebutted claim - mine - and we're ready for a verdict.
כן! אבל אתה אמרת מנהגים/מסורות
