I am sceptical of the Skeptics. Is it wrong?

[paarsurrey]

It would be hard because first we would have to prove such God exists who could give revelation. Scripture is just what happened, there's no other reason to believe it's needed except claims by book religions. The reasonable arguments I'm always looking forward to. Brilliant arguments I'm still waiting for.
I think people who believe in revelation religions would agree with you.

At least they should have a claim to that effect, that the scripture is revealed.

• This is for choosing truthful religion from amongst the revealed religions.
• For the un-revealed religions, which one could be the truthful, it could be different.

So, we would have two classifications to choose from. Right? Please

Regards

 

[use_your_brain]

You have yet to show any indication of any Catholic group accepting the revelation of Peter as scripture. In fact, your source explicitly stated that it was not considered to be scripture.

I need to learn about them further then.

 

[leibowde84]

I need to learn about them further then.

There might be some Christians, but the symbol of Catholicism is the cross for crying out loud.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is mostly nonsensical. Nihilism which is the extreme form of skepticism which doubts everything even themselves, their existence ect. However being skeptical simply means that you don't take everything at face value without questioning for verification. That is the natural form of people. It is rational distrust. I too am skeptical of nihilists in their ventures but not of skeptics alone.

Well, I have explained what I mean, and it is meaningful. One should not doubt without a valid reason to doubt. And it is very reasonable.

skeptic (n.) ​

also sceptic, 1580s, "member of an ancient Greek school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," from Middle French sceptique and directly from Latin scepticus "the sect of the Skeptics," from Greek skeptikos (plural Skeptikoi "the Skeptics, followers of Pyrrho"), noun use of adjective meaning "inquiring, reflective" (the name taken by the disciples of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho, who lived c. 360-c. 270 B.C.E.), related to skeptesthai "to reflect, look, view" (see scope (n.1)).Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found. [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924]The extended sense of "one with a doubting attitude" first recorded 1610s. The sk- spelling is an early 17c. Greek revival and is preferred in U.S. As a verb,scepticize (1690s) failed to catch on.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=skeptic
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

One should not doubt without a valid reason to doubt.

One should doubt everything until one is convinced to believe. Trust is earned. It doesn't just exist automatically until it is broken. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Well, I have explained what I mean, and it is meaningful. One should not doubt without a valid reason to doubt. And it is very reasonable.

skeptic (n.) ​

also sceptic, 1580s, "member of an ancient Greek school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," from Middle French sceptique and directly from Latin scepticus "the sect of the Skeptics," from Greek skeptikos (plural Skeptikoi "the Skeptics, followers of Pyrrho"), noun use of adjective meaning "inquiring, reflective" (the name taken by the disciples of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho, who lived c. 360-c. 270 B.C.E.), related to skeptesthai "to reflect, look, view" (see scope (n.1)).Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found. [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924]The extended sense of "one with a doubting attitude" first recorded 1610s. The sk- spelling is an early 17c. Greek revival and is preferred in U.S. As a verb,scepticize (1690s) failed to catch on.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=skeptic
Regards

Reverse the bold. You doubt until given sufficient reason to otherwise take it at face value.

 

[Shad]

Good, then you already just knew, right now, that there is a community in Catholic that accept the Revelation of Peter. Where, the revelation of Peter to be precise reject and oppose the crucifixion of Jesus.

You confuse the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter with the Apocalypse of Peter known to the Church Fathers. The one the Church Fathers knew was not part of the Bible. Besides this the Gnostic Apocalypse has verses which clearly show that Jesus' body was crucified. However the Gnostic texts had a different view regarding the body of Christ in that it was not real but an illusion. There was never a body of Christ ever. From birth until ascension the body was merely a mental image we project on to Christ as Christ's true form is beyond human understanding and senses.

 

[Kirran]

Just to weigh in: I don't believe in the concept of a 'one true faith', just many paths. I don't think there is one true religion.

 

[Jumi]

If you don't doubt, you are left with part of something given to you by someone else.

 

[paarsurrey]

If you don't doubt, you are left with part of something given to you by someone else.

Doubt should be on proper occasion, on an improper occasion it would be simply a psychological ailment. Right?
Regards

 

[Parsimony]

The Skeptics are the people who doubt everything even if there is no anomaly they had observed, so they would doubt even if there is no reason to doubt.

"Skeptic" and "doubter" are not synonyms. You should read this.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Skeptic" and "doubter" are not synonyms. You should read this.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to it.
It has little to do with the word "sceptic" and is being used as a term in the article. Please
Regards

 

[Midnight Rain]

Doubt should be on proper occasion, on an improper occasion it would be simply a psychological ailment. Right?
Regards

Improper doubt is doubt in something that has sufficient evidence. Having doubts first before being sure is always a good thing. There is no spoon that you should take without first asking whats on it.

 

[Parsimony]

Sorry, I don't subscribe to it.
It has little to do with the word "sceptic" and is being used as a term in the article. Please
Regards

So you think skepticism is a bad thing? That it is good to accept any claim whether or not it has evidence to back it up? That a claim should not be evaluated logically before being accepted as truthful?

 

[use_your_brain]

You confuse the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter with the Apocalypse of Peter known to the Church Fathers. The one the Church Fathers knew was not part of the Bible. Besides this the Gnostic Apocalypse has verses which clearly show that Jesus' body was crucified. However the Gnostic texts had a different view regarding the body of Christ in that it was not real but an illusion. There was never a body of Christ ever. From birth until ascension the body was merely a mental image we project on to Christ as Christ's true form is beyond human understanding and senses.

At least it is what the Apocalypse of Peter narrate.

 

[use_your_brain]

Just to weigh in: I don't believe in the concept of a 'one true faith', just many paths. I don't think there is one true religion.

you don't think, meanwhile many people do think oppositely.

 

[paarsurrey]

So you think skepticism is a bad thing? That it is good to accept any claim whether or not it has evidence to back it up? That a claim should not be evaluated logically before being accepted as truthful?

Only if one observes some anomaly with the normal/natural, then to doubt is positive.
Regards

 

[Aquitaine]

What the quran say about them to be precise?

Hey, it's your book, you should be the one telling me. But anyways, here:

Sperm coming from the tip of the spine
So let man observe from what he was created. He was created from a fluid, ejected, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs. (Surah 86:5-7)

Salt water and fresh water don't mix
And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition. (Surah 25:53)

Humans made from clay
We created man from an extract of clay. (Qur'an, 23:12)

Inb4 "taken out of context",
Inb4 "mistranslation",
Inb4 "Arabic has multiple meanings for the same word" which nullifies the Quran being the precise word of God anyways, if it's chosen language can be so easily misinterpreted by humans.

 

[use_your_brain]

Hey, it's your book, you should be the one telling me. But anyways, here:

Sperm coming from the tip of the spine
So let man observe from what he was created. He was created from a fluid, ejected, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs. (Surah 86:5-7)

Salt water and fresh water don't mix
And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition. (Surah 25:53)

the verse doesn't mention the SPERM at all.
the literal translation of the verse is:
Fal yann zuril insaanu mim maa khuliq. Khuliqa mim Maain min Daafiq. yakhruju mim baini tsulbi wat taraa'ib.
(Let man look at (and bear in mind) the substance he is created from! (He is) created from the surging fluid, which springs from between the spine and the ribs! 86:5-7)

Maain =liquid, fluid, juice, water ; (it doesn't say SPERM).
Daafiq =anything that flows out, gushes out, pours out, wells out, sheds.(From the Hans Wehr Arabic to English Dictionary)

The verse 25:53 doesn't say all THE SALT WATER AND THE FRESH water don't mix. The Quran simply inform us that there is a phenomena where the ocean is separated into two portions: the fresh and the salt water. And yes it is exist in this world.

 

[Aquitaine]

Further to my Post #162
The Scientology don't claim to be a revealed religion; do they? Please
So, they have no scripture.
Regards

L. Ron Hubbard claimed to discover the "fundamentals of the universe" through Dianetics, and ways to connect to the "Supreme Being".
He is essentially the closest thing to their "prophet", and his published work and Dianetics is essentially their "scripture".

They, just like many other believers, claim theirs is true, and others' are false.