What Is A Sceptic ?

[modeller]

I had an email from a cleric who said I didn't have a balanced view of the bible , which I thought was a bit thick coming from a cleric who believes every word of the bible as true . No discussion.

I answered :
It is the sceptics who apply logic and ask , how, when, why, what are the possibilities and probabilities and alternative explanations.
How do you see a sceptic?

[modeller]

Naomi I believe if there had been a resurrection all the Gospels would be shouting about it , and Mark in particular , as his was the exemplar for the others. It is also held up by biblical scholars as the most valid and reliable of all the Gospels. He never mentioned the nativity nor the resurrection nor the ascension. Matthew who took much from Mark only added a very short mention one verse and little or no detail.
It was this total absence of the resurrection and ascension that caused the early church to question it and add their own ending, which was based on Lukes , and as can be seen it is only Luke and the forged ending of Mark that mentions in one line the ascension.
Mark's Gospel was the first to be written of which over 300 verses were largely copied and added to by the others , with a great deal of cross fertilisation between Matthew and Luke.
For what it is worth IMO if an event wasn't even mentioned in Mark it probably never happened in the way the later Gospels described

I haven't mentioned John because that was the Harry Potter version of the others . It was a compilation by the Society of John of generalities compiled by many priests over decades to suit the Jesus cult.

[naomi24]

Modeller, thank you. I understand your reasoning, but while I'd say it's strong evidence, I'd hesitate to call it 'proof'. If that were so, no one would believe in the resurrection.

[atalanta]

I don't have a balanced view of Grimm's Fairy Tales, either. Does that make me a sceptic ?

[pixie373]

A sceptic is just someone who doubts.

[modeller]

pixie That's true but I think there's is a big difference between a simple doubter and one who needs to be convinced, and that's also the difference between a sceptic and a believer. Most believers just believe, they don't look for evidence. In fact they will do anything to avoid facts that might weaken their belief. It's sufficient that they want/need to believe.

You can see this on AB, most believers never answer questions. They hide behind meaningless biblical quotes, or run around in circles until the
question is lost in the morass .

I recently asked a cleric a question on the Old Testament and he spent 10 minutes quoting irrelevants chunks from the NT.

[modeller]

I think there is another difference between a sceptic and a believer.

A believer needs to believe , it is a support. They have a feeling of loss without it.
A sceptic doesn't have that problem . They are self sufficient.

[mibn2cweus]

Not all sceptics are the same. Not all scepticism is rational. Some sceptics, like their faith based counterparts are simply sceptical to avoid the moral imperative and difficulties of acquiring and holding to a steadfast conviction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/

[Hypognosis]

@naomi

Since that's not the first time you've mentioned the snake wranglers, here's a sorry tale, from 2012

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=16459455

[naomi24]

Hypognosis, crazy people. :o/