quote:When one BELIEVES in a religion they already assume that it is correct on SOME level, whether it is extreme fundamentalism or strictly that "Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins". At some level the religious person draws a line and says "this is truth regardless of what science might make probable or improbable".
I specified in my post where he was as usual being dishonest.
jar writes:
I have never said there is no way to evidence my beliefs
Did I say you did? Stop being dishonest.....
jar writes:
I have said that I know of no way that the supernatural could be evidenced and no one has ever shown me a way the supernatural could be evidenced.
And I said that your beliefs are not subject to evidential scrutiny. Are you suggesting that as things stand we can subject your beliefs to evidential scrutiny? Can you specify how we might do that?
For instance: Scrites are shavalabal. This is not subject to evidential scrutiny.
CS writes:
Ergo agnosticism?
Agnosticism describes the state of one's knowledge. As Mod himself put it in the post to which you replied:
quote:"I submit this isn't a matter of the state of your knowledge, but an intrinsic consequence of a position that is not reasonable, inconsistent and ill-defined."