Osama's Message to America!

[winkle]

rmd3 wrote

As for Jesus supposed death due to envy… I think you missed the point. The Jews didn’t complain “Hey, we’re jealous of him, so put him to death Ponchus Pilot!”. They claimed he had said things against the Jewish faith. They might have done this because of envy, but that is not the means to his alleged death.

he was not taken by the jews but by the chief priests

Joh:11:47: Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

sounds like envy to me

then pilate had this to say

Lu:23:14: Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

and then the chief priests showed up consumed by their envy again

Joh:19:6: When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

M't:27:24: When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

in short order the priests have the mob worked up and things go real bad real quick

if you don't think that mob mentality was working very well indeed just read matthew:23 it describes that generation

there is much more involved than said here but if you can't see the envy of the priests and the mob mentality at work ?

you say you were a christen for 22 years

what are you looking for answers to

are are you just wanting to debate someone about about something

[rmd3]

Winkle,

Thanks for sharing with me your views. If you want to know why I started discussing things with you please refere to your original post. You were the one who verbally attacked Muslims and when I showed you that it wasn't true, you didn't apologize, but you made additional attacks, so re-read the posts. I'm done discussing things with you now. Bye.


James Kelly saidÂ…

Why do we continue to have religious debates on this forum? jim kelly

IÂ’m trying to stop. Really! Maybe this is my last post. I got some work I have to get to. But these discussions, when done seriously, have been informative, to me anyway. They certainly help me sort out my thoughts. I hope my post show that I give them serious thought and not just throw down an argument for the sake of attack.


Ken saidÂ…

The taking of a human life by another human is something that should be avoided at all costs. However, there are circumstances in which it does, unfortunately, become justified.

If something is justified, it can never be unfortunate.

My take on the whole thing is that it seems to me that American and Israel want to go to war with Syria and Iran because the talking heads on the news keep dropping those countries names left and right as arming Hezbollah, but the same talking heads rarely, if ever, mention America is arming Israel.

They could just talk about Hezbollah as the threat and wiping them out, but they always got to mention Iran and Syria... Iran and Syria... Iran and Syria...

Well, at least itÂ’s not a war against Islam, right?... WhatÂ’s that, Mr. Blair?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/ ... index.html
Yikes! Every country he listed where he says it is a “global fight about global values” has a non-Muslim occupier in Muslim or Muslim majority land.

Lebanon – Although somewhat new, Israel has penetrated the border
Gaza – Occupied territories by Israel
Iraq – Occupied by American forces
Afghanistan – Occupied by America (is it under NATO?)
Kashmir – Occupied by India

A selected quote from the article aboveÂ…

“It's about modernization within Islam and out of it. It's about whether our value system can be shown to be sufficiently robust, true, principled and appealing that it beats theirs.”

Superiority complex? Is occupation really an Western value? I donÂ’t remember learning that growing up! What you say and what you do are two different things. The measure of your true character is what you do, not what you say, Mr. Blair.




Digitaljez,

The Golden Rule

digitaljez wrote...

Rmd3 wrote:

How does someone determine what is true innate morality and what is something they've picked up from the ideology they have been exposed to?

If it conforms to the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you - then it will be in accord with your innate morality.

Then the measuring stick for whether their innate morality is correct is actually taken from a dogmatic standard. Of course, you can argue that the golden rule is also innate, but how do you know that it is innate? What standard tells us that the golden rule is innate? I think it wouldn't be a standard but a value; the value of fairness.

Analogous to the Golden Rule in Islam is the saying of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) “None of you truly believes until you wish for your brother what you wish for your self.” Bother in that saying refers to fellow human being.

At the same time, the golden rule is not a legal ruling, but a guideline to how to behave with people interpersonally. I can whole-heartedly accept this as a measure on morality for dealing with people. IÂ’m not sure it applies to governments over their subjects, and, in fact, IÂ’m pretty sure it doesnÂ’t. I have to follow their rules, but the government need never follow mine.

Of course, I suppose I could argue in conjunction with the arguments of my previous post that in taking a life because of apostasy, it is unfair for the individualÂ’s freedom of choice to preempt the societyÂ’s choice to maintain its identity and social order. Then the golden rule wouldnÂ’t be relevant because the value of fairness isnÂ’t being maintained, and the golden rule is only applicable if the value of fairness is preserved.

The Question of Innate Belief

digitaljez wrote...

Rmd3 wrote:

I guess there's something innate in both Winkle's and my nature that says there is a God.

Innate or absorbed ? How do you differentiate ?

This is how I differentiate it. As I was growing up I believed in God but not necessarily what I was being taught about God. So my believing in God would seem to be innate because it remained even though the dogma I was exposed to was rejected.

Later in life, I came to find IslamÂ’s description of the Creator fit what I had innately yearned for. It just seemed like a flawless description of God and at the heart of that description was that there was no god except God.

digitaljez wrote...

You would be friends if you did not have to defend you faiths.

I agree on that possiblity. The Quran says something about Christians being the closest in love to the believers.

What about my apostasy from Christianity?

digitaljez wrote...

Rmd3 wrote:

Of course the morally justifiable one.

So - innate morality or doctrinal morality ?

In the end, I would say I would have to surrender to the doctrinal morality as I think my innate morality might have been compromised by dogmatic influences of my upbringing.

HereÂ’s an article that I found to be quite informative regarding IslamÂ’s position on apostasy, the rational for the ruling, and the types of punishments for it. I only came across it today, and some of it reflects my earlier arguments.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/cont ... e01c.shtml

As for my own apostasy from Christianity. I think if I was in fear of my life for becoming a Muslim, I wouldnÂ’t have proclaimed my faith publicly or I would have relocated to a Muslim country. Certainly, if the land I live in proclaimed that it was a capital crime, IÂ’d have to leave on the double. So in that sense, I can accept that the Golden Rule would have applied to me, but I seriously doubt I would have put my life in jeopardy in making a public claim of conversion and knowing the consequences of that.

Do I appreciate the fact that I could change my religion to Islam in America without consequence? Of course. Do I think Muslims can meet out Islamic Law punishments to Muslims that leave Islam in America? No. There is no vigilantism in Islam, as I stated before, and Muslims must obey the laws of the lands they live it. Why do I stress that? Because I don't want people getting false impressions of Islam from sensational stories.

Given my stance, you might still find it a hard pill to swallow, but I hope you can see the reasoning isnÂ’t simply about an individualÂ’s right to choose his/her faith, but there are larger societal issues at hand, and that the application of apostasy law in Islam is not just some blanket rule that is easily applied at the drop of a hat at any time or place. Life is precious and it is a serious matter and it shouldnÂ’t be considered lightly.

Thanks for the discussion. I learned a lot even if you think I am morally bereft of any inner sense of right and wrong. I hope you donÂ’t think that, but youÂ’re free to think what you want.

-Randall

[digitaljez]

Then the measuring stick for whether their innate morality is correct is actually taken from a dogmatic standard.

It is hardly a dogma is it ? It is not an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. You can personally verify if another's actions enhance or diminish your experience. Most rational people are able to judge if their actions will enhance or diminish another's experience.

Here’s an article that I found to be quite informative regarding Islam’s position on apostasy, the rational for the ruling, and the types of punishments for it. I only came across it today, and some of it reflects my earlier arguments.

That is a very disturbing. It seems to me to be an article steeped in paranoia and hatred. It is inviting fragmentation - the total opposite of the concept of the oneness that is the essence of the God/Allah deity.
Why is Islam so afraid of being unable to keep its adherents ? What kind of faith is it that is kept for fear of losing your wife, children or even your life ?

I hope you don’t think that, but you’re free to think what you want.

I am free to think what I want, but only because no one is threatening to take my life for disagreeing with them.

Thank you for the discussion.

[winkle]

rmd3 wrote

HereÂ’s an article that I found to be quite informative regarding IslamÂ’s position on apostasy, the rational for the ruling, and the types of punishments for it. I only came across it today, and some of it reflects my earlierarguments
.http://www.islamonline.net/English/cont ... e01c.shtml

sounds like joining the gangsters to me
once you're in you don't get back out

oh i forgot there is a way out they kill you


i wonder why folks feel the need for elaborate building filled with strangers to practice their faith

seems to me as though faith is not enough they have a need to see evidence of that faith

almost like proving faith to others by doing what everyone else is doing is at the same time proving faith to self

perhaps absence of faith is the larger problem

[rmd3]

Digitaljez,

I was hoping the last post was my last post, but sometimes if arguments are worded in ways I think doesnÂ’t do the conversation justice, I feel the need to respond.

AnywayÂ…

I have agreed with you that for interpersonal interactions the Golden Rule seems to be a valid principle. I just donÂ’t think it applies universally to all situations, and particularly not to apostasy per the discussion so far. It does however fit the definition of dogma which by definition isn't necessarily arrogant or unproven.


I was surprised that you found the article steeped in paranoia and hatred. I see that article reflecting the value of a community preserving their identity with an honest assessment of what elements would threaten the community. I donÂ’t see it as Islam being afraid of losing adherents. The article is clearly written about what happens if someone apostates and the effects that can have on a community if apostates arenÂ’t punished. The article wasnÂ’t even focused on how society can keep people from becoming apostates. However, it would be a foregone conclusion that anyone knowing the punishment for apostasy would have a strong deterrent. As for your comment about inviting fragmentation, it is fragmentation of the community that article seems to be trying to prevent. Maybe I missed your point regarding fragmentation.

You wrote:

I am free to think what I want, but only because no one is threatening to take my life for disagreeing with them.

Nobody is ever killed for thoughts in any society, so what you think you are free to think in any society – even Islamic societies. Punishment is only for actions a society judges to be wrong, and wrong actions gone unpunished can bring consequences that can be detrimental to a society’s existence. I think that distinction was between thinking something and doing something were clear in the article as well.

But I really like this next question. I like these types of questions the most because they require a deeper consideration.

What kind of faith is it that is kept for fear of losing your wife, children or even your life?

It sounds like a powerful argument, but I was thinkingÂ… religion isnÂ’t a light matter. If a person is not willing to part with his wife, children or even give his life for a different faith, perhaps he doesnÂ’t really believe what he claims. Prophets are the greatest examples of this. Look to the stories of their lives and the persecution they endured. If someone thinks theyÂ’ve found Truth, do worldly attachments make them turn away from the truth? ItÂ’s religion. ItÂ’s not choosing your favorite musical artist.

If someone is an atheist, then this argument will probably mean nothing to them because an atheist would simply place a higher importance on worldly attachments over choosing a faith.

-Randall

[ken_behrendt]

Randall...

I think a person can have faith without having to "prove" it by throwing his life away or killing others.

Assuming that there really is something to the God theory of the universe, then I believe that God wants people to live the longest, happiest life possible and do what they can to help their loved ones and others, if possible, do likewise.

The various terrorist groups out there go out of their way to recruit young males who, for one reason or another, are having trouble fitting in with the other members of their society. They are then told by the leaders of the terrorist group that the reason for this is that they are not acceptable to God in their present state. The solution? Simple, do as God commands them to do.

At that point the leaders have established a bond with the young person and begin feeding him their interpretation of what God wants the recruit to do based on their interpretation of the meaning of various scriptures. After enough of this kind of brainwashing, a troubled youth is converted into a person who will actually look forward to trying to kill as many of whomever the leaders decide are the enemy or outsiders as possible. The recruit is told not to worry about losing his own life in the process because his actions will guarantee him some wonderful reward in an afterlife somewhere...the existence, of course, which is, by its very nature, unprovable.

It will be noted in this process that the charismatic leaders of such terrorist groups take great care to make sure that they do not lose their lives while pursuing their long term political / theological goals.

It's all very sad and, IMO, has no place in the 21st century.



ken

[rmd3]

Ken,

I didn't say a person had to throw his/her life away to have faith. I offered a measuring stick for their commitment to a faith. Also, you raise the point of importance of family. Islam does stress an importance on enjoining the bonds of kinship. There are Quranic verses that stress this point and also that these ties should not be broken. Open apostasy in an Islamic society remains an exceptional case.

As for terrorists, its a general term too often applied to occupied peoples who simply want to not be occupied. Interesting theory you have about their recruitment, but I would suggest looking at what Western countries policies were/are before the "terrorists" arose from a given location. I think you won't find that these are people having trouble fitting in, but people with no means to redress grievences. That's my guess, but maybe you're right.

You said...

It will be noted in this process that the charismatic leaders of such terrorist groups take great care to make sure that they do not lose their lives while pursuing their long term political / theological goals.

Except for the charismatic part, this could apply to Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair and the Isreali leadership with respect to the occupied lands of their respective governments. Oh... let's think about this... it applies to all leadership whether terrorist or not... never mind.


Lastly, regarding your claim that the next life is unprovable, all knowledge has an element of faith in it. You believe certain realities because of noncontradictory evidence in your experience. You expect that you will walk safely because of noncontradictory evidence you have witnessed before. So you believe you will walk safely, but you have no guarrantee. So faith is a large part of knowledge. Actually it's more like trust is a large part of knowledge. Which is interesting because the word in Arabic for belief shares the same root word as trust.

I see the Quran as such evidence. One of the beautiful things about the Quran is that it explicitly encourages people to think and reflect on creation and the attributes of God and the Quran itself.

The Quran even gives a wonderful litmus test to see if it is valid evidence, namely, if it wasn't from God it would have many contradictions. This is the best you can do for any knowledge you have. If you have noncontradictory evidence, you will believe the logical conclusion that evidence supports.

There are also questions put to man by God in the Quran. For instance, there is an accusation by unbelievers that when we die and become dust, will we be made again? And the Quran replies that the one who made you the first time, can't He do that again?

-Randall

[ovyyus]

If you have noncontradictory evidence, you will believe the logical conclusion that evidence supports.

While that tends to be true, a logical conclusion based solely upon 'noncontradictory evidence' can be false - an internally consistent theory can be nonsense. Is this not a possible outcome with all theory/belief structures, no matter how noncontradictory or logical they might seem at the time?

[rmd3]

Ovyyus,

You wrote

Randall wrote:

If you have noncontradictory evidence, you will believe the logical conclusion that evidence supports.

While that tends to be true, a logical conclusion based solely upon 'noncontradictory evidence' can be false - an internally consistent theory can be nonsense. Is this not a possible outcome with all theory/belief structures, no matter how noncontradictory or logical they might seem at the time?

In essence, you are saying that (correct me if I misunderstood):
‘Because some internally consistent theories/belief structures are nonsense, we can reason that all theories/belief structures are nonsense.’

For that to be true, we would have to know that all theories/belief structures were internally consistent. Are all theories/belief structures internally consistent? No they are not. Some are internally inconsistent – but we don’t care about those, and some are internally consistent but externally verifiable.

My suggestion is that the Quran isnÂ’t simply internally consistent, but also externally verifiable. There are descriptions in the Quran of nature, and we have the world to verify those descriptions.

Now, the question remains, if the Quran is internally consistent and externally verifiable, is it externally verifiable for everything? If not, can it be logically shown that the externally unverifiable items are true?

LetÂ’s try this:

The Quran says there was a Creator, and that the words of the Quran are from the Creator. A Creator would know things about creation that werenÂ’t readily knowable by humans. The Quran describes microscopic embryonic development. There is evidence to support that the Quran is from the Creator.

There are other descriptions that were once outside the realm of human perception that science has brought to light and the Quran is in accordance with, but if you will indulge me with not going over those right now, and proceed with the really interesting question of whether or not externally unverifiable items described in the Quran can be taken as truth.

If we conclude that the Quran is from the Creator, and is internally consistent and externally verifiable as being such so as far as our ability to do so, then what logical conclusions can we draw regarding the CreatorÂ’s statement that there is a Hereafter? I think there are three choices and only one makes any logical sense.

You can say that there is no Hereafter, but you have no evidence to support that claim.

You can say that it is not provable that there is a Hereafter, but if you have come to conclusions about the truthfulness of the book, that there is a Creator, that what the Creator has said has been internally consistent and externally verifiable by you in as much as you were able to, would doubting something after reaching those conclusions be a reasonable stance?

Or you believe there is the Hereafter.
-Randall

[digitaljez]

In essence, you are saying that (correct me if I misunderstood):
‘Because some internally consistent theories/belief structures are nonsense, we can reason that all theories/belief structures are nonsense.’

That conclusion can not be drawn from what Bill said.

The Quran describes microscopic embryonic development.

The attempt to interpret the passage in the Quran as describing embryonic development falls down rather heavily on the first sentence.

We created man from an extract of clay.

If that were the case we would be silicon based as opposed to carbon based.

If these were the words of Allah he could not have made such an error. Both the Bible and the Quran were compiled long after the respective prophets had passed on. It is not conceivable that the content passed down by word-of-mouth, and written on cloth. leather, stones and bones, would have remained intact for several generations.

What baffles me is that you live in a country that was executing witches only a few centuries ago, but has evolved to find such a thing absurd. Yet you want to base your philosophy on a vastly more primitive set of teachings. To compound it all you choose a religion that could arguably be cited as the reason that what was once one of the worlds most civilised cultures has fallen way behind.

I do not mean to deny there is a spiritual aspect to reality but I do not believe religious dogma is the path to enlightenment/ salvation / whatever.

[winkle]

the scripture instructs in this fashion

test all things hold fast that witch is true

i would like to know if the Quran says any thing similar

[ovyyus]

Thanks Randall for your considered response above.

In essence, you are saying that (correct me if I misunderstood): ‘Because some internally consistent theories/belief structures are nonsense, we can reason that all theories/belief structures are nonsense.’

No, what I said was, "...a logical conclusion based solely upon 'noncontradictory evidence' can be false - an internally consistent theory can be nonsense. Is this not a possible outcome with all theory/belief structures, no matter how noncontradictory or logical they might seem at the time?"

My suggestion is that the Quran isnÂ’t simply internally consistent, but also externally verifiable...

External verifiability was not taken into account in my above statement. However, externally verifiable belief seems like an oxymoron. How can belief be externally verified to anyone except another believer?

[rmd3]

Digitaljez said

rmd3 wrote:

In essence, you are saying that (correct me if I misunderstood):
‘Because some internally consistent theories/belief structures are nonsense, we can reason that all theories/belief structures are nonsense.’

That conclusion can not be drawn from what Bill said.

Bill did I misunderstand?


The Making of Man

rmd3 wrote:

The Quran describes microscopic embryonic development.

The attempt to interpret the passage in the Quran as describing embryonic development falls down rather heavily on the first sentence.

We created man from an extract of clay

.
If that were the case we would be silicon based as opposed to carbon based.

I think youÂ’ve jumped ahead to a conclusion without considering alternate understandings. This is best shown by example.

For exampleÂ…

A cake is made from eggs.
A cake is made from water.
A cake is made from flour.
A cake is made from salt.
A cake is made from sugar.

Are these ingredients proportional equal? And yet a cake is made from them.

Next exampleÂ…

A cake is made from wheat.
A cake is made from sugarcane.

But is a cake made from the whole of those items? Is a cake even made from just those two items?

Next example..

If I use your premise that the predominant element of clay composition should be the predominant element of human composition, then letÂ’s look at the chemical composition of clay.

Per this link http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1 ... d8fe800100 Clay is composed of: Two water, Two Silicon Dioxide molecules, and One Aluminum Oxide molecule, or:2 x H2O, 2 x SiO2, and 1 x Al2O3.

Here are the atomic masses
Si 28.0855
O 15.9994
Al 26.9815
H 1.00794

LetÂ’s add them up (weÂ’ll round up for clarity):

2 hyrdogen atoms: 2
9 oxygen atoms: 9 x 16 = 144
2 silicon atoms: 2 x 28 = 56
2 aluminum atoms: 2 x 27 = 54

Total mass: 256
Percent of oxygen by mass: 56%

Most of the human bodyÂ’s weight is oxygen at 65%. Carbon is the second most abundant element coming in at only 18%.

If we use your predominant element premise then humans should be predominatly made of oxygen. They are.


The Compilation Of Religious Texts

Both the Bible and the Quran were compiled long after the respective prophets had passed on.

As for the Bible, IÂ’m going to refrain from commenting on the veracity of the current compilation of texts as they stands now. Christians and Jews can argue that. As for the compilation of the Quran, letÂ’s look at what you are sayingÂ…

It is not conceivable that the content passed down by word-of-mouth, and written on cloth. leather, stones and bones, would have remained intact for several generations.

The Rightly Guided Caliphate was the first 30 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The compilation was done a number of years before this period was over during the third Khalifah after the Prophet (Peace be upon him) died, but for the sake of argument, letÂ’s say it was done at 30 years. If you need more details, as to which Khalifah (it was Uthman) and exact time of when he was the leader, let me know, I can look that up.

Anyway, how many people still remember the words to songs they heard as a kid? How many people remember the songs they heard as a child and then still hear on the radio after all these years as theyÂ’ve grown up? Did they have to write it down in order to recall it when it was constantly being repeated around them? What about people who recite revelation in their prayers a minimum of 5 times a day, and recite it outside the prayer as well? Is it so inconceivable?

I still remember the words to that 70’s song “Feelings”… oh, man!

Preservation of the Quran isnÂ’t considered just the text preserved in books, it is also considered the passing on of the memorization of the whole text from a teacher to a student. They even give licenses to people who accomplish this from a qualified teacher. The license is called and Ijaza and it contains a detailed linked list of who the teacher learned from and who the teacher of the teacher learned from etcÂ… until the Prophet, to the Angel Gabriel, to God himself.

Primitive Teachings

What baffles me is that you live in a country that was executing witches only a few centuries ago, but has evolved to find such a thing absurd. Yet you want to base your philosophy on a vastly more primitive set of teachings.

I believe the evolved concept that came the executing of alleged witches was “innocent until proven guilty” which was already present in Engliand under Blackstone’s formulation, and already present in a ‘vastly more primitive’ teaching of a legal system born out of 1400 year old religious dogma. Any guesses as to what religion that was?

So you shouldn't be baffled by my choice because of that.

To compound it all you choose a religion that could arguably be cited as the reason that what was once one of the worlds most civilised cultures has fallen way behind.

IÂ’m not clear what you mean exactly here. Are you saying Islamic civilization has fallen behind? If so, behind who? how?


The Spiritual Aspect Of Life

I do not mean to deny there is a spiritual aspect to reality but I do not believe religious dogma is the path to enlightenment/ salvation / whatever.

And if the dogma is shown to not contain falsehood, should I then reject it? Where in my inner self will I realize what the purpose of life is? What's interesting is that the question is there in my inner self, but the answer comes from dogma, and can be weighed with reason to see if it makes sense should someone require reasoning to confirm the dogma.


Winkle,

In those words? I'm not aware of that phrasing being used in the Quran, but the Quran does encourage thought and reflection regarding itself and creation, and it does mention that truth stands clear from error. We are encouraged to stand up for truth, and, certainly, are not instructed to hold fast to falsehood and error! So in those aspects the teachings are similar.

-Randall

[rmd3]

Ovyyus,

Thanks for clarifying what you had meant. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Yeah, I guess it is possible.

However, externally verifiable belief seems like an oxymoron. How can belief be externally verified to anyone except another believer?

By externally verifiable, I meant comparing the natural world to the revelation's scientific description and made not distinction about who was doing the comparison be he Muslim or non-Muslim. So if you mean the person doing the verifying shouldn't be a Muslim to be externally verifiable, I think my argument from that post still holds.

Digitaljez,
Was oxygen even known as an independent element 1400 years ago? Just curious.

-Randall


PS. Ovyyus, you said...

what I said was, "...a logical conclusion based solely upon 'noncontradictory evidence' can be false - an internally consistent theory can be nonsense. Is this not a possible outcome with all theory/belief structures, no matter how noncontradictory or logical they might seem at the time?"

But if you believe that, it might be false. :)

[ovyyus]

By externally verifiable, I meant comparing the natural world to the revelation's scientific description and made no distinction about who was doing the comparison be he Muslim or non-Muslim.

Yes, I understand. If we move away from Religion for a moment and examine, say, the writings of Nostradamus as an example: those who believe that Nostradamus was describing actual future events in his writings will tend to perceive comparisons between his text and what they see in their external World. Those who claim that the writing style of Nostadamus merely lends itself to comparison with the external World see no basis for it being externally verifiable.

In this instance the believer can not prove their faith to a non-believer. Likewise the non-believer can not prove that a believers faith is misplaced. The reason is that the text is sufficiently ambiguous and open to interpretation that it can not be defined objectively - as was the original intent. Belief, like beauty, seems to be in the eye (or mind) of the beholder.

But if you believe that, it might be false. :)

Indeed I agree - however, that's a pretty big 'but if' ;)