The religious perspective. Wanna have this discussion?

Religion seems ludicrous to the scientifically-minded because of the different modes of reasoning. I think that the Christian perspective is that evidence is provided by divine revelation while the scientifically-minded, the evidence is provided by empirical proof. I think that both subscribe to rationalism and skepticism. The skeptics in Christianity are people like the Protestants who were skeptical about Catholicism's doctrines and authority and their skepticism manifested in the many Protestant denominations today. Even in early Christianity, there was much skepticism as evidenced by the many denominations of the time, especially regarding the nature of Jesus. What I mean by skepticism in this regard is that many were skeptical that the other had the true answer to something and they displayed that by coming with their own answer or answers about that specific issue. The scientifically-minded say that Christianity is full of fables but that is because they are looking at it from their own perspective. The Gospels writers, for example, were not trying to write historically accurate and verifiable biographies of Jesus, they were sharing with people the "good news" that has come to the world.

 

So are the Protestants skeptical of the virgin birth, walking on water, talking snake etc.?
If not, then there goes your skepticism claim out of the window.

 

@Sieg Heil
My post need approval http://forums.nexopia.com/threads/h...tter-place-for-living.10023/page-2#post-87534

 

Not true. They were skeptical about some stuff but not others, therefore making them skeptics about Catholicism, therefore about Christianity because it was basically the Christianity that they knew.

 

For me it's very simple:

My atheism is driven by skepticism. Skepticism is the rejection of any claim which has not met its burden of proof, and theism is one of many such claims. If theism can ever meet its burden of proof, then I will change my worldview, until then I must reject it if I am to preserve my intellectual integrity.

 

Yeah, by that logic Catholics are also skeptics since they are skeptics about the Greek Gods and Goddesses.

 

All posts in the moderation queue have just been approved.

 

Yes, true skepticism covers ALL claims that are not evidence based.

 

They were skeptical about heretics having the right answers, just like the herectics were skeptical that Catholics had the right answers.

 

If everyone is skeptic then no one is. Your categorization is so broad that it render the terminology meaningless.

 

But doesn't it cover religious skepticism, too, which is under the realm of divine reasoning? The basis for the Protestant Reformation is that the Catholic Church didn't have the authoritative Bible because the Latin Vulgate Bible was in error in light of the older Greek New Testament that came from Byzantium, therefore their conclusions and claims cannot be taken as true because their premises were faulty because they were not authoritative.

 

Yes, virtually no one believes every claim. For example, the Christian will reject Hinduism, but not out of skepticism, but because it is in conflict with their own faith-based beliefs.

 

Not true. I'm just broadening skepticism to include religious skepticism, not broadening it to the point where the terminology becomes meaningless.

 

What about religious skepticism? I showed what I'm talking about above?

 

A skeptic believes nothing without evidence, therefore the skeptic will reject theism. A skeptic will also reject the claim that there are no gods. Since there is no evidence regarding the existence of god/gods either way, the skeptic must remain agnostic regarding theism.

 

Christians might reject Hinduism, say, because they conflict with their own beliefs but not when it comes to Christian beliefs and doctrines and dogma.

 

But there are religious skeptics operating under the realm of divine reasoning. They believe that divinely given messages are facts, in the scientific sense.

 

Skepticism cannot be selective...otherwise it is weak and meaningless.

 

But you seem to be only selecting empirical skepticism, not religious skepticism.

 

Your conversion to Atheism isn't typical. Most people convert emotionally first and only understood the logic later. My conversion is extremely similar to Bart D. Ehrman (you have to read his book to learn about his conversion) in that it is because I cannot make sense of the suffering in this world any longer that I eventually converted. It's not that because I found religious teachings makes no sense, this came later (though the seeds were scattered here and there through out my past religious life).

So they are pseudo-skeptics.