Millions of people around the world (such as our friend 3017) consider it to be — EricH

Considering and believing I leave to them. The question is - ought to be - what is known and on what foundation or grounds. Nor do I suppose that knowledge-based thinking is a threat to Christianity properly understood, because Christianity is not, near as I can tell, any sort of knowledge-based body of thought in the sense of any kind of science or logic. It may claim an inner logic or consistency, but that must remain internal, because it makes no claim to knowledge.

It may claim an inner logic or consistency, but that must remain internal, because it makes no claim to knowledge. — tim wood

I could be totally misreading them, but AFAICT 3017 is claiming that at least some portion of the Bible is factually correct. Of course you are correct.

I am not versed enough in this material to speak with authority on the topic, that is why I left it open. — JerseyFlight

As opposed to leaving a bait for potential inquirers where you would know very well how to argue against - without any depth on the subject - transvested as "ambiguity", it might be recommended to go search further or if you don't want to, don't talk about the subject that you don't know about? Just a tip.

You should try asking me about it next time. — JerseyFlight

And now you use the tactic of victimism, along with the previously mentioned fact that the reader is obliged to know that you are open - which I am in doubt if it's true - to inquiries.

just like I do not care whether Muhammad existed. If you want to spend your time researching it you are free to do it, but I will admonish you that there are far more important things to study. — JerseyFlight

Now you completely change course by citing another historical figure that I didn't even mention, to simply deviate from my questioning.

Is contradicted by: — JerseyFlight

At no time was it said that Carrier supports his lines on the basis of nihilism, and yes that I argued on the basis of nihilism. Try to read more carefully and in less haste to respond. — Gus Lamarch

I had to quote myself, because I'm pretty sure you just ignored my answer to that affirmation of yours.

is more important to study than say, economics, it is likely I will give my time to Jesus. — JerseyFlight

Again dodging my questions. This is getting ridiculous already.

However, this is not an exchange of value because the topic is itself lacking in value. It would be advisable for you to try to focus on things that have more value. — JerseyFlight

And you should try to be more sincere in your discussions. This pseudophilosophy of yours is not working, I recommend the use of another tactic - if your objective is simply to try to indoctrinate others that your "revolutionary" - which is nothing revolutionary - "humanism" - which is more like a collectivist totalitarianism - works, through the use of controversy. Congratulations! You are managing to destroy your own vile ideology -.

Confirmation that others perceive the lack of depth there...well said Gus.

:up:

:up: — 3017amen

:up:

Assuming that we live in a simulation, than God(s) would be the creator(s) of the simulation. Of course, creationism would also be acceptable, since the creators might have created the whole system (or at least the mechanism that let it develop).
So it is quite possible to be atheist and believe in God(s).